Mike Rosen and Hick

[Jamnanc]

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]

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.

[roberth]

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]

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]

Delete

[MarkCO]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

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.

[Jamnanc]

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"?

[MarkCO]

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.