Why does the left demonize affordable energy?

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rustic]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rustic]

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

Stop making excuses.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

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

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

Stop making excuses.

For what? You aren't making sense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

That plane is impractical for anything but a science project

That aircraft is a Sierra Club member's wet dream

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

 

[washamericom]

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

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

that would cool down the earth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hazlnut]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idiot.

Nothing "affordable about dirty energy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idiot.

Nothing "affordable about dirty energy.

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

 

[washamericom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

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

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

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