Power Plant Closures

[Kosh]

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

• Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Many of these subsidies were put in place when a barrel of oil was less than $12/barrel.

Other subsidies are design for them to invest into newer technologies that are less polluting and more environmentally friendly.

So what does the far left hate the environment?

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives EVER have

ONCE MORE ANYONE?

ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON IN THE US? lol

Once again proving that the far left is programmed to use talking points and propaganda vs any type of facts.

Hint: Conservatives can also be Democrats. Well maybe not now since the far left is complete control.

Project much Bubba?

ONE policy CONSERVATIVES have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? LOL

Again the far left denies history in order to suit their programmed propaganda.

Conservatives can also be Democrats, except maybe to the far left...

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\\

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

Using nothing but Soros funded far left sources.

Amazing the propaganda the far left will use as their "facts".

Then again the far left mantra is to post known propaganda/lies and ask others to prove them wrong.

Weird, AFTER the original poster just through up BULLSHIT, I refuted his crap with well linked, CREDIBLE sources and you choose to use ad homs. I'm shocked

Once again the far left shows that the sources that are "CREDIBLE" are the known far left sources in their eyes.

So far you have posted known far left propaganda and this prove my original comments..

Got it, Ad homs is the limit to your responses, I'm shocked. No really I am

 

[Kosh]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

 

[elektra]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

YOU made the posit dummy, YOU source it. THEN I'LL TEAR IT APART WITH THE TRUTH

So you can not answer the simple question yet you support Solar?

How much have we spent on Solar and Wind. The money has been spent, should be easy for you to account for the cost.

We can all see you ran to a Google and came back with anything but the answer.

When asked a simple question, the green energy supporters will never answer, because they have zero knowledge, it's what they believe, hence they search for answers related to their beliefs, they have not the knowledge to know the simple technical terms to search.

Like, Capacity Factor.

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

 

[Dad2three]

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

YOU made the posit dummy, YOU source it. THEN I'LL TEAR IT APART WITH THE TRUTH

So you can not answer the simple question yet you support Solar?

How much have we spent on Solar and Wind. The money has been spent, should be easy for you to account for the cost.

We can all see you ran to a Google and came back with anything but the answer.

When asked a simple question, the green energy supporters will never answer, because they have zero knowledge, it's what they believe, hence they search for answers related to their beliefs, they have not the knowledge to know the simple technical terms to search.

Like, Capacity Factor.

Weird, YOU set up a false premise, $500 billion spent on green energy' in 2 years, and claim failure THEN ask me to provide a link? lol

WINGNUTTER, YOU MADE THE CLAIM, I CALLED YOU A FUKKKING LIAR, YOU PROVE IT!!!

 

[Saigon]

[



Funny but I have to ask how much government backing goes into wind and solar? Grants, tax rebates, price subsidies, etc.? You gave to admit that solar and wind only exist because of government support in one form or another.

.

That's a good question that you will see answered in my signature line. You are absolutely right that nuclear and coal have benefitted massively from subsidies that solar and wind are generally denied.

 

[Saigon]

Decus -

Who do you mean?

A lot of Greens I know back nuclear energy all the way. Not all due, but then that is their choice. Personally I think nuclear is a big part of the solution, supported by tidal, solar thermal and wind where appropriate.

But most do not. The contrary: many hear the word "nuclear" and immediately shriek, "THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Some do, the German Greens certainly do...but I think you'd be surprised how many Greens and Green parties now back nuclear.

As is so often the case, a lot of posters here are really ten years behind what is really happening out there.

 

[Kosh]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

The NYTimes is a known far left source..

 

[elektra]

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

YOU made the posit dummy, YOU source it. THEN I'LL TEAR IT APART WITH THE TRUTH

So you can not answer the simple question yet you support Solar?

How much have we spent on Solar and Wind. The money has been spent, should be easy for you to account for the cost.

We can all see you ran to a Google and came back with anything but the answer.

When asked a simple question, the green energy supporters will never answer, because they have zero knowledge, it's what they believe, hence they search for answers related to their beliefs, they have not the knowledge to know the simple technical terms to search.

Like, Capacity Factor.

Weird, YOU set up a false premise, $500 billion spent on green energy' in 2 years, and claim failure THEN ask me to provide a link? lol

WINGNUTTER, YOU MADE THE CLAIM, I CALLED YOU A FUKKKING LIAR, YOU PROVE IT!!!

Okay, I am wrong, how much was spent, I mean you are saying I am wrong and you can only know I am wrong if you know the correct answer, so go ahead and just tell us how much was spent.

 

[Saigon]

The NYTimes is a known far left source..

Only by people on the far right.

To anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship, the NY Times is a fairly reliable source. It always amazes me that people think they can only get facts from media sources that publish exactly what they want to hear.

 

[elektra]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

Actually, CSP simply does not work, it has nothing to do with falling prices, that debate was laid to rest in the appropriate thread.

All of your rants are addressed in the Energy threads.

 

[Dad2three]

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

YOU made the posit dummy, YOU source it. THEN I'LL TEAR IT APART WITH THE TRUTH

So you can not answer the simple question yet you support Solar?

How much have we spent on Solar and Wind. The money has been spent, should be easy for you to account for the cost.

We can all see you ran to a Google and came back with anything but the answer.

When asked a simple question, the green energy supporters will never answer, because they have zero knowledge, it's what they believe, hence they search for answers related to their beliefs, they have not the knowledge to know the simple technical terms to search.

Like, Capacity Factor.

Weird, YOU set up a false premise, $500 billion spent on green energy' in 2 years, and claim failure THEN ask me to provide a link? lol

WINGNUTTER, YOU MADE THE CLAIM, I CALLED YOU A FUKKKING LIAR, YOU PROVE IT!!!

Okay, I am wrong, how much was spent, I mean you are saying I am wrong and you can only know I am wrong if you know the correct answer, so go ahead and just tell us how much was spent.

YOU made the posit, you pulled it out of your ass, why should I need to prove anything?

 

[Dad2three]

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

Actually, CSP simply does not work, it has nothing to do with falling prices, that debate was laid to rest in the appropriate thread.

All of your rants are addressed in the Energy threads.

lol, ONLY in the 'reality' that you right wingers live in


PLEASE one policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

 

[Kosh]

The NYTimes is a known far left source..

Only by people on the far right.

To anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship, the NY Times is a fairly reliable source. It always amazes me that people think they can only get facts from media sources that publish exactly what they want to hear.

Wrong the NYTimes is a mouth piece for the DNC and Obama and shown as much to be so..

It is a far left Hack site/paper. Only a hyper partisan extremists could not see that.

 

[Kosh]

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

Actually, CSP simply does not work, it has nothing to do with falling prices, that debate was laid to rest in the appropriate thread.

All of your rants are addressed in the Energy threads.

lol, ONLY in the 'reality' that you right wingers live in


PLEASE one policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

And the far left continues to spew their programmed talking points..

However lets answer the one question this far left hack keeps asking..

How about the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

 

[Dad2three]

Got, it, you 'believe' and rely on the 'gut' and right wing crap supplied by Rush and Hannity!
Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study


UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand

Renewable energy could account for almost 80% of the world's energy supply within four decades - but only if governments pursue the policies needed to promote green power, according to a landmark report published on Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, said that if the full range of renewable technologies were deployed, the world could keep greenhouse gas concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, the level scientists have predicted will be the limit of safety beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible.\
\

Renewable energy can power the world says landmark IPCC study Environment theguardian.com

Key Findings

• Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

NREL Energy Analysis - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
\

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

Actually, CSP simply does not work, it has nothing to do with falling prices, that debate was laid to rest in the appropriate thread.

All of your rants are addressed in the Energy threads.

lol, ONLY in the 'reality' that you right wingers live in


PLEASE one policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

And the far left continues to spew their programmed talking points..

However lets answer the one question this far left hack keeps asking..

How about the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

You mean the bill that more Dems supported, and it was mainly opposed by the SOUTHERN members of both parties, we call them CONSERVATIVES and they are mainly GOPers today?

BTW, that wasn't policy!!

AND YOU NEED TO TRY TO GO BACK 60 YEARS? LOL

 

[Kosh]

And the far left/AGW propaganda continues...

The Sierra Club, for instance, has petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a license issued for the Calico Solar Energy Project, which the environmental group argues would harm the imperiled desert tortoise and other wildlife. A labor group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, also filed a petition on similar grounds.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/solar-projects-pit-green-against-green/

Sorry the environmentalists are against solar and wind energy.

Need to keep up on those far left groups within your own religion..

AND? lol

YOUR link NYTimes

Solar Projects Pit Green Against Green

lol

NOW FACTS:


K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

K Road notified the CEC that it was running into "transmission issues related to the CAISO," which might require modifications to its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and further delay the project's progress. And finally, days ago, K Road filed a brief letter with the CEC, tersely citing "changed market conditions" (without clarifying) in its inability to move the project forward.

The Calico saga illustrates yet again the sufferings of proposed large-scale solar energy projects using solar thermal (or concentrated solar) technologies, which initially made economic sense but have became increasingly unrealistic as PV prices have plummeted.

K Road Gives Up on Calico Solar Project

Actually, CSP simply does not work, it has nothing to do with falling prices, that debate was laid to rest in the appropriate thread.

All of your rants are addressed in the Energy threads.

lol, ONLY in the 'reality' that you right wingers live in


PLEASE one policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

And the far left continues to spew their programmed talking points..

However lets answer the one question this far left hack keeps asking..

How about the 1964 Civil Rights Act...

You mean the bill that more Dems supported, and it was mainly opposed by the SOUTHERN members of both parties, we call them CONSERVATIVES and they are mainly GOPers today?

BTW, that wasn't policy!!

And the far left continues with their propaganda when shown true and actual facts they deny them for their religious propaganda..

 

[elektra]

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

YOU made the posit dummy, YOU source it. THEN I'LL TEAR IT APART WITH THE TRUTH

So you can not answer the simple question yet you support Solar?

How much have we spent on Solar and Wind. The money has been spent, should be easy for you to account for the cost.

We can all see you ran to a Google and came back with anything but the answer.

When asked a simple question, the green energy supporters will never answer, because they have zero knowledge, it's what they believe, hence they search for answers related to their beliefs, they have not the knowledge to know the simple technical terms to search.

Like, Capacity Factor.

Weird, YOU set up a false premise, $500 billion spent on green energy' in 2 years, and claim failure THEN ask me to provide a link? lol

WINGNUTTER, YOU MADE THE CLAIM, I CALLED YOU A FUKKKING LIAR, YOU PROVE IT!!!

Okay, I am wrong, how much was spent, I mean you are saying I am wrong and you can only know I am wrong if you know the correct answer, so go ahead and just tell us how much was spent.

YOU made the posit, you pulled it out of your ass, why should I need to prove anything?

Oh, sorry, I was simply treating you like you knew what you are talking about.

It is clear to all of us, that you tried to find the cost of solar, and could not.

The total cost of Solar is never published.

Those who support Solar can not state the cost nor admit the cost.

Over 500$ billion in two years spent on green energy. One solar plant alone cost 2.1 billion, Ivanpah, that is the easy number on one solar project, likely it cost twice as much if we could account for all the costs and subsidies.

1 solar project, over 2 billion dollars, and there are hundreds of solar power projects.

So you think I am wrong, based on what, your imagination. You obviously have yet to produce one number.

Ivanpah, 2.1 billion, that is one solar project.

There are 100's