View Full Version : Mike Rosen and Hick
Mike says, if wind energy was competitive, we wouldn't have to force companies to use it. Hick says, well when you account for the subsidy, it's very competitive. Am I fooking stupid or am I missing something. Isn't the government running a deficit? Aren't they threatening to cut services and social security? Maybe some of the more liberal minded can explain to me the reasoning that hick used.
kidicarus13
05-09-2013, 11:21
It doesn't make any sense at all and never will. Subsidies are a liberals way of tilting the fairness scale to whatever side best serves them and their agenda.
Mike says, if wind energy was competitive, we wouldn't have to force companies to use it..
Mike is right except I would have worded it differently.
My version = Mike says, if wind energy was competitive it would stand on its own without government subsidies.
Hick says, well when you account for the subsidy, it's very competitive. Am I fooking stupid or am I missing something. Isn't the government running a deficit? Aren't they threatening to cut services and social security? Maybe some of the more liberal minded can explain to me the reasoning that hick used.
You are not stupid, people who believe in what Hick said are stupid. This is the same old liberal shit, something means whatever idiocy the liberal can pin to it. To hell with the truth.
Using wind and solar on an individual house might make sense but only if the government doesn't subsidize the homeowner directly or indirectly through Xcel.
Using wind and solar to power an entire metropolitan area is beyond stupid. The scale of efficiency does not apply.
Natural gas, coal, and oil are 24x7 energy generators, wind and solar only work when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Don't get me started on the batteries and the toxic wastes generated during their production and disposal.
losttrail
05-09-2013, 12:31
Listening to Hick makes my skin crawl. Possibly one of the least eloquent speakers ever. Stammering, halting, can't articulate worth crap.
Just shows then mentality of those that voted for him.
hghclsswhitetrsh
05-09-2013, 12:36
Delete
Bottom line, aside from liberal idiocy...
Right now dino juice, dino farts and coal are the cheapest. When the price goes up, viola, we find new reserves. The next best viable energy source is nuclear, but we still have to mine to get the raw materials, so the enviro whackos have successfully shut that down. Directional drilling with propellant fracturing and leach recovery is now a viable option for nuclear fuel materials, but they won't even grant exploratory permits to use the technology.
The oil companies have owned patents for technologies that can slightly improve petroleum efficiency, and they slowly get modified and re-applied. The .gov is holding the reins on one end, big oil is holding the reins on the other, we get squished in the middle. That is the new American way folks. The sheep are too stupid to figure it out and the libs have demonized business to the point where they all swoon around the protector liberal government.
Mike is right except I would have worded it differently.
My version = Mike says, if wind energy was competitive it would stand on its own without government subsidies.
You are not stupid, people who believe in what Hick said are stupid. This is the same old liberal shit, something means whatever idiocy the liberal can pin to it. To hell with the truth.
Using wind and solar on an individual house might make sense but only if the government doesn't subsidize the homeowner directly or indirectly through Xcel.
Using wind and solar to power an entire metropolitan area is beyond stupid. The scale of efficiency does not apply.
Natural gas, coal, and oil are 24x7 energy generators, wind and solar only work when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Don't get me started on the batteries and the toxic wastes generated during their production and disposal.
Nail, meet hammer! Pretty much. From everything I've learned in coming up with "let's see if these libs are onto something or completely full of shit" research, the efficiency percentages for wind and solar is absurdly low, the scale needed to produce much of anything is astronomical- look at it this way, the average home uses 14,000 kwh of electricity per year. Narrow that down to an average of 40 kwh per day. 8 sq ft of solar panel produces approx 1/3 kwh per day (with 4 hours of sunlight producing at roughly 12% efficiency). You would need about 67 panels (at 8 square feet that's 536 sq ft) just to produce one day's worth of power, and that's if it's a sunny day for the entirety of the day. Yeah, come back to me when it's as effective and cheap as coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear.
Caithford
05-09-2013, 13:23
Bottom line, aside from liberal idiocy...
Right now dino juice, dino farts and coal are the cheapest. When the price goes up, viola, we find new reserves. The next best viable energy source is nuclear, but we still have to mine to get the raw materials, so the enviro whackos have successfully shut that down. Directional drilling with propellant fracturing and leach recovery is now a viable option for nuclear fuel materials, but they won't even grant exploratory permits to use the technology.
The oil companies have owned patents for technologies that can slightly improve petroleum efficiency, and they slowly get modified and re-applied. The .gov is holding the reins on one end, big oil is holding the reins on the other, we get squished in the middle. That is the new American way folks. The sheep are too stupid to figure it out and the libs have demonized business to the point where they all swoon around the protector liberal government.
The worst part is that nuclear technology has only gotten better, more efficient and safer, yet everyone is still stuck on Chernobyl and 3 mile island. What happened in Japan last year was also a fluke not related to the plant itself, but rather to the fact the place flooded and they lost control of the cooling system.
If renewable energy was more efficient and less expensive I have no doubt it will replace non-renewable energy. The problem is, as mentioned above, that some sections of the country just aren't good for solar/wind. Seattle, for example. Now some of the wave energy harvesting technology is gaining efficiency and popularity, but that's over in Europe.
The problem in this case IS big oil preventing the development or deployment of non-oil technologies. In the end they are screwing themselves along with the rest of us.
Especially because we just ship the med/high sulfur oil out of the states and import low sulfur oil in. What a waste.
So I completely agree, I am looking for an argument, qualify that, an argument based on reason, that explains what the other 51% think. How could it possibly be good to subsidize bad business. Is there something else you've heard besides, "If it saves only one tree, isn't it worth it"?
Ever heard the saying "If you tell a good kid he is bad long enough, he will end up in jail."
Same thing here. The libs with the MSM just keep piping this crap into the sheeple (schools, colleges, etc.) who have been taught to beleive in .gov and distrust business. There is no good science, logical thought or otherwise to promote the general push towards renewable energy in any sizeable chunk.
I am not against renewables (wind, hydro, thermal, solar, etc.) as they have merit in small bites. I have designed $100K+ off grid renewable systems for multi-million dollar homes, heck I grew up in a solar home (that worked) and my Dad worked at NREL when it was still called SERI. I know what the technologies are, heck my Dad and I have both worked on them in the R&D phase, and their merits. But, as an engineer, I also have to look at the cradle to grave costs in order to bring about a viable system. With the government funding, the $ got in the way of science. Keep working at it, and getting paid in a good job with benefits or say it won't work and go work at Burger King? That is the formula for many on the gravy train for renewable energy.
One more thing. I have worked on a few systems for extremely wealthy people who wanted "green" homes. As long as they knew it was going to cost more, be less "comfortable" and require advanced maintenance, I would design a system. In other cases, never put pen to paper because the eventual owners were too stupid to understand what they were asking for. I've worked those cases when they ended up in court as well.
So I completely agree, I am looking for an argument, qualify that, an argument based on reason, that explains what the other 51% think. How could it possibly be good to subsidize bad business. Is there something else you've heard besides, "If it saves only one tree, isn't it worth it"?
Reason? You're not going to get reason from a bunch of morons.
Nail, meet hammer! Pretty much. From everything I've learned in coming up with "let's see if these libs are onto something or completely full of shit" research, the efficiency percentages for wind and solar is absurdly low, the scale needed to produce much of anything is astronomical- look at it this way, the average home uses 14,000 kwh of electricity per year. Narrow that down to an average of 40 kwh per day. 8 sq ft of solar panel produces approx 1/3 kwh per day (with 4 hours of sunlight producing at roughly 12% efficiency). You would need about 67 panels (at 8 square feet that's 536 sq ft) just to produce one day's worth of power, and that's if it's a sunny day for the entirety of the day. Yeah, come back to me when it's as effective and cheap as coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear.
Holy cow!! How much does that cost and when do the savings equal the costs?
Caithford
05-09-2013, 15:43
Sadly the technology just isn't there yet. I should have stated that earlier. I'm hoping that it will, one day, replace non-renewable energy sources, but I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
Holy cow!! How much does that cost and when do the savings equal the costs?
Estimates put it at about $53,000 initial investment... not sure, I don't have the numbers for savings...
spqrzilla
05-09-2013, 15:57
At present, everything I've seen in numbers show that solar panels don't pay back their investment within the expected lifespan of their components.
At present, everything I've seen in numbers show that solar panels don't pay back their investment within the expected lifespan of their components.
Even with our money the government uses to subsidize it?
Sadly the technology just isn't there yet. I should have stated that earlier. I'm hoping that it will, one day, replace non-renewable energy sources, but I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
Oil and coal are technically "renewing", there just is just a longer time delay.
Actually, there is a LOT of technology that is "there". We are just not willing to use it. Synthetic diesel from coal and sewage have great ROI. We bury trash instead of burn it, we waste substantial amounts of "efficiency" in our power plants when we burn coal. less with natural gas.
In addition, IF we wanted to, we could cut our fuel demand in half by building smaller houses, more efficient signal light timing, altering speed limits, reducing the amount of stop signs. Elimination of PED cross whenever crosswalks, etc.
Fact is, we don't want to!
Yes, more efficient coal. Instead of shipping overseas to a dirtier plant, I agree. Smaller homes, enjoy yourself, I like mine the way it is. Lower speed limits??? No. I agree with the crosswalks, watching cars idle while somebody waddles across the street is painful. Traffic design, cool.
Yes, more efficient coal. Instead of shipping overseas to a dirtier plant, I agree. Smaller homes, enjoy yourself, I like mine the way it is. Lower speed limits??? No. I agree with the crosswalks, watching cars idle while somebody waddles across the street is painful. Traffic design, cool.
Your home is probably fine. Do you realize that about 5% of the homes in the US use 30% of the electricity?
Lower Speed limits...not what I said. On main roads, if we increased the speeds 10mph on road the fuel savings is close to 7%. If coupled with properly timed lights, tickets for not using merge and acceleration lanes, etc. the realized savings could be close to 15%.
It is not the idle, it is the start and stop that burns the fuel.
I misunderstood, I thought you were proposing max in the 60 mph range. I'm sure my house is fine, any smaller and the kids would have to sleep with me. ;)
Jeffrey Lebowski
05-09-2013, 21:49
My dad spent his career as a traffic engineer doing signs, his buddy who I've known my whole life did the signals for a large city in the upper midwest.
You'd think timing the lights would be easy. Especially in a city that, much like Denver, makes up almost the whole of the county's namesake.
Nope, just like LE jurisdictions, these are pissing matches between city/county/state of the highest order that you, the little guy, ends up losing.
Yep. We did a study for Denver, which they paid $200K for, in 1986 on signal timing and the politics is what shot it down. We were looking as reducing emissions on the order of tons per day. Some cities actually will time their lights to ensure people have to stop in certain retail zones.
Yep. We did a study for Denver, which they paid $200K for, in 1986 on signal timing and the politics is what shot it down. We were looking as reducing emissions on the order of tons per day. Some cities actually will time their lights to ensure people have to stop in certain retail zones.
Exactly, I've always thought this. They are looking for the impulse buyer in order to increase city/state income from sales taxes and they'll waste everyone else's time and fuel to do it.
blacklabel
05-10-2013, 07:11
Exactly, I've always thought this. They are looking for the impulse buyer in order to increase city/state income from sales taxes and they'll waste everyone else's time and fuel to do it.
And what is their incentive to improve fuel economy or reduce fuel usage. If they do, state income from fuel taxes is reduced further hurting their income.
hghclsswhitetrsh
05-10-2013, 07:25
We as Americans, have no one to blame for the situation we are in. Whether it be politics, bitching about made in china shit, foreign dependence on oil etc. Wait till boulder gets off the xcel grid and manages its own power and gas bought from xcel and other companies. We should build a moat around that city, no ways in or out. Do weekly air drops of hash brownies and all will be right with the world.
And what is their incentive to improve fuel economy or reduce fuel usage. If they do, state income from fuel taxes is reduced further hurting their income.
Exactly. The more we idle, the more gas we use, the more gas tax (43 cents a gallon) they collect.
Nail, meet hammer! Pretty much. From everything I've learned in coming up with "let's see if these libs are onto something or completely full of shit" research, the efficiency percentages for wind and solar is absurdly low, the scale needed to produce much of anything is astronomical- look at it this way, the average home uses 14,000 kwh of electricity per year. Narrow that down to an average of 40 kwh per day. 8 sq ft of solar panel produces approx 1/3 kwh per day (with 4 hours of sunlight producing at roughly 12% efficiency). You would need about 67 panels (at 8 square feet that's 536 sq ft) just to produce one day's worth of power, and that's if it's a sunny day for the entirety of the day. Yeah, come back to me when it's as effective and cheap as coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear.
Hmmm, that's weird because I know a couple people that have net zero houses via solar panels.
Hmmm, that's weird because I know a couple people that have net zero houses via solar panels.
Not weird, you've just bought into the liberal math. What house size, gross investment (minus tax write-offs and green comps) for all systems (main and back-up) and the system lifespan.
Do the math, and you WILL see a "net loss".
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-20-2013, 08:46
On the gun debate Hick compared gun rights to water rights and having to balance rural vs urban constituencies. Since when is an finite resource in any way linked to an unalienable right? If we have more CCWers in Weld, does that mean that we have to have less in Boulder??? Dumb-ass/.
GilpinGuy
05-20-2013, 23:31
Why does Rosen even have Hick on anyway? He never really answers a question....ever.
Why does Rosen even have Hick on anyway? He never really answers a question....ever.
KOA likes the attention and cachet of having the governor on the show, been doing it for years. Rosen likes to grill them a little and in this case I like having the governor's actual agenda exposed.
So I watched something this weekend that kind of pissed me off about this whole "green" energy thing. I'm sure a lot of folks here know more about it than "the average low info voter," and I've never seen the doc referenced in this one, but "FrackNation", done by a freelance video-journalist from Ireland addressed issues with "Gasland"- an anti-fracking "documentary" that is pretty much all lies and liberal BS. As most of you probably know, fracking is not this terrible, environmentally damaging technique, like many lead us to believe. And I really don't understand why. But this whole "green" idea that the left is pushing is stupid- getting full board behind something that is, as yet, not fully tested and proven, and still somewhere between 5-30% efficient, and abandoning what we currently have because of a BS belief that it's hurting the environment. Tells me the left has never heard of the oil companies "reclamation" projects after a drilling operation is concluded (basically leaving things better than you found them). Let's not forget that my neighbors 2500 Cummins is better for the environment than a Prius- see: Batteries, the toxic process that goes into making them, and the even worse disposal process.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.