The Solar Swindle

[Old Rocks]

I see the far left posters are at it again:

Solar power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation of the solar panels on a house is close to 30 years. Not to mention that there are environmental groups that are opposed to large solar farms.

Wind power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation is 25 years pending on how big and how many turbines are set up. These are only good in windy areas and once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Wave power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The costs vary and the recuperation costs vary pending the size and area it they are set up in. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Hydro-electric power is another avenue that is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The recuperation costs are around 50+ years pending the size of the damn. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

I see the one far left poster in particular mention the Tesla battery, well those batteries are very harmful to the environment. These cares are limited on the miles it can be driven between charges. And once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years? Not to mention if something bad ever happens the devastation it causes. Many environmentalists are against this, but not as much as all the other forms of energy combined.

Gasoline could be manufactured better to be more efficient and cleaner burning, except that the far left is against lifting the draconian laws put in place to allow tis to happen. So they go to the car manufactures and tell them to adapt the cars to the inefficient way the US makes fuel. Even back in the eighties the Oil companies told congress that they could make the product more efficient and burn cleaner, the far left house run by Tip O'Neil said NO! This later came up once again when the AGW farce was being heard before congress when the Hack James Hansen was presenting his religious belief as science. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Natural gas is a clean and efficient way to power and heat buildings. The methods for gather natural gas have always be in question by the more radical environmental groups, but so far all the money they have spent trying to demonize this industry have shown it is about a belief and not any facts. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Many of the so called alternative energy sources can help supplement energy, but is no where close to replacement. There will be little advancement in these areas. especially in solar and wind as many cash strapped governments have shut down their alternative energy projects in favor of their over bloated social programs.

Commercial Nuclear power waste

First and foremost it can be recycled, used again, like in France. Zero problems. Its called Breeder reactors.

Second we have tens of thousands of tons of Commercial Nuclear waste stored above ground in the USA with zero problems. Over 55 years of Spent Nuclear fuel.

Third, spent nuclear fuel is transferred across the USA all the time, every year, for decades. Zero problems.

December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989. 1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.

December 1962
A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious."

U.S. Nuclear Accidents

 

[flacaltenn]

Pardon me for not quoting GOLDIROCKS on those tales of nuclear woe he posted above.. Ive seen almost every "horror story " while debating the anti nuke kukes over the years... So Fernald is very familiar. Fernald was a key component of our cold war nuclear weapons program.. Almost EVERY complaint of major nuclear contamination in US history is on the GOVT hands.. Including the modern day CRISIS of 100s of leaking drums at Savanah River, Hanford, Oak Ridge and othe GOVT weapons facilities... Theres a lesson here about how the govt that leftists adore becomes the most flagrant and unethical polluter.

in addition MOST of those transport accidents of ""low level waste are MEDICAL refuse from 1000s of Nuclear Med Departments in every county in the nation. BY VOLUME, this is are largest and most widespread nuclear waste issue.

NONE of this gets hung onto commercial nuclear power.. No matter how hard you try. Whether you are TRYING to imply a connection where none exists or not.. In fact, the incompetence of GOVT handling of their weapons program only makes us appreciate the safety and diligience in commercial nuclear power.

 

[elektra]

The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power. Don't believe a word of it. One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:

American Thinker- Print Article

Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy.

Solar electricity is expensive and impractical. If it weren't for government subsidies, some explicit and some disguised, the solar industry would collapse. The many claims of competitiveness are always based on ignoring subsidies provided to politically correct renewable power, ignoring the costs associated with unreliability, and ignoring the cost of backup fossil fuel plants.

An example of a hidden subsidy is the California Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from so-called renewable sources by 2020. This mandate forces utilities to contract for expensive sources of energy, such as solar. The cost is passed on to the utility customers with the connivance of the government. Although the motivation behind the California scheme is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, politically incorrect sources of CO2-free electricity, such as nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric, can't be counted as renewable.

People whose knowledge of electricity production ends at their wall outlet are dictating national energy policy. Magical thinking by hopelessly ignorant political activists permeates the alternative energy universe.

How much does electricity from conventional sources cost? If I look at my ComEd (Chicago) bill, the charge for electricity is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH). Additional charges for delivering the electricity and various taxes increase the total to about 10 cents per KWH. This is electricity mainly from coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Electricity is available at the plant gate in much of the U.S. for about 5 cents per KWH.​

The problem conservatives have with solar energy is that it can't be controlled and exploited like other conventional sources of energy that come from mines, and oil wells etc. And why would that be? Because nobody owns the sun.

Consequently, any source of energy that's potentially a rival to the owners of conventional sources of energy who are accustomed to profiting off the exploitation of natural resources, they can expect a dirty fight to keep their energy source as expensive and as unavailable as possible.

Meanwhile, let's pony up some more tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile.

Solar panels start as raw materials like silica from mines so to begin any discussion you must acknowledge you have no idea of what your talking about.

 

[flacaltenn]

The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power. Don't believe a word of it. One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:

American Thinker- Print Article

Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy.

Solar electricity is expensive and impractical. If it weren't for government subsidies, some explicit and some disguised, the solar industry would collapse. The many claims of competitiveness are always based on ignoring subsidies provided to politically correct renewable power, ignoring the costs associated with unreliability, and ignoring the cost of backup fossil fuel plants.

An example of a hidden subsidy is the California Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from so-called renewable sources by 2020. This mandate forces utilities to contract for expensive sources of energy, such as solar. The cost is passed on to the utility customers with the connivance of the government. Although the motivation behind the California scheme is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, politically incorrect sources of CO2-free electricity, such as nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric, can't be counted as renewable.

People whose knowledge of electricity production ends at their wall outlet are dictating national energy policy. Magical thinking by hopelessly ignorant political activists permeates the alternative energy universe.

How much does electricity from conventional sources cost? If I look at my ComEd (Chicago) bill, the charge for electricity is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH). Additional charges for delivering the electricity and various taxes increase the total to about 10 cents per KWH. This is electricity mainly from coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Electricity is available at the plant gate in much of the U.S. for about 5 cents per KWH.​

The problem conservatives have with solar energy is that it can't be controlled and exploited like other conventional sources of energy that come from mines, and oil wells etc. And why would that be? Because nobody owns the sun.

Consequently, any source of energy that's potentially a rival to the owners of conventional sources of energy who are accustomed to profiting off the exploitation of natural resources, they can expect a dirty fight to keep their energy source as expensive and as unavailable as possible.

Meanwhile, let's pony up some more tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile.

Solar panels start as raw materials like silica from mines so to begin any discussion you must acknowledge you have no idea of what your talking about.

Correct.. I saw that grossly naive post from the Mustang and debated whether it would do any good to fix all those misconceptions.

1) "Solar energy can't be controlled or exploited... " So our Solar marketing/engineering competition that we've lost to (primarily) China doesn't allow THEM to exploit the US for supply of Solar power?
The large companies formed to design, build and operate Solar Energy Generation stations aren't setting their own prices??

2) "No one owns the Sun" ---- If it's all free and democratic, how come it has to be MASSIVELY subsidized? The eco-nauts have this juvenile view of a power generator being all about the fuel that it runs.. It's equipment repair/maintenance and labor and LAND AND FACILITIES as well. PLENTY of costs and investments that SOMEONE might make.. And even if the sun is FREE --- this operation only runs about 6 hours a day ON A GOOD DAY.

When you reach a threshold of flaky renewables on your grid -- the costs start to escalate as you must add WHOPPING LARGE storage mechanisms to avoid destabilizing during switching generators when renewables suddenly decide to take a break. Haven't even BEGUN to see how expensive "a free Sun" really can be..

Especially because for every Solar farm or Wind Field, there's a REAL GENERATOR idling and wasting fuel and personnel salaries waiting for a passing cloud or a null in the wind.. You are paying for TWO generators --- when ONE would do.. .

 

[Politico]

Electricity consumers are getting fucked up the ass for every watt of solar installed.

That's the bottom line.

Ahh that's what this is really about. Me saving money costs you more and it's pissing you off.

If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.

A $35,000 solar installation produces enough electricity to power a hair dryer. How is anyone possibly going to charge their EV with such a source? And then what happens at night? Every watt of solar requires a watt of conventional backup. How can that possibly be as cheap as just relying on conventional?

That is really clueless.

 

[jon_berzerk]

what ..? Like pajama boy and most liberal pansies?

oh yeh. Care to follow this 70 year old lib around? Bet your lazy couldn't do it. Two twelve hour days saturday and sunday. Tomorrow and new years day, ten hour days. Millwright in a steel mill.

You are the one posting big numbers as if there is no alternative. You fellows post this shit and then expect the rest of us just to believe your numbers. And when we look up those numbers, find they are bogus, you post shit like the 'pajama boy' referance. Mentally, you must be a retarded 13 year old.

boy! It must really suck to be you,working at 70? I was done at 46.
Stupid liberal.....
As far as following a union member around? I dont see how walking to the break room every half hour would be considered exhausting. But at seventy i guess it might be.

--lol

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.

I am conservative. I use solar power. I am completely off-grid. Solar power has its limits. I have not grid to sell my "excess" power to. But solar and wind energy are limited. You cannot power major industry or an entire city off either.

 

[elektra]

I see the far left posters are at it again:

Solar power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation of the solar panels on a house is close to 30 years. Not to mention that there are environmental groups that are opposed to large solar farms.

Wind power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation is 25 years pending on how big and how many turbines are set up. These are only good in windy areas and once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Wave power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The costs vary and the recuperation costs vary pending the size and area it they are set up in. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Hydro-electric power is another avenue that is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The recuperation costs are around 50+ years pending the size of the damn. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

I see the one far left poster in particular mention the Tesla battery, well those batteries are very harmful to the environment. These cares are limited on the miles it can be driven between charges. And once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years? Not to mention if something bad ever happens the devastation it causes. Many environmentalists are against this, but not as much as all the other forms of energy combined.

Gasoline could be manufactured better to be more efficient and cleaner burning, except that the far left is against lifting the draconian laws put in place to allow tis to happen. So they go to the car manufactures and tell them to adapt the cars to the inefficient way the US makes fuel. Even back in the eighties the Oil companies told congress that they could make the product more efficient and burn cleaner, the far left house run by Tip O'Neil said NO! This later came up once again when the AGW farce was being heard before congress when the Hack James Hansen was presenting his religious belief as science. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Natural gas is a clean and efficient way to power and heat buildings. The methods for gather natural gas have always be in question by the more radical environmental groups, but so far all the money they have spent trying to demonize this industry have shown it is about a belief and not any facts. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Many of the so called alternative energy sources can help supplement energy, but is no where close to replacement. There will be little advancement in these areas. especially in solar and wind as many cash strapped governments have shut down their alternative energy projects in favor of their over bloated social programs.

Commercial Nuclear power waste

First and foremost it can be recycled, used again, like in France. Zero problems. Its called Breeder reactors.

Second we have tens of thousands of tons of Commercial Nuclear waste stored above ground in the USA with zero problems. Over 55 years of Spent Nuclear fuel.

Third, spent nuclear fuel is transferred across the USA all the time, every year, for decades. Zero problems.

December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989. 1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.

December 1962
A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious."

U.S. Nuclear Accidents

You must be agitatated or something, you realize that your posts have nothing to do with the points I made.

I stated "Spent Nuclear Fuel", as in High Level Radioactive Waste from Commercial Power Plants. Do you know the difference between Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and what you described which is a Liberal managed Department of Energy project. Of course the government is unaccountable to the public, I was not speaking of the accountability of the government bureaucracy you support and praise.

Further, your also going back to Liberal Democrat administrations to try and support your false premise. Seriously, you had to go back to the last Century to try and find something?

Hey, a lots has changed since John F. Kennedy got shot, 1962? Was that back when they transported the Nuclear waste with horse drawn carriages?