Why does the left demonize affordable energy?

[Clementine]

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



"The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.

While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:

The Solar Impulse 2 features 17,000 solar cells crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.

By contrast, a Boeing 747-400 running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.

Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about 15 to 30 times as much energy as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

 

[Silhouette]

You talking about solar photovoltaic? or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?

The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about. No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".

Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar. Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby. In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year. Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!

Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?

Politicians (particularly on the left) have been trying to gain more and more control over people. The only two vestiges they have yet to conquer are energy and healthcare. Once they control those two things, it will give them access to total control over the people.

After all, for every American, not a day goes by without our involvement with energy or healthcare: How low or high you set your thermostat, what kind of car you drive, do you take public transportation, what you eat, how much of it you eat, how much exercise you get, how much television you watch, if you smoke, what you smoke, how much you smoke...............

The list goes on and on.

Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.

 

[Arianrhod]

Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey

Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?

 

[mamooth]

What they really care about is power.

I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.

As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why does the left demonize affordable energy?"

Why does the right lie so much and contrive straw man fallacies – this thread being one of many example.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.

No, what I do is observe. And what I observe is this obsession by government to take over healthcare and energy at the same time. Yes, baby steps baby steps, but it's like the frog in the pot of cold water.

 

[JoeB131]

Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.

Right, Raycist from Cleveland, the government does these things to mess with you personally, not because the majority has agreed these are things we ought to do.

 

[tyroneweaver]

The left loves to create false hope.
They think that a skate board with a briggs and stratton engine will pull a set of 50 Ton doubles

 

[washamericom]

Why does the left demonize affordable energy?

because they hate the sun. they are the sun haters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.

Right, Raycist from Cleveland, the government does these things to mess with you personally, not because the majority has agreed these are things we ought to do.

They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.

The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.

DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.

Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left hates fossil fuels because...wait for it...its corporations pocketing the profits and not them.

 

[Silhouette]

they hate the sun. they are the sun haters.

Well you can hardly blame them. Take a reflector from a car headlight out, put on a pair of welding glasses, put a piece of wood in the center clip where the bulb would go...point it at the sun and wait about 8 seconds. DO NOT LOOK NEAR THE CENTER OF THE CONCAVE REFLECTOR AT ALL.

Maybe they got burned by the sun this way? But it shows you how the linear fresnel solar thermal array, close to the target, can heat the oil in the tube up to 300 degrees CELSIUS very rapidly. BigOil doesn't want the public to know how much free energy there is trapped in a focused pool of solar radiation.

 

[BluesLegend]

Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey

Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?

You seem clueless to the amount of really toxic waste generated by manufacturing batteries for your 'green' car.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The left hates fossil fuels because...wait for it...its corporations pocketing the profits and not them.

That's part of it, but the main reason is they were instructed to hate it.

 

[davecmarino]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivanpah is a failure. If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology. If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesLegend]

The left hates fossil fuels because...wait for it...its corporations pocketing the profits and not them.

That's part of it, but the main reason is they were instructed to hate it.

I can't argue with that, the left seems to love being told what to think and do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivanpah is a failure. If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology. If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of our customers was a big lib. He had a big windmill running his operations. I always found windmills decorative in a way. Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.

About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone. The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill. He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.

Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time. I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie. After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.

 

[davecmarino]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivanpah is a failure. If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology. If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of our customers was a big lib. He had a big windmill running his operations. I always found windmills decorative in a way. Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.

About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone. The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill. He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.

Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time. I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie. After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.

Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivanpah is a failure. If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology. If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of our customers was a big lib. He had a big windmill running his operations. I always found windmills decorative in a way. Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.

About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone. The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill. He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.

Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time. I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie. After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.

Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are. But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable. And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.