# US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity



## ScienceRocks

*US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*

US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity

September 8th, 2014 by Joshua S Hill



> The US solar industry has enjoyed a relatively strong quarter in the first half of 2014, despite trade disputes endangering projects currently in the pipeline.
> *
> 
> New figures from GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association’s Q2 2014 U.S. Solar Market Insight report show that the US installed 1,133 MW of new solar PV capacity in the second quarter of this year, pushing the cumulative operating capacity for PV and concentrating solar power (CSP) to 15.9 GW.*
> 
> The most impressive numbers, however, are the shares of new US electric generation capacity across the first half of 2014. Total solar installed capacity for the period represented 53% of all new electricity generating capacity, beating out all competitors by a healthy margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Solar continues to soar, providing more and more homes, businesses, schools and government entities across the United States with clean, reliable and affordable electricity,” said SEIA President and CEO Rhone Resch.
> 
> “Solar continues to be a primary source of new electric generation capacity in the US,” added Shayle Kann, Senior Vice President of GTM Research. “With new sources of capital being unlocked, design and engineering innovations reducing system prices, and sales channels rapidly diversifying, the solar market is quickly gaining steam to drive significant growth for the next few years.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will quite match the fourth quarter of 2013 in terms of overall installations, given the number of trade disputes and the dissolving of many of the subsidies that pushed such growth, however GTM still contends the last two quarters have been strong ones for the US solar industry. PV installations reached 1,133 MW in the second quarter, and while there were no new CSP installations, during the first quarter of the year the sector celebrated the installation of the largest ever CSP project, the 392 MW Ivanpah project, and the second phase of Genesis Solar’s second 125 MW phase.
> 
> California once again topped the charts of installations during the first two quarters of 2014, accounting for more than 50% of installations for the fourth consecutive quarter.



Solar is kicking ass.


----------



## MaxGrit

Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO


----------



## ScienceRocks

MaxGrit said:


> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO




Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

I use solar to run my wells. Our power utility just jacked our prices up by 20%. I'm going to set up a much bigger solar grid next year. Solar makes sense for many Americans living in areas where the end justifies the means. As to the mega-solar projects, I think the jury is still out on those. We have one of the country's biggest here in the San Luis Valley. Large solar projects involve some complex science and they're not without their own detrimental effect on the environment, especially their gluttonous use of water for cooling. If people are concerned, they should do some homework. Overall, solar gets a passing grade from me.


----------



## RGR

Matthew said:


> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.



What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?

Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.


----------



## chikenwing

RGR said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
Click to expand...

 Not to mention where all the equipment is coming from. solar is good for some,but its nowhere near grid parity.


----------



## whitehall

Interesting mix of words. What does the claim "US solar makes up over half of new generating capacity" actually mean. Surely it doesn't mean that solar energy supplies over half of energy. The carefully crafted sentence is intended for low information lefties.


----------



## Camarozz

Matthew said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?
Click to expand...


What do you mean "parity"

And no, not everything is subsidized the same. For example, or wind turbine system is subsidized by 50%, the government (all of us) literally pay half of the generating costs so that the wind turbines can break even and cimpete with local generation. Then on top of that, we have to take our power off the market so the dirty wind power can take over.

Dirty as in hard to regulate on the system.

And if we are in dire need of all this power, why do we literally have to give our power away when the wind blows.

I have to ask, is that fair?
Doesnt that seem like a horrific waste of money?

Oh, just so u know, i work in hydro power generation, the wind turbines are not of our project.


----------



## Camarozz

whitehall said:


> Interesting mix of words. What does the claim "US solar makes up over half of new generating capacity" actually mean. Surely it doesn't mean that solar energy supplies over half of energy. The carefully crafted sentence is intended for low information lefties.



I suspect of all new generation plants,


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?
Click to expand...


Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST... 
It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..


----------



## Old Rocks

Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.


----------



## Camarozz

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.



Honestly, I suspect that number is incorrect; however even so when we cannot sell energy on the grid (per federal mandate) because the solar plant is generating, how is that fair?  Where is the demand?

So far, I see no advantage to large scale solar.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.



Well there ya go. But 6 hours a day does not make it "AN ALTERNATIVE" does it? And it means that solar should be charged for the idled REAL plants -- on the days it doesn't work. Or for the idled plants that carry humanity thru the OTHER 18 hours a day.

There is no "grid storage" solution to turn an energy source with a 25% delivery schedule and a limited geographical range into a 24/7/365 "alternative"..


----------



## flacaltenn

Camarozz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I suspect that number is incorrect; however even so when we cannot sell energy on the grid (per federal mandate) because the solar plant is generating, how is that fair?  Where is the demand?
> 
> So far, I see no advantage to large scale solar.
Click to expand...


You are correct. The cost of idling plants SHOULD be charged to renewables. 
After all folks are paying for TWO energy generators to do the same job.. 

That number is based on MANY examples of what the summer GRID demand is during the NOON peak versus what it is at night.

From numbers at Cal-ISO, the grid demand at 10PM is 80% of what it is at daytime peak. That means that you will always require an 80% RELIABLE baseline supply from other sources even with 20% solar peaking during the day in the summer. And in REALVILLE, you need 100% grid supply for those days when solar doesn't work..


----------



## Camarozz

flacaltenn said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I suspect that number is incorrect; however even so when we cannot sell energy on the grid (per federal mandate) because the solar plant is generating, how is that fair?  Where is the demand?
> 
> So far, I see no advantage to large scale solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct. The cost of idling plants SHOULD be charged to renewables.
> After all folks are paying for TWO energy generators to do the same job..
> 
> That number is based on MANY examples of what the summer GRID demand is during the NOON peak versus what it is at night.
> 
> From numbers at Cal-ISO, the grid demand at 10PM is 80% of what it is at daytime peak. That means that you will always require an 80% RELIABLE baseline supply from other sources even with 20% solar peaking during the day in the summer. And in REALVILLE, you need 100% grid supply for those days when solar doesn't work..
Click to expand...


There are a number of issues I have with requiring our system to include solar and wind. Neither of the later will ever pay for themselves, and the fact that we literally have to GIVE power away when the wind blows. So, here is the deal, we generate power, we sell power locally and all across the NW, northern California, even some of the other western states. We are not paid by you and me from our taxes to sell this power, we generate and sell it at a profit to pay our bills and help with upgrades. 

Now, add in this solar and wind generation, with NO extra demand and the fact that now our generation is given away, doesnt it seem like a super stick to your ribs that we are paying for the power, AND on top of that paying to have them generate the power, a double dipping of sorts, when we could just keep the other power and pay less over all?

doesnt that just seem super ridiculous to pay twice for the same power you could have at the initial price? 

It boggles my mind that people are into this debacle, and tout it as "good for us"; I call bull.


----------



## Camarozz

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there ya go. But 6 hours a day does not make it "AN ALTERNATIVE" does it? And it means that solar should be charged for the idled REAL plants -- on the days it doesn't work. Or for the idled plants that carry humanity thru the OTHER 18 hours a day.
> 
> There is no "grid storage" solution to turn an energy source with a 25% delivery schedule and a limited geographical range into a 24/7/365 "alternative"..
Click to expand...


I cannot imagine the battery source required to make solar and wind viable 24/7

The only one that comes close is the SW solar generator where they focus the suns beams at a focal point to basically boil water and run steam turbines. Now that one makes sense; they can nearly generate power all day long with their heat storage capacity.


----------



## mamooth

Burlington, VT, population 42,000, now gets all of its energy from renewable sources, the first city of that size in the USA to achieve it. On average, that is. Some days they have to buy fossil fuel power, other days they export excess renewable power.

In Vermont a milestone in green-energy efforts - Metro - The Boston Globe


----------



## elektra

Tom Sweetnam said:


> I use solar to run my wells. Our power utility just jacked our prices up by 20%. I'm going to set up a much bigger solar grid next year. Solar makes sense for many Americans living in areas where the end justifies the means. As to the mega-solar projects, I think the jury is still out on those. We have one of the country's biggest here in the San Luis Valley. Large solar projects involve some complex science and they're not without their own detrimental effect on the environment, especially their gluttonous use of water for cooling. If people are concerned, they should do some homework. Overall, solar gets a passing grade from me.


How about some pics, brand names, specs on the pumps, stuff like that, it would be relevant.


----------



## elektra

mamooth said:


> Burlington, VT, population 42,000, now gets all of its energy from renewable sources, the first city of that size in the USA to achieve it. On average, that is. Some days they have to buy fossil fuel power, other days they export excess renewable power.
> 
> In Vermont a milestone in green-energy efforts - Metro - The Boston Globe


Vermont gets "All its power from alternative power", except the days it don't?

You have your cake and can it it too.

Even when alternative energy fails, it works.

And that is how the activist spreads the propaganda, by lies, qualified with the truth in the fine print.


----------



## elektra

Camarozz said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there ya go. But 6 hours a day does not make it "AN ALTERNATIVE" does it? And it means that solar should be charged for the idled REAL plants -- on the days it doesn't work. Or for the idled plants that carry humanity thru the OTHER 18 hours a day.
> 
> There is no "grid storage" solution to turn an energy source with a 25% delivery schedule and a limited geographical range into a 24/7/365 "alternative"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot imagine the battery source required to make solar and wind viable 24/7
> 
> The only one that comes close is the SW solar generator where they focus the suns beams at a focal point to basically boil water and run steam turbines. Now that one makes sense; they can nearly generate power all day long with their heat storage capacity.
Click to expand...

Yea, ivanpah,  which failed and now runs on natural gas all day and all night, extensively covered in these threads.


----------



## flacaltenn

mamooth said:


> Burlington, VT, population 42,000, now gets all of its energy from renewable sources, the first city of that size in the USA to achieve it. On average, that is. Some days they have to buy fossil fuel power, other days they export excess renewable power.
> 
> In Vermont a milestone in green-energy efforts - Metro - The Boston Globe



They buy power EVERYDAY fuzz for brains. The only renewable they have worth a damn in Vermont is HYDRO..  They can cash in on all those wind credits and subsidies and buy PAPER that says they own wind resources in Nebraska, but it doesn't provide a single ELECTRON from wind or solar on most days at 8PM at the local fire stations.

More solar in Burlington. These folks DESERVE to freeze their asses off after their wallets are emptied. Maybe they'll even turn green in the process...


----------



## flacaltenn

Tom Sweetnam said:


> I use solar to run my wells. Our power utility just jacked our prices up by 20%. I'm going to set up a much bigger solar grid next year. Solar makes sense for many Americans living in areas where the end justifies the means. As to the mega-solar projects, I think the jury is still out on those. We have one of the country's biggest here in the San Luis Valley. Large solar projects involve some complex science and they're not without their own detrimental effect on the environment, especially their gluttonous use of water for cooling. If people are concerned, they should do some homework. Overall, solar gets a passing grade from me.



Using solar or wind for pumping water is a great application. You might even do better if you beefed it up and took it completely off the grid..


----------



## Camarozz

mamooth said:


> Burlington, VT, population 42,000, now gets all of its energy from renewable sources, the first city of that size in the USA to achieve it. On average, that is. Some days they have to buy fossil fuel power, other days they export excess renewable power.
> 
> In Vermont a milestone in green-energy efforts - Metro - The Boston Globe



All of our power comes from renewable resource, the river.

Wind and solar is a waste here.


----------



## OnePercenter

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
> It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
> Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..
Click to expand...


When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!


----------



## flacaltenn

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
> It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
> Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!
Click to expand...


You ARE kidding -- Right?
Does solar scrub the pollutants right out of the nat gas burning?
How 'bout we just go with 50% ??


----------



## OnePercenter

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.



With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.


----------



## HenryBHough

Gotta remember, Vermont is now wholly owned by New York liberals who have bought up all attractive properties for weekending and in order to vote a second time.


----------



## Old Rocks

HenryBHough said:


> Gotta remember, Vermont is now wholly owned by New York liberals who have bought up all attractive properties for weekending and in order to vote a second time.



Gotta remember, ol' Henry has some mental problems.


----------



## OnePercenter

flacaltenn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
> It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
> Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ARE kidding -- Right?
> Does solar scrub the pollutants right out of the nat gas burning?
> How 'bout we just go with 50% ??
Click to expand...


Much less than coal.


----------



## Zander

Solar has come a long way.  

I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk? He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?


----------



## WelfareQueen

Solar has huge drawbacks beyond cost.  

Question:  How do you store the energy from solar for when the power is actually needed in the grid?  

Answer:  You cannot....unless there is an enormous waste in efficiency.  There are a few experimental facilities that are super-heating a sludgy brine in pipes and then running water over the pipes to produce steam when the power is needed.  Unfortunately the thermal energy is lost quickly and does not store readily.  

Ditto trying to store kinetic energy.  A huge loss of efficiency (i.e. Pump storage.  Running water up a hill and then releasing it down a hill to spin a turbine when the power is actually needed). 

Solar and wind will always be fairly minor adjuncts to primary power generation.  Consumers demand power 24/7.  What do you do when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?  

With both wind and solar your fucked.  There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again.  Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooo Solar Subsidies oooooO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar is getting close to grid parity. You think everything else doesn't get subsidies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grid parity my ass. It works about 6 hours a day AT BEST...
> It's a PEAKER technology to relieve summertime peak demand.
> Good for 15 or 20% of the daytime peak..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you pair it with natural gas, you have 100% non-polluting power plants! Sweet!
Click to expand...


Well, not 100%, burning it still produces carbon dioxide.


----------



## Camarozz

WelfareQueen said:


> Solar has huge drawbacks beyond cost.
> 
> Question:  How do you store the energy from solar for when the power is actually needed in the grid?
> 
> Answer:  You cannot....unless there is an enormous waste in efficiency.  There are a few experimental facilities that are super-heating a sludgy brine in pipes and then running water over the pipes to produce steam when the power is needed.  Unfortunately the thermal energy is lost quickly and does not store readily.
> 
> Ditto trying to store kinetic energy.  A huge loss of efficiency (i.e. Pump storage.  Running water up a hill and then releasing it down a hill to spin a turbine when the power is actually needed).
> 
> Solar and wind will always be fairly minor adjuncts to primary power generation.  Consumers demand power 24/7.  What do you do when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?
> 
> With both wind and solar your fucked.  There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again.  Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.



However, on a small or personal scale it can be quite effective. I would change my house to DC and use solar/wind if it were cost effective at all. I would look at it if i paid $.10 or $.12 per kwh, but since im significantly less, it would take 20 years just to break even. That is not a good ROI.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.
Click to expand...


Are you serious?


----------



## Old Rocks

Camarozz said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has huge drawbacks beyond cost.
> 
> Question:  How do you store the energy from solar for when the power is actually needed in the grid?
> 
> Answer:  You cannot....unless there is an enormous waste in efficiency.  There are a few experimental facilities that are super-heating a sludgy brine in pipes and then running water over the pipes to produce steam when the power is needed.  Unfortunately the thermal energy is lost quickly and does not store readily.
> 
> Ditto trying to store kinetic energy.  A huge loss of efficiency (i.e. Pump storage.  Running water up a hill and then releasing it down a hill to spin a turbine when the power is actually needed).
> 
> Solar and wind will always be fairly minor adjuncts to primary power generation.  Consumers demand power 24/7.  What do you do when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing?
> 
> With both wind and solar your fucked.  There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again.  Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, on a small or personal scale it can be quite effective. I would change my house to DC and use solar/wind if it were cost effective at all. I would look at it if i paid $.10 or $.12 per kwh, but since im significantly less, it would take 20 years just to break even. That is not a good ROI.
Click to expand...


Depends on what your present and future cost for electricity is. You can get a 5 kw system for 8K to10K. That is a grid tie system, so when the sun is down, you pull off the grid, during the day, you contribute to the grid. Add 2 kw to that system, and buy and EV and reduce the payback period by nearly half.


----------



## Old Rocks

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
Click to expand...


Very serious.

Vanadium Redox VRB Flow Batteries Energy Storage Association


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Very serious.
> 
> Vanadium Redox VRB Flow Batteries Energy Storage Association



I doubt you ever READ the crap you post. Or actually consider the ENVIRONMENTAL consequences of it's adoption. Even doubt sometimes you understand what you are reading..



> The cell voltage is 1.4-1.6 volts and cell power densities are 100’s mW/cm2 (although Prudent Energy reports their power densities are higher).  The DC-DC efficiency of this battery has been reported in the range of 60-80%.  *According to EPRI, the vanadium redox battery is suitable for power systems in the range of 100 kW to 10 MW, with storage durations in the 2-8 hour range.*



Why is that? Because you need a grain silo size vat filled with SULFURIC ACID to run a small farm from wind power with these things.
They are good for grid switch buffering. That's about it. And at 0.1milliWatt/cm3 -- this kind of power density is NEVER gonna be the basis of "grid scale storage" EPRI is trying to tell you that -- you ought to listen..

Can you imagine the Enviro Impact Report hearings on a having a virtual chemical storage facility every 10 miles in Tornado country? Think people..


----------



## flacaltenn

Here's what "Grid Scale" means in terms of this technology... 



> Energy Storage Innovation and EnerVault The Energy Collective
> 
> The current project, located in Turlock, California, will provide 250 kilowatts of power for four hours to Pacific Gas & Electric. It was supported by the DOE's storage demonstration program under the stimulus package, which provided $4.7 million in assistance. The flow battery will be co-located with a PV system and a water pump.







A storage tank is installed at EnerVault's first commercial site in Turlock, California. Image credit: EnerVault

That's 200 homes for 4 hours. An environmental clusterfuck of biblical proportions whether it's in tornado alley, the hurricane prone coast or earthquake zones. Greenies completely forget their principles when they decide to turn into engineers. They will RAPE and PILLAGE the planet to make their fairytale solutions work..


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, isn't that a good thing? After all, 15% to 20% of peak need is a substancial amount of energy. Then again, a lot of work ongoing on grid scale strorage. And that will change the whole equation on renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
Click to expand...


Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.





Old Rocks said:


> Very serious.
> 
> Vanadium Redox VRB Flow Batteries Energy Storage Association



I was speaking of the wifi power, thats not viable, I know battery storage is, although Im not convinced its expense is worth the payback.


----------



## Camarozz

flacaltenn said:


> Here's what "Grid Scale" means in terms of this technology...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Energy Storage Innovation and EnerVault The Energy Collective
> 
> The current project, located in Turlock, California, will provide 250 kilowatts of power for four hours to Pacific Gas & Electric. It was supported by the DOE's storage demonstration program under the stimulus package, which provided $4.7 million in assistance. The flow battery will be co-located with a PV system and a water pump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A storage tank is installed at EnerVault's first commercial site in Turlock, California. Image credit: EnerVault
> 
> That's 200 homes for 4 hours. An environmental clusterfuck of biblical proportions whether it's in tornado alley, the hurricane prone coast or earthquake zones. Greenies completely forget their principles when they decide to turn into engineers. They will RAPE and PILLAGE the planet to make their fairytale solutions work..
Click to expand...



Thats the problem with the power issue, nothing that generates power 24/7 and is reliable, that  will not impact the environment in some way. This so called "green" movement seems to not fully grasp what they are asking, and in the end nothing is truly "green".


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance



smh

You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.


----------



## Camarozz

Old Rocks said:


> Depends on what your present and future cost for electricity is. You can get a 5 kw system for 8K to10K. That is a grid tie system, so when the sun is down, you pull off the grid, during the day, you contribute to the grid. Add 2 kw to that system, and buy and EV and reduce the payback period by nearly half.



See, again, personal use is one thing; its highly inefficient large scale.

I also dont understand the thinking behind a lot of this when people claim its about "green" power and something that environmentalists just love because its not damaging the environment.

Seriously? Have you seen the amount of real estate needed to generate enough power to be useful? Hundreds and hundreds of land that I used to call home and used for recreation and used for wildlife is destroyed for all these wind turbines and solar panels; its disgusting and literally useless.

Im still pissed that we are paying them to generate power so they can be competitive, we have to GIVE power away, AND we still have to buy their power.

As a tax payer I would be pissed off that I have to subsidize their power just to be competitive with any of the other local generation plants. that amounts to being charged twice for an item.

Listen, at least in our area, these plants will never EVER pay for themselves on their own. Do you realize that their PRODUCTION cost is $.15/kwh and you pay them $.09/kwh from your taxes so they can sell their power for $.06/kwh? Thats on the open market too, where the other power companies buys it to resell at a higher rate? When you are talking Millions of watts, it starts getting expensive. 

Our one dam produces about twice as much power, and our cost to produce is about $.02-$.03/kwh WITH NO SUBSIDIES.

Do the math people, it is all a loss.

This is not dismissing places where a town or municipality want them, small scale and pricing makes a big difference but I think the subsidization thing is sickening.


----------



## HenryBHough

Can solar get out of control?

Yup!

Unused solar panels too efficient From York Press 

_"Original council papers published about the construction of the pool in October 2007 said the renewable energy technology - solar panels and biomass boilers - would cost around £170,000 but would be paid for by revenue savings and lower heating bills at the centre."_

Poor planning guarantees results; poor, expensive, useless results.  But, hey, it's not as though it's real money being wasted....just TAX money.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> With WiFi technology making leaps in electricity delivery, as well as appliance storage, grid defined will change that the device itself will be the grid. Your TV will obtain enough power during the day to play all night. Were just a couple of years away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very serious.
> 
> Vanadium Redox VRB Flow Batteries Energy Storage Association
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I was speaking of the wifi power*, thats not viable, I know battery storage is, although Im not convinced its expense is worth the payback.
Click to expand...


Wait for it.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
Click to expand...


If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
Click to expand...


Ive been in technology for 30 years, and I will take that bet, but with that I can say and believe that anything is possible. I just have a hard time accepting that you can sen 1000 kwh to a house with any form of efficiency. Then on top of that people are have been complaining about the high tension lines causing issues; what will they say about this? Im gonna assume it too will create a magnetic force with the radio waves (that have also been proven to cause cancer) that people will complain about.

Reliable power that is on demand 24/7, yeah most of this technology wont be viable till Im dead.

oh, and goody for you and your company, you wanna ask me what I do?


----------



## sameech

I am getting ready to replace a roof on my new crib.  I would totally try solar shingles if they weren't so expensive.  Reroofing is expensive enough to have to bite off in one chunk without tripling the cost.


----------



## sameech

WelfareQueen said:


> There is no way within the parameters of physics you can efficiently store the energy unless you convert the energy to matter and then back to energy again.  Of course, if we could do that we wouldn't need wind and solar in the first place.



That is old technology.  They are called "trees"


----------



## Camarozz

sameech said:


> I am getting ready to replace a roof on my new crib.  I would totally try solar shingles if they weren't so expensive.  Reroofing is expensive enough to have to bite off in one chunk without tripling the cost.



have you looked into the subsidies? it can knock the cost down as much as half.  That and I think you dont ever want to walk on your roof later. 

However, I would think you could better efficiency if you got the panels installed so that they are pointed in the optimal directions.


----------



## sameech

Camarozz said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting ready to replace a roof on my new crib.  I would totally try solar shingles if they weren't so expensive.  Reroofing is expensive enough to have to bite off in one chunk without tripling the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you looked into the subsidies? it can knock the cost down as much as half.  That and I think you dont ever want to walk on your roof later.
> 
> However, I would think you could better efficiency if you got the panels installed so that they are pointed in the optimal directions.
Click to expand...


My roof is pretty optimal--south facing open exposure on the street side.  I will probably just save up and add a 4-panel pod  toward the back of the property at some point.  That way if I move I can take it with me, or sell it if I don't like it.


----------



## flacaltenn

OnePercenter said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
Click to expand...


You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices. 

Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..


----------



## rdean

Seems Arizona is making it pretty interesting.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive been in technology for 30 years, and I will take that bet, but with that I can say and believe that anything is possible. I just have a hard time accepting that you can sen 1000 kwh to a house with any form of efficiency. Then on top of that people are have been complaining about the high tension lines causing issues; what will they say about this? Im gonna assume it too will create a magnetic force with the radio waves (that have also been proven to cause cancer) that people will complain about.
> 
> Reliable power that is on demand 24/7, yeah most of this technology wont be viable till Im dead.
> 
> oh, and goody for you and your company, you wanna ask me what I do?
Click to expand...


My company designs, engineers, builds, and maintains radio transmission towers. We've already received bid requests for WiTricity type ventures, as well as Verizon, AT&T, and cable companies such as Cox, to not only deliver WiFi and cable programs, but also electricity. Unless you have plans of dying in the next few years, you may see the future.


----------



## OnePercenter

flacaltenn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
Click to expand...


It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive been in technology for 30 years, and I will take that bet, but with that I can say and believe that anything is possible. I just have a hard time accepting that you can sen 1000 kwh to a house with any form of efficiency. Then on top of that people are have been complaining about the high tension lines causing issues; what will they say about this? Im gonna assume it too will create a magnetic force with the radio waves (that have also been proven to cause cancer) that people will complain about.
> 
> Reliable power that is on demand 24/7, yeah most of this technology wont be viable till Im dead.
> 
> oh, and goody for you and your company, you wanna ask me what I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My company designs, engineers, builds, and maintains radio transmission towers. We've already received bid requests for WiTricity type ventures, as well as Verizon, AT&T, and cable companies such as Cox, to not only deliver WiFi and cable programs, but also electricity. Unless you have plans of dying in the next few years, you may see the future.
Click to expand...


Interesting, I have done all those things, yet you work for a company that is involved with all those things. 

color me impressed. 

I still believe you are over exaggerating this 'technology'. But again, Ive been in technology long enough to see some interesting advances so it wont surprise me if a version of what you describe comes into play.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
Click to expand...


ok, describe again to me how this WiFi signal will deliver enough power to run your home?


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
Click to expand...

hmmm

*Direct Wireless Power*—All the power a device needs is provided wirelessly — no batteries are required. This mode powers devices that are always within range of its WiTricity power source.
*Automatic Wireless Charging*—A device with rechargeable batteries charges itself, while still in use or at rest, without requiring a power cord or battery replacement.  This mode is used to charge mobile devices when in range of its WiTricity power source, without having to physically connect the device.
This suggests its is inducing power on the products. Not a new technology, of course tryign to apply it to earlier tech was not as easy. Now that technology has electronics using less power, it is easier to run this equipment. However, Im still skeptical, and again with more concern with cancers and such, adding more radio waves will create more hysteria. (hell, even Im concerned since Ive spend a good deal of time in front of and around active radio waves.)


----------



## sameech

Camarozz said:


> [
> 
> My company designs, engineers, builds, and maintains radio transmission towers. We've already received bid requests for WiTricity type ventures, as well as Verizon, AT&T, and cable companies such as Cox, to not only deliver WiFi and cable programs, but also electricity. Unless you have plans of dying in the next few years, you may see the future.



Interesting, I have done all those things, yet you work for a company that is involved with all those things.

color me impressed.

I still believe you are over exaggerating this 'technology'. But again, Ive been in technology long enough to see some interesting advances so it wont surprise me if a version of what you describe comes into play.[/QUOTE]

So on a real windy day will all my neighborhood's power demands be blown toward one house like a death ray that will blow the sucker up?  That would be pretty awesome (well except for the person deceased)


----------



## HenryBHough

There is still a small amount of work going on into how to make implants like pacemakers be wirelessly rechargeable.  

It already works for things like toothbrushes.  Put the brush handle into the base (which contains 1/2 of a transformer, the other half being in the handle) and it recharges.  For implants the "base" would either have to be somehow attached in close proximity to the device or the charger would have to be much more powerful, perhaps set beside one's bed to recharge overnight.

The work was promising until Obama decided to tax medical devices like pacemakers and granny's artificial hip.

But that was then.....


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very. WiTricity Corporation Wireless Power Over Distance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> *Direct Wireless Power*—All the power a device needs is provided wirelessly — no batteries are required. This mode powers devices that are always within range of its WiTricity power source.
> *Automatic Wireless Charging*—A device with rechargeable batteries charges itself, while still in use or at rest, without requiring a power cord or battery replacement.  This mode is used to charge mobile devices when in range of its WiTricity power source, without having to physically connect the device.
> This suggests its is inducing power on the products. Not a new technology, of course tryign to apply it to earlier tech was not as easy. Now that technology has electronics using less power, it is easier to run this equipment. However, Im still skeptical, and again with more concern with cancers and such, adding more radio waves will *create more hysteria.* (hell, even Im concerned since Ive spend a good deal of time in front of and around active radio waves.)
Click to expand...


OMG! It's a power AND a delivery source. 

The cure for hysteria is education.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> smh
> 
> You will never see that work large scale to power your home in your lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> *Direct Wireless Power*—All the power a device needs is provided wirelessly — no batteries are required. This mode powers devices that are always within range of its WiTricity power source.
> *Automatic Wireless Charging*—A device with rechargeable batteries charges itself, while still in use or at rest, without requiring a power cord or battery replacement.  This mode is used to charge mobile devices when in range of its WiTricity power source, without having to physically connect the device.
> This suggests its is inducing power on the products. Not a new technology, of course tryign to apply it to earlier tech was not as easy. Now that technology has electronics using less power, it is easier to run this equipment. However, Im still skeptical, and again with more concern with cancers and such, adding more radio waves will *create more hysteria.* (hell, even Im concerned since Ive spend a good deal of time in front of and around active radio waves.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG! It's a power AND a delivery source.
> 
> The cure for hysteria is education.
Click to expand...


please clarify, unless you are more interested in being an ass.

Anything that generates radio waves is a 'power source' and of course radio waves is a delivery source, first year electronics.

Explain what is happening though, what is on the web site is OLD technology that is being used for localized low power systems... you cannot provide 1000 kwh to a home with what is proposed nor with what your link shows.

and please tell me you are an engineer, and not a secretary for that company.


----------



## Politico

RGR said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
Click to expand...

And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.



Zander said:


> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?


Because his business would implode.


----------



## sameech

Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.


----------



## Zander

Politico said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
Click to expand...


No doubt. Take away the subsidies and you're left with nothing but high hopes and soaring rhetoric......


----------



## OnePercenter

Politico said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
Click to expand...


We give the oil companies billions, so why not?

Then there's big box stores like WalMart for additional billions.



> *Over the past century, *the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.



Triumph of the Drill How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways Mother Jones


----------



## OnePercenter

sameech said:


> Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.



Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?


----------



## HenryBHough

OnePercenter said:


> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?



Wind does not.  It will shift a poorly installed dish as noted.

Satellite TV reception IS destroyed by intermittent obstructions like heavy rain or snow. The problem is greatest where the "look angle" is through a lot of atmosphere.  If you put up enough power radiating sources and people didn't object to the strength of the radiation then ultimately it probably can be made to work.

At any distance, though, efficiency can be predicted to dwindle and outages due to rain or snow can be expected.  How much and how badly dependent on the frequency (wavelength, if you prefer) of the radiated signal.

People are bitching about their health being destroyed by radiation from present-day power lines.  It's well established that microwaves of certain frequencies can cook living things as well as pop corn.  The one thing you can count on is that Luddites will be out there with pitchforks killing the crews building transmission facilities.

The intermittent outages should not be an issue since, by the time wireless power transmission is feasible folks will be accustomed to having electricity only some of the time due to power plants being closed down twixt now and then.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If electric companies buy patents there won't be. Otherwise....You wanna bet? Ask me what business my company does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> *Direct Wireless Power*—All the power a device needs is provided wirelessly — no batteries are required. This mode powers devices that are always within range of its WiTricity power source.
> *Automatic Wireless Charging*—A device with rechargeable batteries charges itself, while still in use or at rest, without requiring a power cord or battery replacement.  This mode is used to charge mobile devices when in range of its WiTricity power source, without having to physically connect the device.
> This suggests its is inducing power on the products. Not a new technology, of course tryign to apply it to earlier tech was not as easy. Now that technology has electronics using less power, it is easier to run this equipment. However, Im still skeptical, and again with more concern with cancers and such, adding more radio waves will *create more hysteria.* (hell, even Im concerned since Ive spend a good deal of time in front of and around active radio waves.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG! It's a power AND a delivery source.
> 
> The cure for hysteria is education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please clarify, unless you are more interested in being an ass.
> 
> Anything that generates radio waves is a 'power source' and of course radio waves is a delivery source, first year electronics.
> 
> Explain what is happening though, what is on the web site is OLD technology that is being used for localized low power systems... you cannot provide 1000 kwh to a home with what is proposed nor with what your link shows.
> 
> and please tell me you are an engineer, and not a secretary for that company.
Click to expand...


For your clarification;

Here's some background from 2013:

A microwave metamaterial with integrated power harvesting functionality

I can tell you that since that paper was written there are test homes that derive all of their energy wirelessly.

Beyond that, I can't elaborate due to proprietary rights.

FYI: I'm not an Engineer, I hire Engineers.


----------



## sameech

OnePercenter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?
Click to expand...


Being on a wireless modem, I can tell you that real windy/gusty days degrade my connection speeds considerably.  I have been told by people who use satellite for TV they sometimes get crappy service on real windy days as well with a lot of video freezing and the like.


----------



## OnePercenter

HenryBHough said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind does not.  It will shift a poorly installed dish as noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satellite TV reception IS destroyed by intermittent obstructions like heavy rain or snow. The problem is greatest where the "look angle" is through a lot of atmosphere.  If you put up enough power radiating sources and people didn't object to the strength of the radiation then ultimately it probably can be made to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply increase your 'look angle' by buying a bigger dish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At any distance, though, efficiency can be predicted to dwindle and outages due to rain or snow can be expected.  How much and how badly dependent on the frequency (wavelength, if you prefer) of the radiated signal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The distance is one mile non-line-of-sight, or five miles line-of-sight. The way you overcome this is by repeaters. For instance, on there car or handheld radio, a cop or firefighter in San Diego, Ca can talk with another cop or fighter in Eureka, Ca by switching to a 'state red' frequency. This is done by a network of repeaters. Same applies to WiFi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are bitching about their health being destroyed by radiation from present-day power lines.  It's well established that microwaves of certain frequencies can cook living things as well as pop corn.  The one thing you can count on is that Luddites will be out there with pitchforks killing the crews building transmission facilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did the foil-head stop wearing foil? Because his dog told him it made him look funny......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intermittent outages should not be an issue since, by the time wireless power transmission is feasible folks will be accustomed to having electricity only some of the time due to power plants being closed down twixt now and then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep believing that and you'll die as uneducated as you were born.
Click to expand...


----------



## OnePercenter

sameech said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being on a wireless modem, I can tell you that real windy/gusty days degrade my connection speeds considerably.  I have been told by people who use satellite for TV they sometimes get crappy service on real windy days as well with a lot of video freezing and the like.
Click to expand...


Everything you describe is an antenna problem.


----------



## elektra

OnePercenter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being on a wireless modem, I can tell you that real windy/gusty days degrade my connection speeds considerably.  I have been told by people who use satellite for TV they sometimes get crappy service on real windy days as well with a lot of video freezing and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you describe is an antenna problem.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the system, it's a windy day problem.


----------



## HenryBHough

So much about satellite TV reception depends on things you can't see.

OK, so there's wind.  Let us assume your dish is rock solid, not whipping around.  The wind is NOT a factor.  Signals pass through air - they don't ride on it.

What you need to consider is the look angle.  If you're around Los Angeles your dish may be pointed almost straight up.

That means you are looking through a relatively thin layer of atmosphere and what you see, weatherwise, is what your dish is seeing.  Under those circumstances (with a stable installation) wind has zero effect.

If you live far to the north it's all different.  I once lived in a place where the look angle was less than 5-degrees above the horizon.  Looking through miles and miles of atmosphere.  Where I was might well be clear but with or without wind.  Still the signal would pixellate and at times vanish.  On those occasions I could check weather at another town about 100 miles to East and, sure enough, rain or snow there.  The dish was "looking" at the satellite through that mess.  Often there would be wind present locally because of the speed at which weather systems were moving.  The important thing was what was going on in the atmosphere through which the signal had to travel.  Most U.S. dish installations are about 18-inches in diameter.  Where I was the minimum workable was 1-meter and many had 1.5 meter dishes.  Not so much the distance from the satellite; rather the very shallow look angle that made the signal weak to start with due to all the varieties of weather happening twixt satellite and receiver.

One tiny factor:  If you are looking through trees (your dish, that is), wind that shakes the foliage around will make things worse so you might wanna just cut down the trees.

So if the power source were terrestrial and reasonably close by, yeah, I won't deny a system could be invented that might get power to you but at some cost in inefficiency, worsened according to distance.  The hardest part might be killing off all the NIMBYs who would not want YOUR electricity passing through THEIR air.


----------



## OnePercenter

HenryBHough said:


> So much about satellite TV reception depends on things you can't see.
> 
> OK, so there's wind.  Let us assume your dish is rock solid, not whipping around.  The wind is NOT a factor.  Signals pass through air - they don't ride on it.
> 
> What you need to consider is the look angle.  If you're around Los Angeles your dish may be pointed almost straight up.
> 
> That means you are looking through a relatively thin layer of atmosphere and what you see, weatherwise, is what your dish is seeing.  Under those circumstances (with a stable installation) wind has zero effect.
> 
> If you live far to the north it's all different.  I once lived in a place where the look angle was less than 5-degrees above the horizon.  Looking through miles and miles of atmosphere.  Where I was might well be clear but with or without wind.  Still the signal would pixellate and at times vanish.  On those occasions I could check weather at another town about 100 miles to East and, sure enough, rain or snow there.  The dish was "looking" at the satellite through that mess.  Often there would be wind present locally because of the speed at which weather systems were moving.  The important thing was what was going on in the atmosphere through which the signal had to travel.  Most U.S. dish installations are about 18-inches in diameter.  Where I was the minimum workable was 1-meter and many had 1.5 meter dishes.  Not so much the distance from the satellite; rather the very shallow look angle that made the signal weak to start with due to all the varieties of weather happening twixt satellite and receiver.
> 
> One tiny factor:  If you are looking through trees (your dish, that is), wind that shakes the foliage around will make things worse so you might wanna just cut down the trees.
> 
> So if the power source were terrestrial and reasonably close by, yeah, I won't deny a system could be invented that might get power to you but at some cost in inefficiency, worsened according to distance.  The hardest part might be killing off all the NIMBYs who would not want YOUR electricity passing through THEIR air.



AGAIN, antenna problems.


----------



## HenryBHough

I can't call that an antenna problem, just an atmospheric problem that no antenna could fix.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We give the oil companies billions, so why not?
> 
> Then there's big box stores like WalMart for additional billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past century, *the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Triumph of the Drill How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways Mother Jones
Click to expand...



there is a difference from giving them billions and giving them tax breaks. Even so oil is still the biggest taxed commodity in America. 

We literally GIVE money to wind turbine companies because they cannot compete otherwise.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> *Direct Wireless Power*—All the power a device needs is provided wirelessly — no batteries are required. This mode powers devices that are always within range of its WiTricity power source.
> *Automatic Wireless Charging*—A device with rechargeable batteries charges itself, while still in use or at rest, without requiring a power cord or battery replacement.  This mode is used to charge mobile devices when in range of its WiTricity power source, without having to physically connect the device.
> This suggests its is inducing power on the products. Not a new technology, of course tryign to apply it to earlier tech was not as easy. Now that technology has electronics using less power, it is easier to run this equipment. However, Im still skeptical, and again with more concern with cancers and such, adding more radio waves will *create more hysteria.* (hell, even Im concerned since Ive spend a good deal of time in front of and around active radio waves.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG! It's a power AND a delivery source.
> 
> The cure for hysteria is education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please clarify, unless you are more interested in being an ass.
> 
> Anything that generates radio waves is a 'power source' and of course radio waves is a delivery source, first year electronics.
> 
> Explain what is happening though, what is on the web site is OLD technology that is being used for localized low power systems... you cannot provide 1000 kwh to a home with what is proposed nor with what your link shows.
> 
> and please tell me you are an engineer, and not a secretary for that company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your clarification;
> 
> Here's some background from 2013:
> 
> A microwave metamaterial with integrated power harvesting functionality
> 
> I can tell you that since that paper was written there are test homes that derive all of their energy wirelessly.
> 
> Beyond that, I can't elaborate due to proprietary rights.
> 
> FYI: I'm not an Engineer, I hire Engineers.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I have too, but my background is in Engineering/electronics/telecomm. Ive worked with sudo technical supervisors... so far your resume is not impressive.

So far nothing shown on your site, nor what you have posted , suggests its ore than your typical power induced style charging systems. Granted, low power electronics can do fine in such an environment; but I see nothing to say that the company has developed anythign new but has taken advantage of low power draw electronics. You will still not be able to run a house with 1000kwh of power over 'wireless'. Even the section on charging your electric car suggests you will need special equipment and household power available to do such a thing.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being on a wireless modem, I can tell you that real windy/gusty days degrade my connection speeds considerably.  I have been told by people who use satellite for TV they sometimes get crappy service on real windy days as well with a lot of video freezing and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sameech said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind still screw up satellite and internet and we are going to be sending electric service through the air?  Don't think so.  might be good for transmitting very low loads like keeping smart meters powered or something, but not whole homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than moving an under-supported dish, how does wind 'screw up satellite and internet' communications?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being on a wireless modem, I can tell you that real windy/gusty days degrade my connection speeds considerably.  I have been told by people who use satellite for TV they sometimes get crappy service on real windy days as well with a lot of video freezing and the like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you describe is an antenna problem.
Click to expand...


That is the problem with some of these wireless systems, most 'techs' go by the basic instructions of installation and dont understand the fundamentals of radio transmissions. So needless to say their install may not be optimum. 

However I agree, that its a strong possibility that when the wind blows that it is causing the antennas to move, and affecting your connection speeds. those systems typically do not come with mounts that aare very substantial and will probably be moving in a wind storm. 

Without being able to be on site to diagnose the problem, that is my first guess as well, its basically an antenna problem.

Granted, dust, rain, snow and the like can also degrade a microwave signal; which is basically what most wireless networking systems are... 2.4ghz to 5.8ghz for open license equipment.


----------



## Camarozz

HenryBHough said:


> I can't call that an antenna problem, just an atmospheric problem that no antenna could fix.



True, but if you could describe the system you have, it could be easier to diagnose. 

It is correct, that if you have a rock solid mount wind should not affect the signal, but atmosphere can affect the signals. We used to have problems with temperature inversions, where the heat waves radiating from the lower town would cause signal degradation from the mountain top transmitters. Low cloud layers would reflect signals as well. Rain, snow, it all can affect signals depending on the radio and the weather. 

Ever hear of "sun fade"? 

Twice a year when the sun was just right we would havea  few seconds of signal loss, a lot of people dont get that.

We also had troubles with wind as well; one site in particular would move the 8' dish side to side so violently that we could see a 20db signal change. Thats significant on a 40 mile path.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much about satellite TV reception depends on things you can't see.
> 
> OK, so there's wind.  Let us assume your dish is rock solid, not whipping around.  The wind is NOT a factor.  Signals pass through air - they don't ride on it.
> 
> What you need to consider is the look angle.  If you're around Los Angeles your dish may be pointed almost straight up.
> 
> That means you are looking through a relatively thin layer of atmosphere and what you see, weatherwise, is what your dish is seeing.  Under those circumstances (with a stable installation) wind has zero effect.
> 
> If you live far to the north it's all different.  I once lived in a place where the look angle was less than 5-degrees above the horizon.  Looking through miles and miles of atmosphere.  Where I was might well be clear but with or without wind.  Still the signal would pixellate and at times vanish.  On those occasions I could check weather at another town about 100 miles to East and, sure enough, rain or snow there.  The dish was "looking" at the satellite through that mess.  Often there would be wind present locally because of the speed at which weather systems were moving.  The important thing was what was going on in the atmosphere through which the signal had to travel.  Most U.S. dish installations are about 18-inches in diameter.  Where I was the minimum workable was 1-meter and many had 1.5 meter dishes.  Not so much the distance from the satellite; rather the very shallow look angle that made the signal weak to start with due to all the varieties of weather happening twixt satellite and receiver.
> 
> One tiny factor:  If you are looking through trees (your dish, that is), wind that shakes the foliage around will make things worse so you might wanna just cut down the trees.
> 
> So if the power source were terrestrial and reasonably close by, yeah, I won't deny a system could be invented that might get power to you but at some cost in inefficiency, worsened according to distance.  The hardest part might be killing off all the NIMBYs who would not want YOUR electricity passing through THEIR air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, antenna problems.
Click to expand...


Im thinking you did not consider what was posted very well.

If neither antennas are moving, and making some assumptions, how can it be an antenna problem? I would think radio issue, or some other issue depending. You do not have enough information to make such a guess. Yes, its one of several at that point, but I have never had an issue with an antenna that was mounted securely enough and still cause a problem.

Heres a thought, find out what the system is... is it an omni antenna set, is it a dish? Whats the  frequency? Whats the path length? What time of year? What type of mounting is it? How many systems are off teh AP? Ist it an AP? What is the information being carried? Is it analog or digital?

I mean really, this is why I hate engineers that have little experience in the field, its like they think "I read it in a book and it should be this problem". smh... I have had enough experience to say with all honesty, Its not always in a book.

I had a problem once where a signal was  coming in strong and then going to nothing...

Tell me OnePercenter, what was the problem? Hint: Its much like this staellite tv problem suggested.


----------



## flacaltenn

OnePercenter said:


> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camarozz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're already whining about the conspiracy that will prevent Wi-tricity from being successful. It's NOT a power source. It's not even neccessary from an efficient use standpoint. It is broadcasting energy even when there is nothing around to use it if applied to more than a wireless pad charger for your handheld devices.
> 
> Not gonna help correct the fatal flaws in the list of current "alternatives"..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a power source, it's a delivery source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmm
> 
> *Direct Wireless Power*—All the power a device needs is provided wirelessly — no batteries are required. This mode powers devices that are always within range of its WiTricity power source.
> *Automatic Wireless Charging*—A device with rechargeable batteries charges itself, while still in use or at rest, without requiring a power cord or battery replacement.  This mode is used to charge mobile devices when in range of its WiTricity power source, without having to physically connect the device.
> This suggests its is inducing power on the products. Not a new technology, of course tryign to apply it to earlier tech was not as easy. Now that technology has electronics using less power, it is easier to run this equipment. However, Im still skeptical, and again with more concern with cancers and such, adding more radio waves will *create more hysteria.* (hell, even Im concerned since Ive spend a good deal of time in front of and around active radio waves.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG! It's a power AND a delivery source.
> 
> The cure for hysteria is education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please clarify, unless you are more interested in being an ass.
> 
> Anything that generates radio waves is a 'power source' and of course radio waves is a delivery source, first year electronics.
> 
> Explain what is happening though, what is on the web site is OLD technology that is being used for localized low power systems... you cannot provide 1000 kwh to a home with what is proposed nor with what your link shows.
> 
> and please tell me you are an engineer, and not a secretary for that company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your clarification;
> 
> Here's some background from 2013:
> 
> A microwave metamaterial with integrated power harvesting functionality
> 
> I can tell you that since that paper was written there are test homes that derive all of their energy wirelessly.
> 
> Beyond that, I can't elaborate due to proprietary rights.
> 
> FYI: I'm not an Engineer, I hire Engineers.
Click to expand...


Right... Property rights.....  Nikolai Tesla proposed that plan back in 1898 I think.. You still paying him royalties for the concept?  Not quite as old as the idea of wind turbines or solar thermal conversion..


----------



## flacaltenn

OnePercenter said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We give the oil companies billions, so why not?
> 
> Then there's big box stores like WalMart for additional billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past century, *the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Triumph of the Drill How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways Mother Jones
Click to expand...


Idiot reporters at Mother Jones just repeating the same old faulty allegations that SOME FOLKS swallow whole even tho they should know better.. 



> *Writing Off Drilling Expenses: *A century ago, drilling for oil was risky business. Start-up costs were high, and prospectors couldn't be sure they'd find crude. To encourage the nascent industry, in 1916 Congress approved the expensing of "intangible drilling costs"—pretty much any equipment used or work done—in the first year of a well's life. Today, prospectors rarely hit dry holes, but the century-old tax break remains a gusher.



Go walk over to your accounting gurus and ask them if your company writes off R&D expenses. NONE of things in the article are UNIQUE to oil. And Mother can't even take the time to look thru the history and engineering of oil drilling to understand that "less dry holes" are because of better and EXPENSIVE tools and surveys BEFORE the drilling starts. Same with their whining about "depreciation" schedules. Show me a biz that doesn't have a paradigm for depreciation allowances.. 

Boo fuckin hoo...


----------



## OnePercenter

HenryBHough said:


> I can't call that an antenna problem, just an atmospheric problem that no antenna could fix.



Atmospheric interruptions in video cause the video signal to be spread over a larger area, thus you need a larger antenna.


----------



## OnePercenter

flacaltenn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We give the oil companies billions, so why not?
> 
> Then there's big box stores like WalMart for additional billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past century, *the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Triumph of the Drill How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot reporters at Mother Jones just repeating the same old faulty allegations that SOME FOLKS swallow whole even tho they should know better..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Writing Off Drilling Expenses: *A century ago, drilling for oil was risky business. Start-up costs were high, and prospectors couldn't be sure they'd find crude. To encourage the nascent industry, in 1916 Congress approved the expensing of "intangible drilling costs"—pretty much any equipment used or work done—in the first year of a well's life. Today, prospectors rarely hit dry holes, but the century-old tax break remains a gusher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go walk over to your accounting gurus and ask them if your company writes off R&D expenses. NONE of things in the article are UNIQUE to oil. And Mother can't even take the time to look thru the history and engineering of oil drilling to understand that "less dry holes" are because of better and EXPENSIVE tools and surveys BEFORE the drilling starts. Same with their whining about "depreciation" schedules. Show me a biz that doesn't have a paradigm for depreciation allowances..
> 
> Boo fuckin hoo...
Click to expand...


The question is, should a company making tens of billions in profit receive taxpayer subsidies?


----------



## Politico

No.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> The question is, should a company making tens of billions in profit receive taxpayer subsidies?



Write offs, like an business.

But they are also taxed tens of billions in dollars as well, we cannot overlook that tid bit.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't call that an antenna problem, just an atmospheric problem that no antenna could fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atmospheric interruptions in video cause the video signal to be spread over a larger area, thus you need a larger antenna.
Click to expand...


again, what is the system?

What is the frequency?

Just jumping on "it needs a larger antenna" is a shotgun fix at best. You do not have enough information to claim its an antenna problem.


----------



## sameech

flacaltenn said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We give the oil companies billions, so why not?
> 
> Then there's big box stores like WalMart for additional billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past century, *the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Triumph of the Drill How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot reporters at Mother Jones just repeating the same old faulty allegations that SOME FOLKS swallow whole even tho they should know better..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Writing Off Drilling Expenses: *A century ago, drilling for oil was risky business. Start-up costs were high, and prospectors couldn't be sure they'd find crude. To encourage the nascent industry, in 1916 Congress approved the expensing of "intangible drilling costs"—pretty much any equipment used or work done—in the first year of a well's life. Today, prospectors rarely hit dry holes, but the century-old tax break remains a gusher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go walk over to your accounting gurus and ask them if your company writes off R&D expenses. NONE of things in the article are UNIQUE to oil. And Mother can't even take the time to look thru the history and engineering of oil drilling to understand that "less dry holes" are because of better and EXPENSIVE tools and surveys BEFORE the drilling starts. Same with their whining about "depreciation" schedules. Show me a biz that doesn't have a paradigm for depreciation allowances..
> 
> Boo fuckin hoo...
Click to expand...


The one tax advantage that natural resource exploiting companies (oil, gas, mining) get that other businesses do not is the ability to fully depreciate land to zero.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, should a company making tens of billions in profit receive taxpayer subsidies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Write offs, like an business.
> 
> But they are also taxed tens of billions in dollars as well, we cannot overlook that tid bit.
Click to expand...


In 2009 ExxonMobil paid zero in US Federal taxes and only made $45.2 billion in profits. Seems they need those subsidies. In 2013 I grossed $26.5 million and paid 4% in Federal tax. I NEED MORE SUBSIDIES!!!!!  Let's lower the corporate tax rate to 20% so I can pay zero........HELP THE RICH YOU IDIOTS......WE NEED THE MONEY!!!!


----------



## sameech

OnePercenter said:


> In 2009 ExxonMobil paid zero in US Federal taxes and only made $45.2 billion in profits. Seems they need those subsidies. In 2013 I grossed $26.5 million and paid 4% in Federal tax. I NEED MORE SUBSIDIES!!!!!  Let's lower the corporate tax rate to 20% so I can pay zero........HELP THE RICH YOU IDIOTS......WE NEED THE MONEY!!!!



That is not true.  Per Bernie Sanders says ExxonMobil paid no taxes in 2009 but that s inaccurate PolitiFact

"According to the 10-K, ExxonMobil remitted $6.3 billion in sales taxes, $110 million in state income taxes, and $1.5 billion in "other taxes and duties." All told, the company's tax liability according to its 10-K was $7.7 billion. (These numbers are not necessarily totals actually paid but derived using generally accepted accounting principles.) And that only counts taxes paid in the U.S. It paid an additional $70 billion-plus in taxes to foreign governments in 2009, $15 billion of which was for income taxes."


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> In 2009 ExxonMobil paid zero in US Federal taxes and only made $45.2 billion in profits. Seems they need those subsidies. In 2013 I grossed $26.5 million and paid 4% in Federal tax. I NEED MORE SUBSIDIES!!!!!  Let's lower the corporate tax rate to 20% so I can pay zero........HELP THE RICH YOU IDIOTS......WE NEED THE MONEY!!!!



Zero? 

Not true.

Nice rhetoric though.


----------



## HenryBHough

Far enough north and the antenna it would take to ensure 99.9% signal reliability would be large enough to live in.


----------



## flacaltenn

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity*
> 
> US Solar Makes Up Over Half Of New Generating Capacity
> Solar is kicking ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it up to now? 1% of total capacity? 2?
> 
> Yep…pretty kick ass….coming from Matthew, who is undoubtedly using coal, nuke and natural gas fired electricity to claim that solar is kicking ass. Pretty funny if you think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he doesn't even own an electric either. Also not how he abandoned the thread weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar has come a long way.
> 
> I'd like to see the subsidies end and let the industry stand on it's own feet. *Why are we subsidizing Elon Musk?* He's a billionaire.....C'mon lefties- Why are we giving billionaires taxpayer money? Cognitive dissonance anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because his business would implode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We give the oil companies billions, so why not?
> 
> Then there's big box stores like WalMart for additional billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Over the past century, *the federal government has pumped more than $470 billion into the oil and gas industry in the form of generous, never-expiring tax breaks. Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world's most profitable companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Triumph of the Drill How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot reporters at Mother Jones just repeating the same old faulty allegations that SOME FOLKS swallow whole even tho they should know better..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Writing Off Drilling Expenses: *A century ago, drilling for oil was risky business. Start-up costs were high, and prospectors couldn't be sure they'd find crude. To encourage the nascent industry, in 1916 Congress approved the expensing of "intangible drilling costs"—pretty much any equipment used or work done—in the first year of a well's life. Today, prospectors rarely hit dry holes, but the century-old tax break remains a gusher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go walk over to your accounting gurus and ask them if your company writes off R&D expenses. NONE of things in the article are UNIQUE to oil. And Mother can't even take the time to look thru the history and engineering of oil drilling to understand that "less dry holes" are because of better and EXPENSIVE tools and surveys BEFORE the drilling starts. Same with their whining about "depreciation" schedules. Show me a biz that doesn't have a paradigm for depreciation allowances..
> 
> Boo fuckin hoo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is, should a company making tens of billions in profit receive taxpayer subsidies?
Click to expand...


NO COMPANY should receive subsidies for stuff that ALREADY EXISTS in the marketplace.. But I'm tired of partisans hacks trying to say that Oil gets tax breaks in the same sense as the massive GREEN subsidies that we are paying for MATURE technologies.. 

Wanna join me in outrage? Let's stop all TRUE subsidies today.. Not depreciation schedules, not allowances for R&D, just the $60 that GE receives on every "energy star" washing machine and similar TRUE subsidies...


----------



## flacaltenn

I love it when stupid journalists take an entry line out of a 200 page corporate tax return and pretend they understand it. Bernie Sanders included.  Exxon OVERPAID in 2008, and had a credit for that along with
paying 7.7Bill in taxes OVERSEAS.. Fix the tax structure and that latter part wouldn't happen..


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2009 ExxonMobil paid zero in US Federal taxes and only made $45.2 billion in profits. Seems they need those subsidies. In 2013 I grossed $26.5 million and paid 4% in Federal tax. I NEED MORE SUBSIDIES!!!!!  Let's lower the corporate tax rate to 20% so I can pay zero........HELP THE RICH YOU IDIOTS......WE NEED THE MONEY!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero?
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Nice rhetoric though.
Click to expand...


Seems you both missed: US Federal Taxes. Nice try.


----------



## OnePercenter

HenryBHough said:


> Far enough north and the antenna it would take to ensure 99.9% signal reliability would be large enough to live in.



Actually no.


----------



## OnePercenter

flacaltenn said:


> I love it when stupid journalists take an entry line out of a 200 page corporate tax return and pretend they understand it. Bernie Sanders included.  Exxon OVERPAID in 2008, and had a credit for that along with
> paying 7.7Bill in taxes OVERSEAS.. Fix the tax structure and that latter part wouldn't happen..



All corporations overpay. It limits liability if a 'mistake' is made. How much of the $7.7 billion in overseas taxes was deductible? Net was $45.2 billion in profits. Not bad. Should a company making $45.2 billion net receive subsidies?


----------



## OnePercenter

flacaltenn said:


> I love it when stupid journalists take an entry line out of a 200 page corporate tax return and pretend they understand it. Bernie Sanders included.  Exxon OVERPAID in 2008, and had a credit for that along with
> paying 7.7Bill in taxes OVERSEAS.. Fix the tax structure and that latter part wouldn't happen..



Lets fix the tax structure and get the economy going.....

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-*Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.*

-Companies with 300 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure. Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when stupid journalists take an entry line out of a 200 page corporate tax return and pretend they understand it. Bernie Sanders included.  Exxon OVERPAID in 2008, and had a credit for that along with
> paying 7.7Bill in taxes OVERSEAS.. Fix the tax structure and that latter part wouldn't happen..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All corporations overpay. It limits liability if a 'mistake' is made. How much of the $7.7 billion in overseas taxes was deductible? Net was $45.2 billion in profits. Not bad. Should a company making $45.2 billion net receive subsidies?
Click to expand...


The get the same write offs as most other companies, even the dumbass wind turbine projects that will always produce power at a loss.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when stupid journalists take an entry line out of a 200 page corporate tax return and pretend they understand it. Bernie Sanders included.  Exxon OVERPAID in 2008, and had a credit for that along with
> paying 7.7Bill in taxes OVERSEAS.. Fix the tax structure and that latter part wouldn't happen..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets fix the tax structure and get the economy going.....
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
Click to expand...


No, and that would actually cause more troubles.



OnePercenter said:


> -*Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.*


*

Theres a thought, sure as hell would put that wind turbine crap into mothballs.*



OnePercenter said:


> -Companies with 300 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure. Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.



yeah, good luck with that; your congressmen are well compensated to keep these things where they are.

Not to mention, even for as little I know about taxes and economics, I do know that what you suggest will not create the utopia you suggest. "Eliminate" inflation... yeah, not gonna happen.


----------



## HenryBHough

OnePercenter said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far enough north and the antenna it would take to ensure 99.9% signal reliability would be large enough to live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.
Click to expand...


OK, so you require an Algore sized mansion.  I feel your pain.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when stupid journalists take an entry line out of a 200 page corporate tax return and pretend they understand it. Bernie Sanders included.  Exxon OVERPAID in 2008, and had a credit for that along with
> paying 7.7Bill in taxes OVERSEAS.. Fix the tax structure and that latter part wouldn't happen..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets fix the tax structure and get the economy going.....
> 
> -Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, and that would actually cause more troubles.
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> -*Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Theres a thought, sure as hell would put that wind turbine crap into mothballs.*
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> -Companies with 300 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
> 
> -Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure. Remove the FICA limit.
> 
> -Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
> 
> -Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
> 
> -Make inversion illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, good luck with that; your congressmen are well compensated to keep these things where they are.
> 
> Not to mention, even for as little I know about taxes and economics, I do know that what you suggest will not create the utopia you suggest. "Eliminate" inflation... yeah, not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


The entire package wouldn't cause more problems, and *Republicans* are the 'well compensated to keep these things where they are.'


----------



## OnePercenter

HenryBHough said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far enough north and the antenna it would take to ensure 99.9% signal reliability would be large enough to live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you require an Algore sized mansion.  I feel your pain.
Click to expand...


You only need it in fringe areas, so why would the size matter?


----------



## HenryBHough

OnePercenter said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far enough north and the antenna it would take to ensure 99.9% signal reliability would be large enough to live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you require an Algore sized mansion.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only need it in fringe areas, so why would the size matter?
Click to expand...


That's what SHE said!


----------



## flacaltenn

HenryBHough said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far enough north and the antenna it would take to ensure 99.9% signal reliability would be large enough to live in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you require an Algore sized mansion.  I feel your pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only need it in fringe areas, so why would the size matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what SHE said!
Click to expand...


I just KNEW that was coming.


----------



## Camarozz

OnePercenter said:


> The entire package wouldn't cause more problems, and *Republicans* are the 'well compensated to keep these things where they are.'




Lololol

Keep telling youself that.


----------



## OnePercenter

Camarozz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire package wouldn't cause more problems, and *Republicans* are the 'well compensated to keep these things where they are.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lololol
> 
> Keep telling youself that.
Click to expand...


Look at the Koch Brothers. They took disgruntled Americans and turned them in completely the wrong direction.


----------



## elektra

I have not followed this thread nor read any the posts so all I can say, to all of you, is bullshit.


----------

