How Much For One Peanut?

[Flanders]

Even if you do NOT shop at Whole Foods, you will still pay for the higher prices:

Whole Foods is going to use more solar panels to power its supermarkets... because it's so GOOOOOD for the ENVIRO-MENT.....

XXXXX​

Solar energy is in keeping with the Whole Foods image but it will also save the company money, because the solar providers can offer electricity at prices below what the stores and centers would normally pay utilities.

That's a lie. Solar power is many times more expensive than conventional power. The supermarket will have to pass on this faddish devotion on in the form of higher prices. $3 bananas will become $5 bananas. $5 oranges will become $8 oranges. If there are subsidies to compensate for this, it will still come out of the pocket of you, the taxpayer.

XXXXX​

This is not about saving money. It won't. It will cost money, whether Whole Foods or ultimately you, the taxpayer.

Whole Foods using solar power so it can charge $5 for a banana

Whole Foods using solar power so it can charge $5 for a banana​

If environmental freakazoids want to cover the cost of higher food prices they should find a sucker and bet the family jewels that Whole Foods will get a subsidy in one form or another.

I do not know which is wackier, one $5.00 banana or this:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday that she has explored ways to “take action” on turning climate-change denial into a federal crime.​

DOJ explores 'action' against climate-change deniers
Posted By Douglas Ernst On 03/09/2016 @ 9:43 pm

DOJ explores ‘action’ against climate-change deniers​

I better get it in before it becomes a crime. THERE IS NO MANMADE CLIMATE-CHANGE DESTROYING THE PLANET NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.

Question: Can anyone be arrested for not buying food from Whole Foods?

 

[Crick]

Where do a certain set of people get the idea that fossil fuels are free?

 

[Old Rocks]

Exageration, hyperbole, and general lies and idiocy are Flanders style. He seems to think that private companies can do anything they like, provided what they like agrees with his politics. He, and those like him, would prohibit you and I, or private companies, from creating their own electricity. Stalinist capitalism!

 

[Flanders]

Where do a certain set of people get the idea that fossil fuels are free?

To Crick: Who believes they are free? An abundance of fossil fuels makes them inexpensive, while all of the so-called alternative energy sources are very expensive for the small amount they produce. Bottom line: United Nations environmental scams enrich the parasite class; i.e., everybody who gets rich on tax subsidies.

 

[Crick]

If I can make energy with zero fuel costs, I can amortize the initial investment over the entire life of the system with no more running costs than an occasional rinse. Petroleum is not inexpensive. It is less expensive than it once was, but it is not cheap. And no matter how cheap it gets (and there are strong indications that it will never get cheaper than it is right now) it will always be an added cost to you. And besides, moving parts wear out much faster than those that do not.

I refuse to believe you're this stupid, but the only alternative is that you choose to be dishonest so you've got something to argue with. Why is it so bloody hard for all of you to see that you lost this argument years ago? Just drop out and come back with a new name and stop posting here and making yourself look like complete fools.

 

[Flanders]

If I can make energy with zero fuel costs, I can amortize the initial investment over the entire life of the system with no more running costs than an occasional rinse.

To Crick: If wind farms and solar panels are such good investments they would have eliminated fossil fuels a long time ago, nor would they require taxpayer subsidies. The hustlers hope to make more money à la Solyndra-type investments in the next round of SUBSIDIZED failed alternative energy companies. Taxpayers already forked over tens of billions of dollars for over thirty such failures.

Alternative energy sources is a tax dollar scam from top to bottom. The sharpshooters in the financial community jump in for a bite after tax dollars begin flowing to alternative energy companies. Simply put: Wall Street brokers cannot manipulate stock prices on non-existent companies.

More than a dozen technologies exist for producing non-fossil enery. Wind power and solar is the energy source parasites dearly love. Both are economic catastrophes. Wind power is also an environmental train wreck for birds. Nuclear power is the alternative energy source the freaks hate the most.

Wind power, solar power, and all of the rest of the so-called alternative energy sources support parasites on manmade climate change scare tactics. Petroleum and coal gave hustlers, parasites, and environmental freaks like you a body of designer-science to sell as scientific truth. You have to be a real asshole attempting to sell the economic benefits of a fraud.

I think you read all of my threads about the global warming fraud, but you still respond with nonsense. For that, I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to tell new readers what they should look for from your kind.

 

[Crick]

I love nuclear power and think we should build many more of them. I think we should continue to fund research into fusion power. And I think we should continue to build non-fossil energy plants using any technology that works in a given location: solar thermal, solar PV, wind, tide, wave, OTEC, hydroelectric, you name it; just as long as it emits no greenhouse gases in the process. I think the licensing process for building new energy plants should do everything possible to drive the industry away from fossil fuels. And the greater the impact on warming and pollution, the greater should that forcing be. The same should take place with transportation: the government should be funding EV research and should increase the subsidies and tax breaks for people buying EVs. There should also be an increase in public rail and bus transportation and walking and bicycling (by building paths).

 

[elektra]

Tesla Motors is supplying the panels, this is just another scam to prop of the bankruptcy of Elon Musk at our expense.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...s-rooftop-solar-solarcity-elon-musk/81472040/


Whole Foods plans to install rooftop solar panels at up to 100 locations in deals with NRG Energy and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's SolarCity.

NRG spokesperson Candice Adams said the company will install panels at up to 84 stores and distribution centers in nine states.

 

[Crick]

As for the costs of wind and solar power technologies, I would first like to make the observation that the technology is invading the world's power systems faster than anyone would have believed possible even a decade ago. As far as numbers, we find things like:

The Cost of Wind Energy in the U.S.

The Cost of Wind Energy in the U.S.

The Cost of Wind Energy in the U.S.

That investors would favor an industry with a favorable tax credit and move away were that credit to become uncertain actually says nothing about the value of the industry. This is why we have data like this from the conservative Atlantic magazine

That enormous drop in the 1st quarter of 2013 was due to uncertainty in the future of the tax credit. When investors were reassured, investments and new construction starts took up right where they left off. The problem is that you assign no value whatsoever to eliminating GHG emissions. That is your mistake.

For photovoltaics, read https://nature.berkeley.edu/~fowlie/PV_AR_2013.pdf. The highest cost per module is $2.36/kWh. How much do you think construction costs for a fossil fuel plant might run? And then, of course, there is the cost of FUEL that the PV gets for free. Forever.

 

[Crick]

Tesla Motors is supplying the panels, this is just another scam to prop of the bankruptcy of Elon Musk at our expense.

The bankruptcy of Elon Musk? SpaceX and Tesla almost failed, in 2008. Elon Musk's current NET worth is $10.7 billion.

 

[elektra]

Tesla Motors is supplying the panels, this is just another scam to prop of the bankruptcy of Elon Musk at our expense.

The bankruptcy of Elon Musk? SpaceX and Tesla almost failed, in 2008. Elon Musk's current NET worth is $10.7 billion.

Tesla motors loses millions every year. Elon Musk exsists as a corporate welfare subsidized parasite.

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps someone should tell Mrs. Elektra how many years Microsoft lost money every year.

 

[elektra]

Perhaps someone should tell Mrs. Elektra how many years Microsoft lost money every year.

Why dont you old liar, it is as easy as pie

 

[elektra]

Perhaps someone should tell Mrs. Elektra how many years Microsoft lost money every year.

And, maybe someone should tell Old Crock that Microsoft has never existed or profited from taxpayer subsidies.

 

[Crick]

The US Goverrnment decided to put Microsoft Office on every fucking computer the government owns and maintain them till the end of time. What do you think that little "subsidy" was worth?

 

[elektra]

The US Goverrnment decided to put Microsoft Office on every fucking computer the government owns and maintain them till the end of time. What do you think that little "subsidy" was worth?

Grow up baby boy, the government subsidizes Democrats by giving them jobs, hell lets start talking about all the Wind Turbines the Government buys for Corporations and then how the Government uses the Courts to force us to by the electricity at a higher price.

 

[Crick]

The federal government is not in the business of building wind farms. The government does have the right to enact and enforce environmental regulation on polluters such as the energy industry and the automobile industry. Or do you think the EPA and all their regulations should be thrown out?

 

[elektra]

The federal government is not in the business of building wind farms. The government does have the right to enact and enforce environmental regulation on polluters such as the energy industry and the automobile industry. Or do you think the EPA and all their regulations should be thrown out?

Of course the EPA and the regulations they make should be thrown out, nobody elected the EPA to make rules and regulations. That is the responsibility of Congress.

The Federal Government is in the business of building Wind Farms, they pay for it, through subsidies and tax breaks, tax breaks that can and are sold like a commodity. The Federal Government finances the Research that builds the Wind Turbines. The Federal Government even gives land for Wind Farms.

Selective enforcement of regulation of polluters and the targeting of specific businesses is the act of a Tyrannical government that must be stopped.

 

[Crick]

The federal government is not in the business of building wind farms. The government does have the right to enact and enforce environmental regulation on polluters such as the energy industry and the automobile industry. Or do you think the EPA and all their regulations should be thrown out?

Of course the EPA and the regulations they make should be thrown out, nobody elected the EPA to make rules and regulations. That is the responsibility of Congress.

You failed American Government class, didn't you? Or did you ever take it? Drop out of high school? That might explain how you failed to know Elektra was the name of a famous female character. It is the responsibility of the Congress to write and pass laws (which must be signed off by the Executive and which the Judicial has the power to revoke). It is the responsibility of the Executive branch's regulatory agencies to write regulations to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If you think Congress has the ability or the desire to write all the regulations enforced by the Executive branch's agencies, you're out of your mind.

The Federal Government is in the business of building Wind Farms, they pay for it, through subsidies and tax breaks, tax breaks that can and are sold like a commodity.

1) The federal government subsidizes your mortgage. Did they build your house?
2) Tax breaks cannot be "sold like a commodity". The underlying brick-and-mortar can, but not the subsidy.
3) The government provides subsidies and tax breaks to activities it wishes to encourage. It does so because it believes those activities will benefit the American people. The choices of activities to subsidize are made by the Congress, not regulatory agencies, and are thus the decisions of the people's elected representatives.

The Federal Government finances the Research that builds the Wind Turbines. The Federal Government even gives land for Wind Farms.

The government finances a great deal of research (which might inform design, but does not "build" wind turbines) and the government is allowed to use its land. I think the general public would be far happier with federal land being used for a wind farm than it would for clear cutting timber or strip mining for coal or drilling and fracking for oil. None of these activities put the government into the business of wind farrms.

Selective enforcement of regulation of polluters and the targeting of specific businesses is the act of a Tyrannical government that must be stopped.

The Executive Branch has finite resources with which to enforce laws and regulations. There will always be selections: a triage, made by the allocation of enforcement priorities. Every administration has done so. The Bush administration received a great deal of flak for the choices they made. Someone will always be unhappy, but the only argument to be addressed is whether or not the administration has made their best effort to serve what can reasonably be argued are the best interests of the American people. And since an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists tell us that we need to reduce GHG emissions, you cannot (and have not) make a case that we are thus poorly served.

 

[elektra]

The federal government is not in the business of building wind farms. The government does have the right to enact and enforce environmental regulation on polluters such as the energy industry and the automobile industry. Or do you think the EPA and all their regulations should be thrown out?

Of course the EPA and the regulations they make should be thrown out, nobody elected the EPA to make rules and regulations. That is the responsibility of Congress.

You failed American Government class, didn't you? Or did you ever take it? Drop out of high school? That might explain how you failed to know Elektra was the name of a famous female character. It is the responsibility of the Congress to write and pass laws (which must be signed off by the Executive and which the Judicial has the power to revoke). It is the responsibility of the Executive branch's regulatory agencies to write regulations to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If you think Congress has the ability or the desire to write all the regulations enforced by the Executive branch's agencies, you're out of your mind.

The Federal Government is in the business of building Wind Farms, they pay for it, through subsidies and tax breaks, tax breaks that can and are sold like a commodity.

1) The federal government subsidizes your mortgage. Did they build your house?
2) Tax breaks cannot be "sold like a commodity". The underlying brick-and-mortar can, but not the subsidy.
3) The government provides subsidies and tax breaks to activities it wishes to encourage. It does so because it believes those activities will benefit the American people. The choices of activities to subsidize are made by the Congress, not regulatory agencies, and are thus the decisions of the people's elected representatives.

The Federal Government finances the Research that builds the Wind Turbines. The Federal Government even gives land for Wind Farms.

The government finances a great deal of research (which might inform design, but does not "build" wind turbines) and the government is allowed to use its land. I think the general public would be far happier with federal land being used for a wind farm than it would for clear cutting timber or strip mining for coal or drilling and fracking for oil. None of these activities put the government into the business of wind farrms.

Selective enforcement of regulation of polluters and the targeting of specific businesses is the act of a Tyrannical government that must be stopped.

The Executive Branch has finite resources with which to enforce laws and regulations. There will always be selections: a triage, made by the allocation of enforcement priorities. Every administration has done so. The Bush administration received a great deal of flak for the choices they made. Someone will always be unhappy, but the only argument to be addressed is whether or not the administration has made their best effort to serve what can reasonably be argued are the best interests of the American people. And since an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists tell us that we need to reduce GHG emissions, you cannot (and have not) make a case that we are thus poorly served.

Lets take things slowly, baby boy, Elektra if you notice the Avatar, is the record label, before that Elektra was a Greek goddess, Electra, without the "K". More than being a female character, the Elektra you are referring to is from a movie based on the Frank Miller comic book. Comic books, I have the 1st edition of the Elektra comic book as well as 1st editions of Ronin and the Dark Knight (batman), which Frank Miller did as well.

After that you want to call my mortgage subsidized when I pay a 100% of what I owe? Crick, a subsidy is money given, not simply a tax break or a loan guarantee, but money that a corporation receives from the Government.

Elon Musk is getting money from the U.S. government. Elon Musk is paid by the government while Elon Musk's corporations lose money, lose billions.

Is that clear, the government does not give Elektra money, the government gives Elon Musk money, cash!