iOwnTheWorld.com

It should be Nuclear 99%. ‘Nuff said.

+7

You don’t need all that power if you can only own bike.

+2

“Alternative energy – because all the nerds who SUCKED at LIFE in high school, now SAY SO!”

+4

@TMT, I agree. We are still in the Stone Age.

And this article is a load of crap. Surprise!

+2

I operate large scale solar power plants. It’s cool and all but the cost per kw is high.

+1

I read somewhere yesterday that Obama was visiting a 300+ acre wind farm in Nevada, the biggest one in the U.S. I think, that produced one tenth of the energy of one mid-sized coal plant. Where did I read that? Was it here? I need to find that link.

+3

of all the choices ask yourself which one can put a 747 in the sky

+6

Green energy = low flow = sucks

+4

…I think I mean solar. I gotta find that link.

+1

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/21/obama-returns-nevada-time-promote-energy-policies/

is this what you mean redact?

+4

Gas, Hmm, I make this 3 bean slow burn chili that, ah never mind, you never get it past the EPA.

+1

This is probably the best energy breakdown chart I know of; so much information in one source:

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/pecss_btu_2010-large.jpg

For example, transportation takes about 27% of our consumption; of that, over 90% is oil sourced.

The electric power breakout is interestimg too.

I know it’s not popular to talk about electric powered cars, but based on the above we could get totally independent of foreign oil for exampe if we could just get about 50% or so of our commuters into electric vehicles. My own commute is about 40 miles round trip each day, and all of that could be accomplished on battery range if a charger was placed at work as well. Then the energy to run the whole weekly commute would come from our own US natural gas basically (or coal or nuclear), not middle east oil. Personally I like that scenario bette than making the Saudis ever richer.

Anyway, the chart is very informative.

0

I wrote an input to solar on a blog the pros and cons, figuring wattage, savings, cost per KW, consumption and usage, and I did it with an unbiased view.

Some people get it, others never will, its just basic math and not that hard to understand.

On another note, i personally stopped 1 of these fly by night scams from putting a 4 million dollar 900kw system in the local school.
It started out as “for 4 million we can get back 27 million in 45 years sales pitch” That threw up a flag to me, time I got done with these clowns the true price would’ve been 14 million breaking even after 30 years “if the panels never broke down and produced at least 65% capacity”
Thats with the government incentives.

These guys saw the school boards eyes light up and had them hook line and sinker until I started attending the meetings and writing letters to the editor. They were playing on the green scam and these asshats know the average joe (just like Obama) doesn’t know squat about solar, KW or SRECs.

+5

This is also the thing that amazes me about the Energy sucketary Chu. He’s supposedly a nobel peace prize winner, anyone with basic math skills can and should be able to figure out payback versus investment.
But the progs know its a line of shit and just an agenda driven ideology save mother earth hug a tree line of crap.

and then to hear Obama say the reason Solyndra failed was because of the Chinese….Helllloooo, its in my blog post from almost a year ago. China in 2011 committed 50 billion in solar production plants and was going to flood and corner the markets on solar panel.
Apparently no one in the WH reads the news or newspapers.
China claimed they’ll have solar panels down to $1-1.50 a watt by 2013.

So Solyndra was making panels at $6.25 a watt and selling them at $3 because of China, that math alone should’ve been reason enough not to approve the loan/scam.

+4

One of my favorite questions to leftards – “How is fossil fuel not biofuel???”

*do I hear crickets?

+3

NutJob, The points you bring up are all valid, however, there’s a couple you might not have been exposed to. Solyndra was using technology that was passe 5 years ago. The whole freaken company only existed to extract dollars out of out retarded president. And the people that were after the pay off got it. 3 years ago they were still in a freaken garage. Google it. Sucketary Chu as you appropriately put it worked hi up for the D.O.E. I’ve done some work for these guys and they are all theoretical. I’m serious, reality is an inconvenience for these guys. He’s not qualified to make any decisions regarding energy policies. LaLa land sums it up best. Theoretical VS practical.

+3

Thanks, Whosebone. That was the event. The exact article I was reading is this one:

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/Obama-sticks-with-solar-despite-setbacks_51451310

…and the relevant part that stunned me is paragraph 3:

“Obama will today visit the Copper Mountain Solar Facility, the nation’s most productive solar array, a 380-acre operation south of Las Vegas. The massive facility produces less than 10 percent of the power of one medium-sized coal plant but has plans for government-subsidized expansion to eventually produce nearly one-third as much power as a typical coal plant.”

I think those two sentences really brought it home for me. What a waste of resources. What a waste of land. What a waste of money. What a waste of working technology, to replace it with crap inefficient technology.

Also, some of the other articles I came across about this emphasize that only 10 employees are needed to run the solar plant. Green jobs, indeed. There’s our employment future right there, isn’t it?

+2

its all a scam redact

+2

Why do they keep on calling it Fossil Fuel ? Crude Oil is not made from animals and plants. It’s an Abiotic substance produced by the Earth.

+2

and quite possibly renewable drackhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_if_oil_and_natural_gas_are_renewable_resources.html

+1

@badbrad

Until they increase the efficiency conversion to power from the average of 15%, with the range now being 11-19%, its all theoretical.
Some firms even claim 40% in a lab.
But just like the whole scam industry they won’t produce what they say they will in the field being the percentage is in perfect lab conditions.

Which brings up another point, most claim they’ll produce 90% for for the 1st 5 or even 10 years, then 85% after that.

Try taking them to court when your system only produces 65%. You’ll lose being the 1st thing they’ll say is what was the temperature degree day? Well our panels were tested at 72 F and this is what they put out. So unless its 72 during the PSH (peak sunlight hours) all year long, we only guarantee 85% at these specs, knowing most people wouldn’t or don’t even know what their looking at when given the specs.

So essentially there is no Guarantee of production warranty as most people think.

Talk about a scam.

+1

I’m constantly amazed by the ignorance of many well-educated folk in Washington who know absolutely nothing of the laws of physics, yet legislate as though they do.

Their willingness to believe in the scam of global warming has cost us untold trillions of dollars in waste and lost productivity. Even though it has been debunked, there are still many who are proceeding ahead, issuing more stifling regulations based on it, ignorant of that fact.

How do we find the right people to elect who have a healthy suspicion of the latest fad, and who will at least try to examine a mistaken premise before embracing it?

+4

And, it’s not just energy that oil is used for. It’s only everything:

- phones
- cars
- computers
- containers
- packaging

Etc, etc….

All the more reason for us to DRILL HERE NOW!!!

+2

Nutjob. It’s worse then that. The DOE, where are Secretary Of Energy comes from, is not and has not been working on Solar Panels. They have been spending Bazilions on Fusion Energy (NIFT). They have about 150 miles of concrete tunnels at the Lab with crystals and mirror in an attempt to magnify a lazer and shoot it at various isotopes in a miniature coors can. They’ve been working on this for probably 20 years and are no closer now then when they started. All theoretical. Unfortunately my truck doesn’t run on theoretical diesel.

+1

@muddjuice — I’ve had that discussion with many libturds on the web and not one of them gets it. Once moron on YouTube was actually trying to tell me that bioplastics were better than oil-based plastics. If they’re so good, why aren’t the free market investment dollars rolling in?

When I explained about even simple things like plastic medicine bottles he said, “Really? That’s all you got?” He had no comprehension about how much a glass medicine bottle with metal cap and pure rubber sealer would cost. Not to mention trying to make one of those things child-proof, which is no problem for flexible plastic.

Of course, he was complaining about oil while on-line and using his plastic keyboard and computer, over plastic-coated network lines, talking to plastic-based servers…well, you get the idea.

+1

@Patriot…“My own commute is about 40 miles round trip each day, and all of that could be accomplished on battery range if a charger was placed at work as well.”

So, clarify something for me: You’d readily buy one of those Electric Firetraps from Government Motors if your Boss subsidized half the energy costs for your commute?

…yah, me too

0