Right-Wing Media Respond To Japanese Nuclear Crisis By Attacking Renewable Energy
In the wake of the earthquake in Japan and the resulting threat of nuclear disaster in that country, right-wing media have attacked renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, arguing that it's a waste of time to pursue these sources as possible alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power. However, studies show that the use of wind and solar energy is increasing at a record pace, and continuing investment in wind and solar will yield significant economic benefits.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Conservative Media Dismiss Wind, Solar As Viable Energy Sources
Fox's Bolling Bashes Renewables By Pointing To Birds, People "Killed By Wind Turbines" And Installing Solar Panels. On his Fox Business show, discussing the nuclear crisis in Japan, Eric Bolling turned to what he said "the left wants to talk about -- a wind turbine," and showed footage of a hawk flying into a spinning wind turbine and being knocked to the ground. He then followed with footage of what appeared to be a crime scene: barrier tape in front of a solar panel sitting on the ground next to a house, and the chalk outline of a body on the ground. Bolling stated:
BOLLING: Here's Japan with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and it survived -- not a death. You can't say that about some of the other things that the left wants to talk about. They want to talk about a wind turbine. Take a look at this. Oh!
[...]
BOLLING: All right, a wind turbine versus a beautiful hawk, innocent hawk spinning away in the sky -- wham! No more hawk. Even experts in the renewable energy point out that dozens, dozens of people have been killed by wind turbines, including one poor woman who parachuted into one. And workers have been killed falling off roofs while installing solar panels.
[...]
BOLLING: Here's the point. The point is everything comes with dangers. And Leslie, all of them. All forms of power come with danger.
LESLIE MARSHALL: They all do.
BOLLING: However, there's never been a death directly associated with a radiation leak ever in the history of North American power generated from nuclear. [Fox Business, Follow the Money, 3/11/11]
Limbaugh: "Wind And Solar Aren't Capable of Producing Anything -- They're Just Dreams Of The Environmentalist Wackos." On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated:
LIMBAUGH: What is U.S. energy policy? U.S. energy policy is to shut down -- you know, the -- here's something fascinating. You know, this -- folks, things do have a tendency to work out in strange ways. Would it be a safe bet that since wind and solar really aren't capable of producing anything -- they're just dreams of the environmentalist wackos. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/14/11]
Limbaugh: Solar And Wind Are "Just Not Practical." Citing the work of his "official climatologist" Roy Spencer, a scientist with the University of Alabama-Huntsville, Limbaugh further stated on his radio show:
LIMBAUGH: Practical energy sources -- see this is the thing. Practical, it's such an important word and it is so absent. Practicality takes a long vacation during an event like this.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: As Dr. Spencer, our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama-Huntsville, points out, practical energy sources are inherently risky. There is risk associated with virtually everything, particularly in energy production. And the reason is, is that we need so much of it. There's no way to provide it without using concentrated forms of it. Petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear -- those are all -- think of concentrated frozen orange juice in your can, and the way you make it is you dump that into a pitcher of water and you stir it.
Our energy sources, before we refine them and prepare them for practical use, are really concentrated in their power -- a barrel of oil, natural gas, coal, what have you. Solar and wind never compete because they produce so little energy when you look at it, say, per acre of land required. It's just not practical. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/14/11]
Limbaugh: "The Wind Will Stop Blowing. The Sun Will Be Obscured By The Clouds." Limbaugh also said:
LIMBAUGH: We get less than 1 percent of our nation's energy from solar and wind, even now. Thirty percent in this country comes from nuclear. The rest, sorry to tell you, fossil -- all natural gas and all the derivatives. And we have an appetite for it. And we better be producing it to meet our demand and grow, otherwise our economy is going to stagnate. We cannot have a growing economy and stagnating energy production at the same time -- cannot happen. We cannot grow an economy with wind energy or solar. It isn't practical. There is no concentrated form of it.
You can't even guarantee it. The wind will stop blowing. The sun will be obscured by the clouds. So all of our energy sources, all of our options have dangers, have risks inherent to their existence. Look at the deaths due to coal mine disasters. That's all in the name of fulfilling our energy needs. Natural gas explosions. Even the occasional oil rig explosion, the occasional oil tanker springing a leak. And in the context of all this, nuclear really is our safest option in the long term, especially with newer technologies. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/14/11]
Fox's Varney Dismisses Renewable Energy: "It's Not An Answer For The Whole Country." Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney hosted Bob Deans, director of Federal Communications for the Natural Resources Defense Council, to discuss the nuclear energy crisis in Japan and what it might mean for the United States. Varney subsequently dismissed renewable energy, saying, "It's not an answer for the whole country." From the show:
VARNEY: You want to extend the time frame for getting new nuclear plants online. We're probably gonna be shutting some of these coal-fired electricity plants -- and you really don't like oil. Where do we get the juice from?
[...]
VARNEY: Now, demand's gonna go up. We all know that. Demand is going -- you've got a flat-screen TV. I'm sure you do. Demand is going up and you want to reduce the -- what we get from nuclear power. You want to reduce what we get from coal power. Come on, where do you get the extra supply of juice from? Tell me.
DEANS: We need to do two things, Stuart. We need to invest in efficiency gains in this country so that we're doing more with less.
VARNEY: That's not going to do it, Bob. That's not gonna do it.
DEANS: Our economy grows. It won't get us all the way there, but what can help us, too --
VARNEY: It won't. Nowhere near. Nowhere near.
DEANS: -- are renewables. Stuart, you know, in Texas, you've been there lately, 8 percent of Texas electricity -- Texas, the oil capital of the world -- 8 percent of its electricity is now coming from wind turbines on ranches, on farms. They're helping to keep these family ranchers and farmers viable and intact, and preserve --
VARNEY: It's not an answer for the whole country, though, is it? By the way, did you bike to work today?
DEANS: Stuart, I've been fighting a cold but, normally, I do bike to work and I've been doing it for about 10 years, and I would -- I tell you, I've got a tandem and the next time you're in Washington, I'll swing by and pick you up. We can ride in together.
VARNEY: Nicely done, young man. [Fox Business, Varney & Company, 3/17/11]
Fox's LaJeunesse: Nuclear Power "Cannot Be Replaced By Wind And Solar, Which Are Subject To The Weather." On Fox News' Fox & Friends, correspondent William LaJeunesse reported on how experts believe that in a "worst-case scenario," the Japanese nuclear crisis "could disable the [nuclear] industry for decades, creating a power shortage, driving up prices." He added: "You know, what's important about nuclear, like coal, it provides something called base-load power: It's reliable, it's constant, it's immediate and it cannot be replaced by wind and solar, which are subject to the weather." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/15/11]
Big Journalism Contributor Horner Calls Wind, Solar Energies "Stupid, Costly And Harmful." In a post on Andrew Breitbart's BigJournalism website, Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote:
[T]here is also that long trail of aspirational comments, well beyond vowing to cause electricity prices to 'skyrocket', indicating this steady gas price hike is their objective, even if overseas developments are causing problems for them [helping the rise advance too quickly such that people pay attention, with these developments adding to the price hikes the admin have built in, with much more obviously undone but hopefully on the way]. As I detailed with many more admissions ten months ago in Power Grab.
Obviously, this is one of the items worrying Team Obama, along with their foreign policy fecklessness. And -- in lieu of gimmickry to redirect voters' gazes from policies that contribute to this, such as by releasing Strategic [NB: not 'Political'] Petroleum Reserve crude -- Obama cheerleaders (like Politico) note he could take the opportunity to push his "Clean Energy Standard".
That's one of the "other ways to skin the cat" after cap-and-trade failed legislatively. Of course, for one, that is an electricity standard, adding windmill and solar panel mandates that are superfluous to a GHG rationing scheme like EPA's backdoor cap-n-trade. Because we drive wind- and solar-powered cars. Or something.
But speaking of EPA's involvement in all of this, Speaker Boehner jabbed at it yesterday when co-incidentally rolling out the Republicans' energy arguments, "American Energy". This follows up Newt Gingrich's chosen talking point -- which of course draws no line to exclude stupid, costly and harmful 'American energy' like ethanol, windmills or solar panels, any more than that previous stab of "All of the Above". Sigh. Will someone please stand up and yell "Stop!"? [BigJournalism.com, 3/11/11]
Wind, Solar Energies Continue To Grow At Record Pace
Energy Information Administration: "Wind Power Has Been The Fastest-Growing Source Of New Electric Power Generation For Several Years." According to data from the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA), "[w]ind power has been the fastest-growing source of new electric power generation for several years." The EIA further stated:
In 2009, generation from wind power increased 33.5 percent over 2008, bringing the share of total generation to 1.9 percent. This followed year-over-year generation gains of 60.7 percent in 2008, 29.6 percent in 2007, and 49.3 percent in 2006 (See the "Electric Power Annual" Table ES.1). Wind capacity in 2009 totaled 34,296 megawatts (MW), as compared to 24,651 MW in 2008. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]
- The EIA also included the following graphic showing the ascent of wind generation versus capacity:

[U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]
Solar Energy Industries Association: "2010 Was A Banner Year For The Solar Energy Market In The United States." In its "US Solar Market Insight: Year-in-Review 2010" report, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) found that "2010 was a banner year for the solar energy market in the United States." SEIA continued:
In contrast to U.S. GDP growth of 2.8%, the U.S. solar market grew 67% in value in 2010. Not only did the market expand greatly, but it showed substantial diversity across market segments, geography, and technologies. Solar is growing quickly across the U.S. at the residential, commercial, and utility scale levels. It is powering and heating buildings in all fifty states, and using a variety of technologies to do so. The rapid growth and unique diversity has made the U.S. market a focus of global industry attention for the first time in many years. In 2010, the U.S. solar market grew to reach $6.0 billion, up from $3.6 billion in 2009.
[...]
2011 will be a pivotal year for the U.S. PV market. While installations in the U.S. are likely to double the 2010 total, the global market will experience slower growth. As a result, much of the global PV industry is turning its eye toward the U.S. with great expectations. On the whole, the demand picture for the U.S. market appears strong. Project financing remains available at attractive terms for some projects, new markets are emerging and showing strength, and incumbent markets continue their rise. [Solar Energy Industries Association, "US Solar Market Insight: Year-in-Review 2010," 3/10/11]
SEIA CEO: "This Remarkable [2010] Growth Puts The Solar Industry's Goal Of Powering 2 Million Homes Annually By 2015 Within Reach." The day SEIA released its "Year-in-Review 2010" report, the organization's president and CEO, Rhone Resch, stated:
"This report shows that solar energy is now one of the fastest growing industries in the United States, creating new opportunities for both large and small businesses. Every day, Americans across the country are going to work at well-paying, stable jobs at solar companies, from small installers all the way up to Fortune 500 companies.
"This remarkable growth puts the solar industry's goal of powering 2 million homes annually by 2015 within reach. Achieving such amazing growth during the economic downturn shows that smart polices combined with American ingenuity adds up to a great return on investment for the public. The bottom line is that the solar energy industry is creating tens of thousands of new American jobs each year." [Solar Energy Industries Association, 3/10/11]
EIA: The U.S. Solar "Industry Hit A Record High In 2009." According to an EIA report released in January, "The U.S. photovoltaic (PV) industry hit a record high in 2009, shipping nearly 1.3 peak gigawatts of cells and modules. This represents a nearly 30-percent increase from 2008." The report further stated:
With overall shipments of 1,282,560 peak kilowatts of cells and modules in 2009, the PV industry saw increases in shipments from existing companies as well as new companies entering the PV market. The number of active PV manufacturers and/or importers that ship PV cells and modules increased 53 percent, from 66 companies in 2008 to 101 companies in 2009.
[...]
In addition, several manufacturers are planning to introduce new photovoltaic-related technical products in the next calendar year. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]
Renewable Energy Research Shows Sector's Promising Future
Energy Department Study Concluded That Distribution Of Renewable Power Across Large Geographic Area Would "Mitigat[e] The Unpredictability Of Mother Nature." As The New York Times reported, a 2010 Department of Energy (DOE) study that focused on renewable power's "clearest drawback ... unreliability" concluded "that intermittency -- long considered a major shortcoming -- may have little impact on the potential for wind to power much of the electric grid in the western United States." The Times further reported:
The study, released in late May [2010], found that the power grid for five western states -- Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming -- could operate on as much as 30 percent wind and 5 percent solar without the construction of extensive new infrastructure.
[...]
Wind power proponents have long faced skepticism that renewables could ever displace conventional power sources in a meaningful way, with critics asserting that large coal or nuclear plants would always need to stand ready to provide backup power whenever the wind ceased to blow or clouds blocked the sun.
The authors of the N.R.E.L. [National Renewable Energy Lab] study tackled this supposition head on and found it largely baseless. It concluded that in the West, the broad distribution of wind turbines and solar generation would essentially smooth out the supply of renewable power.
"When you coordinate the operations between utilities across a large geographic area, you decrease the effect of the variability of wind and solar energy sources, mitigating the unpredictability of Mother Nature," Dr. Lew said. [The New York Times, Green, 6/1/10]
DOE Study Further Found That "Large Amounts Of Wind And Solar Can Be Incorporated Onto The [Power] Grid." In its study, the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab also found that it would be "technically feasible" to "integrat[e] enough wind and solar energy capacity into the grid to produce 35 percent of its electricity by 2017," without the need for extensive additional infrastructure. In a statement, Dr. Debra Lew, the study's project manager, said: "If key changes can be made to standard operating procedures, our research shows that large amounts of wind and solar can be incorporated onto the grid without a lot of backup generation." From the study:
Though wind and solar output vary over time, the technical analysis performed in this study shows that it is operationally possible to accommodate 30 percent wind and 5 percent solar energy penetration. To accomplish such an increase, utilities will have to substantially increase their coordination of operations over wider geographic areas and schedule their generation deliveries, or sales, on a more frequent basis. Currently generators provide a schedule for a specific amount of power they will provide in the next hour. More frequent scheduling would allow generators to adjust that amount of power based on changes in system conditions such as increases or decreases in wind or solar generation.
The study also finds that if utilities generate 27 percent of their electricity from wind and solar energy across the Western Interconnection grid, it would lower carbon emissions by 25 to 45 percent, depending on the future price of natural gas. It would also decrease fuel and emissions costs by 40 percent. [Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab, "How Do Levels Of Wind and Solar Impact the Grid? The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study," 5/20/10]
DOE Report Found Considerable Advantages To Having 20 Percent Wind Contribution To U.S. Electricity Supply By 2030. In a 2008 report, the Department of Energy found there would be considerable benefits if wind power was expanded to provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030. From the report:
To implement the 20% Wind Scenario, new wind power installations would increase to more than 16,000 MW per year by 2018, and continue at that rate through 2030, as shown in Figure A. Wind plant costs and performance are projected to improve modestly over the next two decades, but no technological breakthroughs are needed. In the 20% wind scenario, 46 states would experience significant wind power development.
[...]
Using more domestic wind power will diversify the nation's energy portfolio -- adding wind-generated electricity at stable prices not subject to market volatility -- and strengthening national energy security through reduced reliance on foreign sources of natural gas. The 20% Wind Scenario would alter U.S. electricity generation as shown in Figure B. In this scenario, wind would supply enough energy to displace about 50% of electric utility natural gas consumption by 2030. This amounts to an 11% reduction in natural gas across all industries. Also, coal consumption would be reduced by 18%. In addition, electric utilities are learning how to accommodate wind's variability while maintaining system reliability.
[...]
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal GHG in the earth's atmosphere. Approximately 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions come from power generation facilities. Since substantial amounts of coal and natural gas fuels would be displaced, the 20% Wind Scenario could reduce CO2 emissions in 2030 by 825 million metric tons -- 25% of the CO2 emissions from the nation's electric sector in the no-new-wind scenario. ... [T]his reduction could nearly level projected growth in CO2 emissions from electricity generation. [Department of Energy, "20% Wind Energy By 2030," May 2008]
Study: Pairing Natural Gas With Renewable Energy "Could Play A Major Role In Fueling A Clean-Energy Future." In its March 2011 study, "Clean Energy Trends 2011," Clean Edge, a "research and advisory firm devoted to the clean-tech sector," reported that pairing natural gas with renewable energy "could play a major role in fueling a clean energy future," writing, "If the pairing of gas with renewables proves successful, it could also play a major role in fueling a clean-energy future." Clean Edge further wrote:
The integration of natural gas and renewable energy offers an opportunity to transition smoothly away from dirty energy sources. One key trend in pairing natural gas with renewables has been the development of solar-gas hybrid systems, such as Florida Power & Light's Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, which recently connected a 75 MW concentrated solar power (CSP) plant to the largest natural gas plant in the U.S. (3.8 GW). Other hybrid plants in development include an NV Energy project in Nevada and two separate projects in California led by Inland Energy. Along with tackling renewables' intermittency issues, hybrid plants are an enticing idea because the sharing of existing infrastructure, such as turbines and transmission lines, promises to reduce upfront capital costs.
Integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) plants, which increase steam generation by adding solar heat to gas-turbine waste heat, are another example of the mixing of solar and gas.
[...]
Pairing wind with gas is also in the works. U.S.-based energy developer Altresco aims to combine wind and gas at the plant level by integrating wind turbines and gas generators in a micro-grid. PG&E's recently commissioned natural gas-fired Colusa Generating Station near Maxwell, California is designed to reduce power when renewables become available. And in North Dakota, the planned 2,000 MW Hartland Wind Farm will "firm" output with roughly 500 MW of natural gas capacity.
Despite the potential for clean tech to benefit from natural gas, environmental risks from gas drilling are a very real concern. Indeed, the threat of drinking water and soil contamination, blowouts, and other concerns have caused some to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, altogether. New York, rich in shale gas reserves, has issued a temporary moratorium on fracking until investigators comprehensively review the practice. Some environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Worldwatch Institute have cautiously supported the marriage of natural gas and renewables as a bridge to a clean-energy future, but only if it is done in an environmentally sensitive, responsible, and fully transparent way. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]
Scientific American: There Is "Plenty Of Supply" For Renewables To Provide 100 Percent Of The World's Energy. Discussing its plan for wind, water, and solar technologies to provide 100 percent of the world's energy by 2030, Scientific American argued that there is "plenty of supply" to be able to do so. The magazine wrote:
Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S. The mix of sources is similar to today's, heavily dependent on fossil fuels. If, however, the planet were powered entirely by WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur. Global power demand would be only 11.5 TW, and U.S. demand would be 1.8 TW. That decline occurs because, in most cases, electrification is a more efficient way to use energy. For example, only 17 to 20 percent of the energy in gasoline is used to move a vehicle (the rest is wasted as heat), whereas 75 to 86 percent of the electricity delivered to an electric vehicle goes into motion.
Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Scientific American: "The Worldwide Footprint Of The 3.8 Million Turbines Would Be Less Than ... Manhattan." In its 100-percent renewable scenario, Scientific American estimated that wind energy would supply 51 percent of the demand, "provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide." It stated:
Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year. Another 40 percent of the power comes from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants, with about 30 percent of the photovoltaic output from rooftop panels on homes and commercial buildings. About 89,000 photovoltaic and concentrated solar power plants, averaging 300 megawatts apiece, would be needed. Our mix also includes 900 hydroelectric stations worldwide, 70 percent of which are already in place.
Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. The nonrooftop photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants would occupy about 0.33 percent of the planet's land. Building such an extensive infrastructure will take time. But so did the current power plant network. And remember that if we stick with fossil fuels, demand by 2030 will rise to 16.9 TW, requiring about 13,000 large new coal plants, which themselves would occupy a lot more land, as would the mining to supply them. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Scientific American Predicts Renewables To Be Less Costly In The Long Run. In answering the question of how affordable renewables would be in its 2030 scenario, the magazine wrote:
For each technology, we calculated how much it would cost a producer to generate power and transmit it across the grid. We included the annualized cost of capital, land, operations, maintenance, energy storage to help offset intermittent supply, and transmission. Today the cost of wind, geothermal and hydroelectric are all less than seven cents a kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh); wave and solar are higher. But by 2020 and beyond wind, wave and hydro are expected to be 4¢/kWh or less.
For comparison, the average cost in the U.S. in 2007 of conventional power generation and transmission was about 7¢/kWh, and it is projected to be 8¢/kWh in 2020. Power from wind turbines, for example, already costs about the same or less than it does from a new coal or natural gas plant, and in the future wind power is expected to be the least costly of all options. The competitive cost of wind has made it the second-largest source of new electric power generation in the U.S. for the past three years, behind natural gas and ahead of coal.
Solar power is relatively expensive now but should be competitive as early as 2020. A careful analysis by Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Laboratory indicates that within 10 years, photovoltaic system costs could drop to about 10¢/kWh, including long-distance transmission and the cost of compressed-air storage of power for use at night. The same analysis estimates that concentrated solar power systems with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day in spring, summer and fall could deliver electricity at 10¢/kWh or less. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]
Hydropower Supplies Nearly 40 Percent Of Norway's Total Energy
International Energy Agency Review Of Norway's Energy Policies Found Country Is Well-Placed To Make Necessary Investments For A Low-Carbon Future." In its review of Norway's energy policies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) concluded that "Norway is pursuing ambitious, forward-thinking energy policies, but could go further in its efforts to become a low-carbon economy." The IEA added:
Norway 2011 Review says that it will be challenging for Norway to meet its 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared with 1990 levels, because both the country's electricity supply and its energy use in buildings are already essentially carbon-free due to hydropower use.
The authors add, however, that because of the large revenue generated from oil and gas exports, Norway is particularly well-placed to invest in developing new solutions to achieve the desired low-carbon future. These solutions include new measures to promote greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.
"Norway's climate and energy policies stand out as a positive example for other countries," said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the IEA, at the launch of the review in Oslo, on 15 March. "But Norway must now invest in developing new measures in order to continue moving forward towards its ultimate goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050."
[...]
Norway's total primary energy supply was 26.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent in 2009. Its energy mix is dominated by hydropower, which accounts for nearly 40% of its total primary energy supply, followed by oil (34%) and natural gas (20%), biomass and waste (5%) and coal (2%). [International Energy Agency, 3/15/11]
Economic Opportunities Abound In Wind, Solar Technologies
Study: "Clean Tech Has Proven To Be A Significant Business Opportunity." In its March 2011 study, "Clean Energy Trends 2011," Clean Edge found that over the past decade, "clean tech has proven to be a significant business opportunity, and its growth rates now rival that of earlier technology revolutions like telephony, computers, and the Internet." Clean Edge further reported:
According to Clean Edge research, the global market for solar photovoltaics (PV) has expanded from just $2.5 billion in 2000 to $71.2 billion in 2010, for example, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 39.8 percent. The global market for wind power, which like solar PV we have tracked every year for the past decade, has similarly expanded from a global market worth $4.5 billion in 2000 to more than $60.5 billion today, for a CAGR of 29.7 percent. And these growth rates are not limited to solar and wind. Other clean-tech sectors, such as hybrid electric vehicles, green buildings, and smart grid, have seen similarly spectacular growth rates.
This overall trend for clean-tech markets continued to be one of growth and expansion in 2010. Combined global revenue for solar PV, wind power, and biofuels surged by 35.2 percent over the prior year, growing from $139.1 billion to $188.1 billion. The bulk of this expansion came from a more than doubling in global solar PV installations. For the first time since we began tracking the wind sector, however, we witnessed a slight year-over-year decline in market size. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]
Study: Wind Power "Is Projected To Expand From $60.5 Billion In 2010 To $122.9 Billion In 2020." Clean Edge further reported in its Clean Energy Trends study:
Wind power (new installation capital costs) is projected to expand from $60.5 billion in 2010 to $122.9 billion in 2020. Last year's global wind power installations declined slightly to 35.2 GW, down from a record 37.5 GW the prior year. China, the global leader in new installations for the third year in a row, continued to see an increase with total installations of more than 16 GW. The U.S. continued to see significant declines in the face of a tight project finance market, uncertainty around project grants until late in 2010, and the lack of a federal RPS, among other challenges, adding only half as much capacity as the prior year with just 5 GW installed in 2010. Against this backdrop, China surpassed the U.S. for the title of global leader in total cumulative installs for wind power, with a capacity of more than 42 GW.
Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components, and installation) are projected to grow from a $71.2 billion industry in 2010 to $113.6 billion by 2020. New installations reached more than 15.6 GW worldwide in 2010, a more than doubling from 7.1 GW in 2009. The level of growth and expansion in solar PV was a direct result of PV prices dropping by more than 30 percent in 2009 followed by an additional 10 percent drop in 2010. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]
Study: "In 2010, U.S.-Based Venture Capital Investments In Clean Technologies Increased ... 45.7 Percent." According to data obtained by Clean Edge, "In 2010, U.S.-based venture capital investments in clean technologies increased from $3.5 billion in 2009 to $5.1 billion in 2010, an increase of 45.7 percent, according to data provided by the Cleantech Group." The group continued:
While falling short of 2008's record-breaking $6.1 billion total, 2010's more than $5 billion represented nearly a quarter of all VC activity in the country last year, a new record. In addition, the more than 370 deals in 2010 represents the largest number of financings recorded in a one-year period. Of the 10 largest clean-tech venture deals in 2010, five were for solar, two were for EVs, two were for bio-based materials, and one was for geothermal. [Clean Energy Trends 2011, March 2011]
Bloomberg New Energy Finance: "The Largest Investment Asset Class In 2010 Was ... Asset Finance Of Utility-Scale Projects Such As Wind Farms, Solar Parks And Biofuel Plants." According to a press release from Bloomberg New Energy Finance:
New investment in clean energy smashed through previous levels to reach $243bn in 2010, according to the latest figures from research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance. This is up 30% from a revised figure of $186.5bn in 2009, and makes 2010 easily the strongest year so far for investment in clean energy -- double the figure recorded in 2006 and nearly five times that from 2004.
The authoritative Bloomberg New Energy Finance time series shows total investment growing from $51.7bn in 2004, to $76.3bn in 2005, $112.9bn in 2006, $150.8bn in 2007, $180.1bn in 2008 and $186.5bn in 20091. The main drivers of the rapid growth in investment in 2010 were China, European offshore wind, European rooftop solar and research & development.
Investment in small-scale, distributed generation projects surged by 91% last year to $59.6bn, with the dominant element rooftop and other small-scale solar projects, notably in Germany but also in the US, the Czech Republic, Italy and elsewhere.
[...]
Venture capital and private equity investment had a strong year, up 28% from the 2009 total to reach $8.8bn, though failing to match 2008's record figure of $11.8bn. Among the private equity deals of 2010 were a $400m financing for US wind project developer Pattern Energy Group, and $350m for Better Place, the US-based electric vehicle charging network specialist.
[...]
The largest investment asset class in 2010 was, as usual, asset finance of utility-scale projects such as wind farms, solar parks and biofuel plants. This rose 19% to $127.8bn last year. [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 1/11/11]
Bloomberg New Energy Finance CEO: Investment Record "Flies In The Face Of Scepticism About The Clean Energy Sector." In a press release, Bloomberg New Energy Finance CEO Michael Liebreich stated:
"This is a spectacular result, beating previous record investment levels by a clear margin of more than $50bn. It flies in the face of scepticism about the clean energy sector among public market investors, who have been concerned about the sustainability of subsidy programmes in Europe, the failure of the Obama administration to deliver a climate or an energy deal, and the crescendo of ill-informed doubts about climate change.
"We have been saying for some time that the world needs to reach a figure of $500bn per annum investment in clean energy if we are to see carbon emissions peak by 2020. What we are seeing in these figures for the first time is that we are half-way there, and it is very good news."
[...]
"2011 will have to be a very strong year to beat 2010. At this stage, the signs are encouraging, with further cost improvements likely in both solar panels and wind turbines, and the supply of private sector debt and equity finance improving from its low point during and after the banking crisis. We are watching what happens to distributed generation particularly keenly -- the extraordinary growth surprised us last year, and we will have to wait and see what happens as Germany reduces its solar tariffs." [Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Press Release, 1/11/11]
EIA: Solar Industry Added "More Than 28 Percent" Employment In 2009. According to the EIA, "Corresponding to the strong growth in PV shipments, employment in PV-related activities increased more than 28 percent, from 11,245 person-years[1] in 2008 to 14,443 person-years in 2009. ... Of the 101 companies, 70 had 90 percent or more of their total company-wide revenues in PV-related activities, 10 had 50 to 89 percent, 8 had 10 to 49 percent, and 13 had less than 10 percent." The EIA further reported:
Total revenue of photovoltaic cell and module shipments grew nearly 3 percent from $3.34 billion in 2008 to $3.43 billion in 2009. ... Revenue includes charges for cooperative advertising and warranties, but does not include excise taxes and the cost of freight or transportation.
The average price for modules (dollars per peak watt) decreased 20 percent, from $3.49 in 2008 to $2.79 in 2009. For cells, the average price decreased more than 34 percent, from $1.94 in 2008 to $1.27 in 2009. [U.S. Energy Information Administration, January 2011]
DOE Report Found Considerable Economic Impacts Of Wind Power. From the 2008 Department of Energy study titled, "20% Wind Energy By 2030":
The report finds that, during the decade preceding 2030, the U.S. wind industry could:
support roughly 500,000 jobs in the U.S., with an annual average of more than 150,000 workers directly employed by the wind industry;
support more than 100,000 jobs in associated industries (e.g., accountants, lawyers, steel workers, and electrical manufacturing);
support more than 200,000 jobs through economic expansion based on local spending;
increase annual property tax revenues to more than $1.5 billion by 2030; and
increase annual payments to rural landowners to more than $600 million in 2030. [Department of Energy, "20% Wind Energy By 2030," May 2008]
Polling Shows Majority Of Americans Approve Of Renewables
Pollster Su Midghall: In Pacific Northwest, "An Overwhelming Percentage ... Support Wind Farms Being Developed Within Sight Of Their Homes." As NPR reported, a recent poll asking residents of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington "how they would feel if the enormous turbines were erected near their homes" found that "[a]n overwhelming percentage -- 80% actually of residents of rural areas of the Northwest -- support wind farms being developed within sight of their homes," in the words of Su Midghall, a pollster with DHM Research. Midghall added: "What's more interesting is that 50% strongly -- not just somewhat -- but strongly support this." From NPR:

[NPR, 1/7/11]
- DHM Research surveyed 1,200 adults in the Pacific Northwest states of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, between December 17, 2010 and January 3, 2011 using an online questionnaire. The study found that 79 percent of rural/small town respondents in "support wind farms being erected within sight of [their] home[s]," while 14 percent oppose them. Among suburb/city respondents, 87 percent "support wind farms being erected in the rural areas near the city [they] live in," while 8 percent said they would be opposed. [DHM Research, 1/7/11]
Gallup Poll Found Similar Support Nationwide For Renewable Energy. In a poll conducted in January, Gallup found that "[o]f eight actions Congress could take this year, Americans most favor an energy bill that provides incentives for using alternative energy." The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, from both political parties, favor "passing an energy bill that provides incentives for using solar and other alternative energy sources." Gallup stated: "[T]he alternative energy bill and tax code overhaul ideas show the greatest bipartisan agreement, with 74% or more of each party group favoring these." [Gallup, 2/2/11]
















The talking heads will always be against it, and people who listen to them don't do silly things like reading or thinking for themselves.
Al Gore: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...." Grist Magazine (May 9, 2006)
You wouldn't have to read beyond the first set of quotes from Bolling. Honestly, please read the friggin' article before posting your nonsense.
I'm so bored of you already. You don't try to even mask your obtuse insincerity.
I don't know you, but exagerating accidental deathsdoes sound to me like attacking renewable energy.
Both circumstances are despicably false, but hardly unexpected. So, I guess if left-wing media can "attack" right-wingers for causing deaths they never caused, then right-wing media can "attack" renewable energy for causing deaths they never caused. It does seem to be a 'right' that the left claims to have (spouting opinion as fact), I don't see how they can now claim that the right-wing does NOT have that same right. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer.
The guy who shot the cops because he thought Obama was gonna take away his guns/
The guy who attacked the Tides office after listening to Beck?
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
No.
The difference is that the right-wing crazies take the calls to action by their political/media matters seriously and act on them.
Thanks for proving what I said is true and that left-wingers are now being very hypocritical concerning deaths caused by un-related objects/statements. Don't worry, though, it isn't anything unexpected from the left.
Why can't you underestand that the Fox/hate radio followers are prone to violence? How many more examples do you need?
Perhaps you should re-read my first statement. What part of it are you having trouble understanding?
There is no left-wing media. And no one is claiming these attacks are caused by Fox/hate radio. It's just that their violent listeners act on their words.
There is no hypocrisy. Make a note of it.
Provide some facts and then you'll get a civil discussion.
No facts.
saying that right-wing personalities are calling for murders of people during their shows
No facts.
So, I guess if left-wing media can "attack" right-wingers for causing deaths they never caused
No facts.
You started with fact-free opinions. I called you out on it. You say I'm drunk. You have issues.
And my opinion that you've had a couple still stands. You certainly act like it.
Make a note of it.
Liar. Media Matters doesn't do any original reporting. It is not a media outlet.
Why do you have to lie to make a point?
Stop the whining and dodging ans spinning.
Your whole argument is NONSENSE.
You compare theoretical accidental deaths with real premeditated murder. It's apples and oranges to begin with. There have been countless deaths around the development of fossil fuels, especially in the infancy of those industries.
The ONE death that gets brought up with the person parachuting sounds like a lie, but even if it's true...do you think that person would have lived parachuting into a nuclear reactor? A coal smokestack? An Oil tank?
Please stop this off topic spin, and for the love of the English language, stop WHINING.
Limbaugh
Saying that is not an attack on renewable energy is not just a lie it is a lie so stupid and so transparent only a complete idiot would make the claim
I'm interested because I've noticed a number of people I work with, all of whom are from the midwest, use the phrase "bored of"; whereas in Oregon, where I grew up, it was as near as I can recall, always phrased "bored with".
Just curious, you're of course welcome to ignore this, or even tell me: "It's none of your damned business!".
: )
Pennsylvania, where I grew up, is kind of a cultural crossroads for those little dialect changes.
I'll say "stand in line" and then drive fifty miles to hear people say "stand on line". I'll ask for a carbonated beverage as a "soda" but go a little west and they ask for a "pop". "Dinner" and "supper" both refer to the evening meal, but that changes as you go in almost any direction and "dinner" starts to refer to the noontime meal or "lunch" as everyone calls it in my neck of the woods. We also have the bad habit around here of saying "youse" like the New Yorkers, but go just south into Maryland and Virginia, and it's "Y'all".
It's always interesting to hear the little differences between regions.
You are a liar. You are too stupid to understand what 'market forces' really means. It means oil corporations will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the most profitable of all enterprises. Owning and selling a growing share of a dwindling resource.
Telling lies, and ignorant brainwashed propaganda parrots like YOU define what you rightwing imbeciles believe in. I mean to the extent you believe ANYTHING other than what Rush and Beck TELL you to believe
That has nothing to do with everyone using oil until those alternatives are invented and affordable! Your point is only on the top of your head, not in what you posted.
Yes, that is the problem. The left-wing is guilty as well, but not to the extent that the right-wing is.
the problem is that the left wing takes fossil fuels for granted.
Liar. That is not the problem. The left-wing does not take fossil fuels for granted. The left-wing realizes that we need alternatives and we can't drill ourselves to energy self-sufficiency.
So you are one of these dullards that believes that on the day the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, people across America had no choice but to kill all their horses, and burn all the wagons, carts, and stagecoaches? That we scuttled and sank every sailing ship on the day the first steamboat graced the waters? We tossed all our torches, oil lamps, and candles into the nearest lake on the day the first light bulb was invented?
It's not just binary thinking that makes conservatives so difficult to deal with, it's also your complete lack of imagination and your limited historical context.
The solution the alternative energy crowd is putting forth is in essence a return to horse and buggy.
Why must liberals, when having a conversation with someone with an opposing view, always attack their intellect like it strengthens their argument?
Also tell me how is creating a sell subsisting technology going backwards? Oil is a finite resource while natural forces like solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric have existed since the begining of life and will exist even after its gone.
Through the invention of automobiles life became globalized so in comparison horse and buggy was no longer a viable option of transportation. It would still be much cheaper to travel by horse and buggy however most people would be unable to sustain their current lifestyle that way.
Another problem is solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric do not help me run my internal combustion vehicle, they do not supply farmers with fertilizer to mass produce the food society relies on, or produce the medicine doctors use to treat patients. And many other oil produced commodities.
This is much more than an energy issue.
This sheds some light on hydrogen fuel cells.
I feel as though none of you are grasping the argument I am making. I am not saying that these alternative energy sources are unable to create energy. I understand that all of them have the ability to create energy. My argument lies in the fact that none of them will be able to sustain the globalized world we currently live in, in which our population and need for energy is growing exponentially.
We have to develop renewable resources like wind and solar, etc. We don't have an unlimited supply of oil.
Wind turbines and Solar panels are not going to stop that from happening. Life is going to revert back to a much more simplistic existence, one in which solar panels and wind turbines will not be needed.
The sooner people accept that fact the transition will be much easier.
You need to realize that human civilization stumbled upon a favorable situation that we exploited for as long as we could.
It is natural law that nothing grows forever.
Wow, whoever is writing for you today sure made a blunderous statement. How are you going to take advantage of all those power producing examples you gave without having oil based products to make the materials needed to extract power from any of them? IE; solar panels, windmills, motors. Any of those made without using oil based materials? NO. All are made with that finite availability of oil. Once your oil is gone, so is the capabilities of making anything that can take advantage of solar, geothermal, wind and hydroelectric sources.
But, apparently, none of that matters anyway because many left-wingers have already said they will not stop using gas powered vehicles. They are hypocrites concerning climate change because they won't stop causing it even while they whine about it being caused by their use of gasoline.
Also, whoever is writing for you today can sure spell better than you. Do you share your sign-in information with all your friends and teachers and let them post in your name often?
Tell them if they want to make your posts seem more realistic, they should spell simple words wrong more often.
That's just another reason why we should be using alternative fuel sources wherever possible, rather than drilling as much as we can as fast as we can now! Your argument falls flat in every possible way.
Hypothetically speaking, say US energy consumption grows at 1% per year and it currently takes 1,000,000 solar panels to supply enough energy for United States. This would mean that in 2080 it would require 2,000,0000 solar panels to supply the United States with enough energy.
Now the problem with this is the fact that oil will be more expensive in 2080 therefore solar panels would be more expensive to create, unless we find another substance to make them with. Another problem however is that the area for the solar panels would have doubled, creating more environmental problems.
The solution the alternative energy crowd is putting forth is in essence a return to horse and buggy.
Why must liberals, when having a conversation with someone with an opposing view, always attack their intellect like it strengthens their argument?
How do you know that alternative energy sources are viable or not? How do you know that a modern day Edison won't come along and make it viable in the near future.
The solution the alternative energy crowd is putting forth is in essence a return to horse and buggy.
Liar. Why do you insist on telling lies?
Fossil fuels are used exclusively for energy storage. That is why they are described as fuels. Petroleum products are used for much more than energy, but 72% of petroleum use in the United States drive transportation.(1)
Now, imagine two scenarios: alternative fuels are developed for transportation, and all non-transportation fossil fuel use is replaced with other energy sources. In the first scenario, we suddenly have roughly four times the available petroleum reserves. In the second scenario we suddenly increase transportation energy reserves by almost 50%. Either scenario is advantageous.
As to cars immediately being viable, that's wrong. The Model T was revolutionary because it made a luxury item affordable. Luxury items are not viable for everyday use, and cars (especially the fine new ones to which the bulk of the United States is accustomed) continue to be luxury items in most of the world.
(1) see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2
Second, it takes decades to transform an energy infrastructure. We are not going to change everyone's vehicles or jet planes overnight.
Third, the amount of electricity needed to fulfill all of our energy needs is probably more than double the amount we use now. The amount of surface area needed for those sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines, is astronomical, taking away land for future development and wildlife.
At least the rest of the lefties on here can carry a conversation with real rebuttals, you on the other hand are too STUPID to create your own argument.
Are you in high school?
Anymore BS you care to spew?
1. When you say "no one is against producing energy in what ever way it can be produced", please explain the stunting of the development and implementation of alternatives to coal and oil. Also, please explain the above articles that are obviously trying to dissuade the production of alternatives.
2. Yes, it is people presenting their opinions, which is fine. The problem is that these people pass it off as news and present their fact-free side of the "debate". Again, all the evidence is right here on the page. But i guess its a bit TL;DR for you.
3. Hate to crayola this in for you (again) but most of the country is surprisingly progressive and liberal, especially when you pull them out the closed information loop and give them pesky things like facts and options that aren't "us vs them".
4. There is no "left wing media". There is Fox, and everyone who doesn't take the ultra-right point of view that Fox demands.
5.. Lots of us also watched "Alf". Does that make it real too?
The belief behind this genre of commentary is that they are appealing to EVERYONE'S true dream: of being able to do ANYTHING they want, anytime, and in super-excessive amounts: eat, sex, energy use -- all can be turned into 'excesses' that are in actuality waste. At one point, in our society, it was called conspicuous consumption, which indicated your wealth and power. But now excess is just another word for manufacturing waste.
So if they are so keen on waste production, maybe they could consult a psychoanalyst to figure out why waste is such an absolute value for them?
Even the Fox zombies can't be stupid enough to fall for this, can they?
If only that were true.
These are the same people who think that attracting smart people to become teachers because teachers aren't critically important to the nation's future. That is indisputable evidence of stupid.
I wasn't aware we had to drop all other forms of electrical generation immediately the moment we adopt a reasonable plan for developing renewable non polluting forms of energy,
I'm glad we have right wingers to explain the folly of the crazy positions no one on the left ever took. Keep up the fight against those imaginary liberal stereotypes!
being flexible enough to allow companies to "adapt to new energy and environmental challenges";
"encouraging competitive trade practices and international investment";
and creating a stable regulatory environment for investors.
Any national energy policy adopted by the federal government should allow increased development of energy resources on federal lands, urged a gathering of western governors and industry experts at a House Resources Committee hearing held March 7. They assured the Congressmen in attendance that new technologies allow such resource development to be done in an environmentally responsible way.
Drilling in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the 19-million-acre ANWR was one of the major topics of discussion at the March 7 hearing. Environmentalists oppose development of the site because, they say, drilling would hurt caribou, polar bears, other wildlife, and the landscape itself.
Alaska Governor Tony Knowles disagreed, saying ANWR drilling would create thousands of jobs, lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and reduce fuel prices. Drilling could be done with "special precautions" for the area's wildlife, he said.
Knowles said practices at nearby Prudhoe Bay demonstrate the oil industry's ability to develop with minimal environmental impacts. They can use smaller-than-usual pads to drill diagonal wells that reach a broader area underground, he noted, and can confine their activity to the winter months, when equipment can move over ice slabs, which then melt in the summer and lessen the operation's "footprint."
Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer stressed at the hearing the importance of finding energy solutions to continue upward economic trends. He said much of the federal lands in the West contain energy reserves, but Clinton-era land use decisions have impeded access, stymying efforts to reach those reserves.
Federal agencies should more actively involve state governments in policy decisions, Geringer said, perhaps by granting them the rarely used "cooperating agency" status under the National Environmental Policy Act, which would put them on a more equal footing with the federal agencies.
Oil and gas industry experts testified that federal policies restricting companies' access to public lands generally are based on past events and do not take into account new technologies.
Reprinted with permission from E&E Publishing, LLC 122 C Street NW #722, Washington, DC. Phone 202/628-6500, or contact the group by email at pubs@eenews.net.
Lie.
and other lefties, are advocating for us not to utilize nuclear or fossil fuels
Lie.
and have actively encouraged laws blocking their use.
Lie.
Why must you lie to make you point?
And that's an ORDER.
You're a liar. Make a note of it.
You must be an ostrich, because I've never seen a chicken run that fast.
We are ALL getting tired of your stupidity
Sorry,
A fellow debate geek (retired)
:)
Lie.
How are you left-wingers going to control or even slow down ANY global warming (oops, I mean climate change) if you continue using fossil fuels? Isn't that a bit hypocritical of you to demand others restrict their usage of fossil fuels while you deny you need to?
You listed several "lie" statements. But you demand someone else prove they are NOT lies. That makes perfect sense. You call him a liar but feel no need to show why what he says is a lie. Is that the usual left-winger procedure?
Again, you find hypocrisy where none exists.
You just think stating facts is fearmongering. That's because you're easily scared. I suggest growing some backbone.
I could easily say the exact same thing concerning the continual whines about right-wing media personalities coming from left-wingers.
You're a classic today. Have you had a couple adult beverages already?
1) They lie.
2) Their listeners believe the lies.
3) Their listeners vote based on the lies to the detriment of the country.
Understand?
They lie ... wahhh
Their listeners believe the lies ... wahh
Their listeners vote ... wahh
Stating the truth is NOT whining. Make a note of it.
Because that candidate promised to pay them $250 each if he won the election. BTW what did you spend your 'stimulus check' on?
Obama won the election because people hated Bush, wanted a change, like Obama's message, and wouldn't/couldn't vote for McGrampy and Bible Spice.
I wonder if Traveller is feeling guilty now for cashing that $250.00 check?
Where was this advertised? Please give links on Obama's website.
As usual, you're a liar who's lying.
Greatest American. He loved this country and deeply
cared about the well being of all mankind. I guess because he was not greedy and was educated and intelligenty brilliant the mony mongers find no interest in him.
Am I free to collect countless billions in subsidies to make me competitive while creating my infrastructure and catching up to Big Oil and the Nuclear Power Industry?
Funny how the "free market" always includes massive amounts of tax money being shoveled into the maw of the "competitive" oil and nuke industries, isn't it? What an idiot you are.
You are a LIAR. A particularly stupid and pathetic LIAR. It really is just that simple
I stopped reading your inane reply after that line. Why? because I JUST GOT DONE telling you the opposite. As a "lefty", the whole point of my reply was that I don't want to "drop fossil fuels". I don't know any "lefties" that want to "drop fossil fuels".
That's just being totally dishonest. Then you forge ahead with your argument based on the words you put in my mouth.
I can't have a debate with you if you are going to ignore or lie about what I wrote.
Lets see. They are much more expensive, and produce no where near the same amount of energy. Explain how that is reasonable.
Have you ever heard of the term net energy? It is a pretty important concept when evaluating energy sources.
How efficient and safe were those oil derricks in the old west compared to the modern ones (which still do have their risks)? How efficient and readily available was gasoline for the first Model-T as it rolled of the line? How much more fuel efficient and how readily available is gasoline for a car manufactured in 2011?
This is a bogus argument based on a rigid and static world. We live in a flexible and dynamic world where new technologies change the way things are done all the time.
Apparently only the right wingers mind is so limited and inflexible that it cannot imagine a world where we start moving toward a more modern and sustainable energy policy.
Actually, the Model T got about 25 mpg, and had about 20 horsepower. We've come a long ways since then, but mostly in the direction of consumption and waste sadly.
(hehehehe couldn't finish with a straight face)
Do you really think you are making an argument here, liars? You always get to the point where you just make us all feel sorry for you.
"...while failing to acknowledge that paying for the military actually allows the people of this country to exercise our freedom to advance our economy." That's definitely why we engaged in two wars at the same time this past decade, right? Fighting for our freedoms (hey, I thought we were spreading democracy on the other side of the world) to advance our economy? Declaring two simultaneous wars is great for the economy! That's a hoot. We'll always be able to afford the right-wing agenda, but any money spent by the left is communistic, or something.
I never said this:Declaring two simultaneous wars is great for the economy!
Why do you say I did? You are a liar. You use the same tactics as your leader, david brock, the admitted liar uses. Invent words, put them in other peoples mouth, than argue about the words you say others espouse. Total dishonesty.
That was just one war. You know WW2?
You are not being serious are you?
"we have completley ignored any other group and solely focus on the ones that attack america."
I think it would be a good place to start, don't you?
There are many terrorists groups within our shore, yet we haven't gone after them with the same fervor as we did with Al Qaeda (before we got distracted with Iraq) nor do we help countries with their own terrorism problems. This has never been a war on terrorism.
If you fight with reality Johaely, you will eventually lose. It is a recognized fact that there are Jihadis in the world, the specific term is Salafist Jihadism and they believe in the use of violence in achieving their political aims. Al Qaeda is one group, of quite a few that follow this ideology.
"There are many terrorists groups within our shore, yet we haven't gone after them with the same fervor as we did with Al Qaeda"
I believe the FBI has done a pretty good job of identifying threats from these other sources, but it is a fact that Al Qaeda is a bigger threat than any other of these groups.
Al Qaeda is as big of a threat as any other terrorist group inside America if not less. We have divested far too much time and resources on a war that we aren't even focusing on. The war on terrorism is just another war on drugs : a wrongheaded attempt at solving an issue without addressing it.
I like that. So when you faked the David Brock quote to impugn him, you were guilty of that.
Folks, this is the closest progessivesrliars will come to confessing dishonesty on this one.
Wow. What a sad, pitiful, fool. He sees no connection between the military and taxpayers. What a sad existence.
oil companies? STILL receiving major subsidies and tax breaks from who? why the taxpayers!
in fact ANY company that gets a tax break is stealing from the rest of the taxpayers.
How is the government not taking as much as you want them to take, from me, equate to me stealing from you?
progressiveliars is Donald Rumsfeld!!!!
Seriously though, a great point was brought up here that oftentimes gets lost in the heated rhetoric of the absolutist right.
Major industries have received tax breaks, tax incentives, subsidies, and grants for a long time and still do so today. This is neither "good" or "bad" but can be taken and evaluated on a case by case basis. Some of this money goes to stabilize markets (banks for example), some to promote research and new technologies (pharma for example), some to draw new players into an industry(dot.com, cellular providers), and others to support key integral markets to maintain long term sustainability (farm/oil subsidies).
Right wingers are very good at their selective outrage, and they tend to ignore these "socialist giveaways" if they support an industry that pads the campaign coffers of republicans.
1. Your argument is an attempt at misdirection. This article doesn't discuss taxpayers paying for new technologies. Rather, it lists a whole lot of people (I won't call them conservatives because I know plenty of true conservatives who are intelligent and understand the need for progress) who are using FUD tactics to discredit renewable energy technology. And I was sarcastically noting that this approach does nothing to benefit or advance our society.
2. Do you have any idea what it takes to develop large-scale new technologies these days? The internet via which we are communicating wouldn't exist without government funded research. Most of our current medicines wouldn't either. Also things like computers, color TVs, our understanding of physics and the universe, biology, etc. etc. etc. I might have issues with some of the research the government funds (missile defense for example, a 40 year old boondoggle) but I try to not be so egocentric that I dismiss the possibility of people much smarter than me having a very good reason for pursuing this research.
3. Ultimately, it boils down to culture and direction. What kind of a country/society do we want to live in? One that nurtures innovation and thought leadership? Or one that is complacent, unaware, and looks to others to define the future? This country had an amazing spurt of innovation in the last century, in large part because our leaders defined the culture. Scientists, engineers, etc. from all over the world wanted to come to study and conduct research at American universities because that was the most cutting edge place to be. That research is funded by a mix of mainly government and some private sponsorship, but it could not exist without the government dollars. But when it comes to renewables, the US has fallen behind to others countries that recognize the importance of this technology to our future.
The reality is that we elect our leaders and those leaders set the tone, attitude, and direction for this collective we call a country. When those leaders inspire a culture of innovation, we progress. When those leaders promote complacency and cynicism, we stagnate. Hence my sarcasm about the naysayers.
I do have an idea. The market or the government, or a mix of both, is the debate. Not opposition to green energy as is being framed, by media matters and the left.
Your right. it boils down to letting the market dictate or the government dictating. I prefer the free market. Some prefer big government.
I appreciate the civility :)
I haven't had time to research if there are omissions in this article, so I'll take you at your word.
However, even if "taxpayer subsidies for the various tech" is the root issue, on a practical level there is not much issue there. Try telling the largest corporations in the market that the government won't fund research anymore. Their lobbyists would go into overdrive. That's because the government absorbs the risk of funding research in the hopes that ultimately the people will benefit. The corporations develop a product based on the research and take it to market, thereby having a reason to pay their employees and ultimately make a profit. And the consumer base gets a product that (hopefully) improves their lives. Corporations/the market simply can not afford to pay for this research themselves because either the return is not immediately apparent or the scope is just too big.
There's a big difference between the government 'dictating' and the government recognizing and supporting valuable new initiatives that will ultimately benefit both 'the market' and citizens.
As a side-note, I am sincerely fascinated by the "market drives all" mindset. Don't want to presume that's your belief system, so I'll just ask: do you think this country would be better off if everything was run by the market with zero government involvement?
Why does he hate America so much?
Look, I really don't disagree with what you wrote above. Up to a point. The government, in a way subsidizes research done by energy companies, via tax breaks. Nothing wrong with that. You say companies cannot afford to pay for this research themselves, which is not really true. The subsidies these companies get are in the form of tax breaks, not from taxes collected from others. So, it really is money the company already has, it's just that the government says if you use some of your own money for research, we will give you a break on what we take from you. That is not the same as redistribution of tax funds, which is what is being suggested we do regarding wind and solar energy. The left frames the debate as your either for wind and solar, or you against wind and solar, when really it has nothing to do with for or against, it's who pays for it. In a free market system, if you build a "better mousetrap", you will succeed, if you don't, you won't. It's not the governments role to prop you up. That's the real debate.
And whenever the government gets involved, the more they tend to dictate, as oppose to just supporting. That's the danger of government involvement. They are the big gorilla in the room, so to speak.
As to your side note: The free market mindset does not believe that there should be ZERO government involvement. So, no, I don't believe the country would be better off run by the market with zero government involvement.
So, I answered you question, now answer mine: I am sincerely fascinated by the "government drives all" mindset, do you believe we would be better off if the government run everything, with zero market involvement?
Bear in mind, this country was founded on the idea that power would be vested in the states, not the feds. After all, it was the states that defined the power of the feds, to begin with. They chose to retain most of the governmental power themselves. It's just in recent times, the feds have been trying to take more and more of the power from the states. The states are now starting to kick back.
Yes, it is.
Why are all your "opinions" based on lies?
Care to try again?
No it doesnt. Not to a rational human being
Which happens all the time in this economy MOSTLY UPWARDS. GOD but you are so brainwashed and so stupid I dont know how you manage to breathe
Yes and then we abandoned that idea because the country was in complete disorder. And its completely ironinc that the states that are "starting to kick bakc" the most are Southern states, states thta would not have even existed without government involvement.
But there was a reason i asked you that. We abandoned the idea of state supremacy when we abbadoned the articles of confederation. And all those things (no other states outside the 13th colonies would have existed without government involvement) but southern states seem to always be forgetting that with all their "states rights" crap.
Looks like you failed both history and civics. Time for a refresher course.
To do something purposely is to do it deliberately or on purpose: Please don't move those books, I put them there purposely.
While to do something purposefully is to do it with determination: "Right you naughty children, here I come!" he said, and strode purposefully into their room.
Purposefully is not somehow "stronger" than purposely, and it most definitely does NOT mean, as you seem to think, "something done with an ulterior or hidden motive".
Not at all. I am far from being an absolutist on just about anything. In fact, I'm an entrepreneur and own a small company myself, which happens to be incorporated, so I could be called a corporatist. And as such, I operate within the free market. I'm thankful my company is small, because for all the issues that brings, it allows us to be nimble and adapt quickly to market changes.
I am also a strong believer in individual empowerment and decentralized grassroots movements. I think the greater arc of history has us moving away from top-down hierarchies to societies capable of decentralized collective action. Current events in north Africa are great examples of this, but I digress...
Anyway, back to the topic: individuals innovate, but this innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum. You said This is not accurate, or at least far from the whole story. The government provides more than tax breaks, it pumps tons of cash into research.
Just look at the medical field: the government provides huge grants to universities to do medical research. Once a discovery is made, a corporation takes the research, tests appropriate dosages (for example), patents the finding, and brings the medicine to market. The bulk of medicines we use were developed via direct government funding, even though the government sees no profit from the results. In fact, this is one of the biggest arguments against the high price of medicines: big pharma profits from the sales of medicines developed not by them, but by us the taxpayer. This type of research funding happens in physics, biology, engineering, and just about every other field.
And it's not just funds to universities. Have you heard of the SBIR program? I believe it was put in place by Ronald Reagan. Anyway, the program provides grants to for-profit companies to develop products which benefit the greater good. The government pays for all the r&d and evaluation studies. Once the findings are approved, the company brings the product to market and makes all the profit. This program was put in place to move the r&d to the commercial sector. But it also exists because there are about 0 private investors that would put money into these endeavors.
So in answer to your question: no, I don't believe we would be better off if the government ran everything. But it doesn't run everything. It provides the capital for researchers to do what they do. The reality is: large-scale cutting edge research in just about every field you can name is happening on the government dime. And corporations benefit from this as much as (or maybe more than) citizens.
Wow I'm long-winded, and I could probably keep going for 10 more paragraphs. Apologies, I was never good at sound bite answers.
YOU deal primarily in absolutes much more than all the people you disagree with here. "Lefties do this and do that" as if we are all a monolithic block of people. We're all against nuclear, and oil and . . . . blah blah blah.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS ALWAYS PERSONALLY BUILDING THE STRAWMAN. You also commit so many logic fallacies and flaws, I find it pointless to get involved with you. Your particular favorites are: Straw man, Ad Hominem, Red Herring and False Dilemma.
Not always. Oftentimes these are research grants, subsidies, contracts, etc.
This is not a simple either/or issue. Nothingtoseehere's post is a nice summation of the complexity and cuts to the heart of the matter. Other nations are funding and implementing these renewable energy solutions right now. We are falling behind the curve. I'd rather live in the world envisioned by Presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, and dare I even say Reagan. These presidents believed in America taking the reigns and being a world leader, not a follower. I wish i could say the same for President Obama, but he seems too worried that the anti-progress right will think ill of him if he tries to act with any kind of national vision (like it matters what he does, they'll attack him regardless), and so we remain in a cultural stasis between the irrational right and the acquiescent left.
Why shouldn't oil companies pay their fair share in taxes?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
http://pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=3199
http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-zero-taxes/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/11/exxon-ceo-oil-subsidies/
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/12/why-did-us-give-global-warming-denier-exxon-a-3-billion-subsidy-on-the-eve-of-climate-talks.html
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2006/03/exxon-mobil-ceo-calls-for-an-end-to-ethanol-subsidies-44323
Liar. Government doesn't have a profit motive so EVERYTHING they do is cheaper than the private sector.
Example: Medicare has a 3% overhead while private insurers have a 15% or more overhead.
Why do you need to lie to make a point? Why do you hate government so much?
1. The private sector will never look out for the interests of individuals. This is not evil, but pure capitalism - there is no money to be made in the welfare of individuals.
2. The call of letting the private sector fix it is really an excuse for inaction. By transferring the responsibility to the private sector, we gain the ability to dismiss the problems that we should be alleviating. After all, if the private sector didn't address it, it must not be a problem.
...because that subsidy money is reserved into perpetuity for the oil and nuke industries. Got it.
Can't you right wingers think beyond absolutes? You are again unable to comprehend the real argument because you desperately cling to false choice arguments and binary thinking.
Or you are being intellectually dishonest because you know full well that even highly profitable private industries receive subsidies and often pay as little as 0% in corporate taxes?
The choice is not "do we always support something, or never support something". The real question is what do we support, and for how much. This has always been the question. It's only been since the advent of radical right wing media domination that we get these over-simplified and quite frankly flawed choices in the national debate.
NPR and PBS do NOT lean left. They lean toward the truth, which lately leans toward the left because the right is filled with liars and those who believe lies.
Why do you choose to believe lies?
No, they didn't admit it. If they did, please provide proof.
Why do you choose to believe lies?
The "admission" took place in 2003. Most of the links were to nutjobs sites like Townhall. And Dvorkin said that there was an occasional liberal slant to ONE show that airs ONE hour per day (Fresh Air).
NPR is not biased. Prove me wrong. Now. I demand it.
Of course we did since it never happened. You are a LIAR
Townhall is NOT respected by anyone with any respect.
Please provide examples of more admissions by NPR that they have a liberal bias.
These conserv-a-toads have had their heads shrunk for so long that everything else is left compared to what they sup on.
These conserv-a-toads have had their heads shrunk for so long that everything else is left compared to what they sup on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Allegations_of_liberal_bias
Then there's this.....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1180
Despite the commonness of claims (of liberal bias at NPR), little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR, and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support. Looking at partisan sources—including government officials, party officials, campaign workers and consultants—Republicans outnumbered Democrats by more than 3 to 2 (61 percent to 38 percent). A majority of Republican sources when the GOP controls the White House and Congress may not be surprising, but Republicans held a similar though slightly smaller edge (57 percent to 42 percent) in 1993, when Clinton was president and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. And a lively race for the Democratic presidential nomination was beginning to heat up at the time of the 2003 study.
Partisans from outside the two major parties were almost nowhere to be seen, with the exception of four Libertarian Party representatives who appeared in a single story (Morning Edition, 6/26/03).
Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge, individual Republicans were NPR’s most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance.
No they dont, you are a LIAR.
No they didnt, you are a LIAR.
We knew no such thing. You are a LIAR.
You remind us only how stupid you are and that you are a LIAR.
If I were to say that the sun rises in the west, and you were to call me a liar (and provide proof), would that make you the opposite of what I stand for?
NPR and PBS may seem like they have a bias to you and your ilk, but that is because you are so far right that you would give Mussolini pause.
You keep trying to put words into my mouth. I have always maintained that NPR was as close to an unbiased news source as you can probably achieve in this day and age. I was in fact, proud of them for maintaining civil discourse and reporting raw information rather then sensationalized partisan shouting matches.
Cable and Radio news and talk have become the quagmire of sensationalism and lazy partisan stenography, not NPR.
2. Wind farms may be sited off-shore (Belgium and Denmark). And, although in the early stage of development, floating wind turbines are possible, as has been accomplished on a small scale in Norway. In any event, it is unnecessary to site wind turbines on large, flat swaths of dedicated land. Wind turbines may be placed on otherwise unusable or unused land (mudflats, rugged hilltops and low mountain crests) or, as is now happening in the U.S., within farmland. There is at least one small municipality in the U.S. which has installed a turbine in the middle of the town to provide off-grid power.
3. Japan has no deserts. Therefore, creating solar farms there is a non-starter. But roof-top solar is possible and could reduce Japan's reliance on utility-generated electricity. However, the cost, size, weight and cumbersomeness of installation of photovoltaic panels stands in the way of wide adoption. Nanosolar technology, now being developed in the U.S., may provide a solution to these various impediments to roof-top solar's adoption, including that of cloudy weather. In addition, battery storage of solar panel electrical energy is now being investigated as a means of compensating for days when there is little sun.
OMG, I never thought of that. Stop everything! Demolish all windmills now!
This is a firing offense. Nobody this stupid should be allowed an audience.
Then I realized that ever since I was old enough to know what wind was, it's been windy on and off, so I guess by applying what most first graders are well aware of, we can shoot down that silly Limbaugh argument.
I remember him telling me it was cold one day on the east coast in the middle of January as a reason for discrediting global climate change.
Maybe Rush should have been sent to a public grade school. I think they missed those basic weather lessons at the private academy he went to.
Then why didnt he say that? That was not his point. He didnt have a point. He was saying something incredibly stupid because he knew his incredibly stupid Limborg audience, like you, will just lap up anything he says no matter how pathetically ignorant it is
How does he know that? What is he basing this grand revelation upon? Did he do the research? is he aware of how these new technologies are being implemented in other countries to a varying degree of success? Is he unaware that all new technologies take time and trial and error to perfect? Does he realize that fossil fuels are way more efficient and cleaner now then they were in their infancy of use when they were more plentiful and easier to extract from what were untapped reservoirs? Does he realize that even after a good hundred or so years of heavy use, those fossil fuels are either close to or past peak extraction and still pollute and have risks and dangers associated with them?
Yeah, Limbaugh gives you the 25% of the story that suits the agenda of the big republican donors, but far from the whole story.
Normal people would think that it's a very good time to talk about it.
Strange that they don't think it's a bad time to attack other sources of energy.
Pretty much an admission that they can't back up their sh*t, when they want to make special rules about when we can talk about certain issues - that is, we're only allowed to talk about the things they love when the disastrous results of those things has faded in the memory a bit.
These are the same buffoons who think summer is a bad time to talk about Global Warming.
It's the same way when a person near and dear to someone suffers from a violent criminal attack - is a person close to the victim going to be the best person to judge what punishment the criminal should face, or should there be some neutral group that determines that? Inflamed decision makers taking part in a heated debate often won't make the best choices.
Nuclear energy is already regulated. From all indications, what ever problem are occurring is really don't a problem of the plants themselves, as they seem to have withstood more wear and tear than they where designed to. The real problem seems to be where they were built. We have no power to do anything about where another nation builds their plants. And we don't need to do any studies to already know we shouldn't built them in active fault zones.
You lefties are just trying to exploit this disaster for your own gain, both political and financial.
The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, let the cat out of the bag when he said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”
Obviously not. And why did the tests only plan for a 7.2 quake when a bigger one could easily happen? Some of ours are in similar areas like California.
He who smelled it, dealt it.
For people who are able to do two things at once, it's time to discuss the issue.
Providing aid should go without saying, to everybody but the hopelessly stupid.
That quote from Emmanuel, do you understand it ? Do you understand concepts like making lemonade out of lemons, the silver lining, learning from your mistakes ?
An intelligent person always tries to take advantage of a negative situation. Only an idiot would think that's a bad thing.
Are you actually saying that you're so stupid that you think a crisis should go to waste ?
If you're actually mentally disabled, I apologize for picking on you. But you're one of the stupidest posters I've ever seen on any website, ever.
You got the Wingnut Free Pass on that one, the Special Class sort of rules we use with right wingers, the benefit of the doubt that assumes you're just stupid, rather than dishonest.
You were given a link to a website explaining the basics of crediting sources, and some tips on using links, the quote box and italics.
You used up that free pass by plagiarizing again.
This one's even better.
Unless you stole from the original source, the first hit that came up on a search of the quote you has the same words in a quote box, with no attribution.
That is, you may be a second generation plagiarist in this instance.
Sorry, you've been given too much help here to be given another free pass. This one has to go in the "Liar" column.
Does this bother you at all, considering your screen name ? You've been trying very hard to find lying on the part of this site, and the posters here, and as far as I've seen, you've completely failed. You haven't been able to point out one example.
On the other hand, I've lost count of the number of lies you've been busted on here. It would almost be easier to count the times you don't lie.
Do you think you may have gulped down some Kool-Aid, and that may be why you need to constantly lie to defend yourself ? You might want to think about that. Good luck.
It's not just plagiarism, he endlessly misrepresents the arguments of others (sometimes basing his rebuttal on the exact opposite of what the poster just got done typing) and forging ahead with his talking points.
It's almost like he bases his arguments on the projected right wing media talking point caricatures of liberals, and not on the individuals he is misrepresenting to get to his talking points across.
Most people who took any sort of logic course in school learned that logical fallacies pretty much lose the argument. Wingnuts seem to have gone to some other school, where they're taught that those fallacies are the foundation of debate.
On the other hand, they all seem to believe that "name-calling" ( especially pointing out that they're a moron or liar) loses an argument.
The idea that it's an inconvenient truth that anything useful can also sometimes be dangerous is nonsensical.
Intelligent people recognize that one needs to look at the inherent, potential dangers and risks from activities and balance those with the potential benefits. Only by a fair examination of the shortcomings and the benefits can one make a fair determination. The rightwing isn't interested in doing a fair evaluation - they only want to fearmonger and distort.
In the small city where I live, more people died tragically from a gas leak explosion and resulting fire downtown this winter then have died from wind and solar generation to date.
They really are grasping at some incredibly weak and just downright irrational reasons to stop America from moving ahead on new energy producing technologies. I guess they want us to fall behind the curve. I guess they don't care much about dependence on despotic regimes for obtaining fossil fuels.
They're digging for reasons against turbines. Have none of them seen a windmill? It's such a simple concept, and it worked for years.
In most areas, wind turbines are far away from populated areas.
The people who aren't bought and paid for by Big Oil need to step up; when it comes to denying climate science, our best interests are NOT at heart.
By the way, big oil is energy. As such, they, as a group, are heavily invested in all types of energy sources, not just oil. I use G.E. as an example of this. They, like most corporations, including standard oil and chevron, are have their eggs in many "energy" baskets.
Fossil fuels destroy the environment in their extraction and burning and yet this is fine to conservative idiots like you be aide somehow the magical market selected it.
Take your fourth grade intellect and debating skills to some trash right wing cesspool.
But some, like you, I presume, seem to prefer going back to using one of those old failed models. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even favor a mixture of some of those failed political systems.
Another lie. Why do you insist on telling lies? Don't you get tired of telling lies?
And who's "we" in "we have tried in the past"? The human race?
Are you really this stupid are are you pretending?
You really do make the left look foolish, you do know that, don't you?
Is government the cause of most of our problems TODAY?
I'm not looking to debate historical political regimes with you, because you've proven to be uneducated about basic history.
And you've proven to be a liar.
Prove me wrong.
My advice to you is to move to Somalia.
Why do you hate America so much?
I love the way you rightwingnuts CLAIM to love America but HATE Americas government. Since as citizens we ARE the government you obviously hate us citizens too. I knew you were self loathing but you really take it to the extreme. I just cannot abide morons who claim to love America while they so OBVIOUSLY hate Americans
Ok, I'm convinced you are a 15-year old taking your first political science class in HS ever. Because seriously, buddy, if you think that "fascism, imperialism, dictatorships" are "old style governments..." just, wow. And I won't even get into "monarcy's." It's Monarchies, and there's no apostrophe "s." And you don't seem to know the difference between economic systems and forms of government.
You also have REPEATEDLY argued that we are "free" to pursue other energy strategies, but NOT to ask the government for subsidies, while Big Oil continues to RELY on HUGE subsidies from the government, including stunningly low tax rates. How is this the "free market" at work? Don't call your teacher today, it's Sunday after all, but I encourage you to ask him first thing tomorrow in class.
Binary thinking strawman again. I don't recall anyone here stating that the government can solve all our problems.
You keep projecting these talking point caricatures of liberals as fed to you by right wing media, progsrliars.
Why don't you bother to listen to the actual beliefs of the individuals here? Are you afraid that you might be realize the "left" that your media personalities demonize daily are more reasonable and moderate then you were led to believe?
There are pros and cons to fossil fuels. On balance they have greatly improved the life's billions upon billions of people.
Typical self hating liberal.
There is a difference between demonizing a product, and demonizing the people who are controlling that industry.
I enjoy a good beer now and again, but if I learned the people making my favorite brew were donating their profits to a "kill the pandas and bald eagles" organization, I would surely stop drinking that brand.
The reason it may be difficult to separate the two, is because the oil industry is a strong oligopoly and our society decided a long time ago, as the technology became more prevalent, to be powered by fossil fuels.
As liberals, we understand that we live in a society. We aren't going to live in an underground shelter avoiding taxes and stockpiling weapons and survival seeds. We need to go to work and public transportation outside of most metropolitan (and sometimes within) is pretty abysmal. You need a car if you live anywhere beyond a moderate walk to work, and what happens if you have health issues and live with inclement weather and traffic safety issues in your area? It's just not possible to fold your arms and say you aren't going to be able to live without fossil fuels as we have structured our society that way.
We were one of the first nations to embrace fossil fuels, and we have grown in population while the fossil fuels slowly dwindle as they are used at an exponentially faster rate to meet the needs of that growing population.
To try and stick your head in the sand and say that we can move forward without developing an alternative to these fossil fuels is willfully ignorant of reality. It is also ignorant to claim that we can just drop fossil fuels the moment we have a working wind or solar generation plant, though no one with any common sense has suggested that. The goal is to start the push forward into a common sense approach that begins by supplementing the use of fossil fuels with renewable sources now, and let the technology develop. Perhaps something better will come out of the research and make all these forms of energy obsolete? We won't know until we try, and we will be left behind the curve of other nations if we don't try.
He's also one of those guys who thinks that because the left is pro-alternative fuels that means they want to immediately ban the use of fossil fuels.
He's also one of those guys who's opinions are based solely on lies.
No.
Yes.
No.
Any other questions?
I had some laughs with it the other day, but don't expect any sort of light to go on there. )Or their, or they're.)
Check out this thread.
Troggyliar may just be goofing around, or it may actually be that stoopid. Either way, not really showing any signs of being capable of an actual conversation.
You are a LIAR. Why do you tell lies so constantly? All you do is show how stupid and uninformed you are. You are too stupid to even understand the concept of irony or your head would explode when you talk to US about talking points.
You are a LIAR. Limbaugh was clearly lying and demonizing renewable energy. That is obvious. We only HAVE the internet, railroads, an automotive industry, computer industry, telecommunication industry, aircraft industry, ad naseum BECAUSE of gov investment. Oil WILL run out. We SHOULD invest in the future. If we do we can lead the world in such technology and have something to export.
they insist their own, considerable weaknesses be the norm while ruthlessly attacking the strength of their opposition as subversive.
Notice that whenever these uneducated, drooling trolls post a list or several long paragraphs, the diction is perfect although the reasoning is not and it's no more honest than their other posts? I wonder if they even read them, or are just cutting and pasting out of an understanding that they really don't know what they are talking about and desperately need help from Bad Info Central.
Even if he's a prankster trying to make right wingers look bad, it's a little over the top.
Which he introduced by ( accidentally, I assume) admitting that if one watched the entire programs cited here, one would see those propaganda techniques in action.
I could go through that cut and paste and destroy it utterly by pointing out how it is completely irrelevant to what MMFA does but why should I bother. It is so transparenly STUPID as a way to bolster your claim anyone with two braincells to rub toghether sees it already and you are too stupid to understand while being too cement headed to allow even the most rudimentary fact or glimpse of reality into your sad little world of Planet Wingnut
1 boneless chicken breast half, cooked and diced
2 cups water
2 carrots, chopped
1 zucchini, diced
1 clove garlic, minced
1/2 teaspoon chicken broth base
Directions
Put cooked chicken meat and water in a large pot and bring to a boil.
Add the carrots, zucchini and garlic and simmer all together for 5 to 10 minutes.
Add the chicken broth and simmer for an additional 5 minutes. Serve.
And that is a recipe for chicken soup. It has about as much relevance to the content of MMfA that your post did.
See, I can copy/paste like a plagiarizing first-semester undergrad too
You are a LIAR. That would be Beck and Rush. They have you spouting lies constantly by being so pathetically brainwashed you are hardly a human being at all. SSSKKKKWWWAAAAKKKKKK you say SSSSKKKKKWWWWAAAKKKKKK
I agree also with progressivesareliars, to a point. The commentaries above don't indicate that they are trying to outright sink renewables, but they are certainly disparaging of them so it does make one wonder. Let's suppose that these commentators are from the right and generally supportive of the Republican Party, thus promoting from time to time the party's interests. It is, I think, safe to say that the Republican Party, in the main, supports legislation that benefits big business, e.g. the mainline energy producers. It strains credulity to think that these producers, their political patrons and the above commentators aren't aware that renewables might be the wave of the future, a wave that has the potential to wash away a good bit of market share of the large energy producers. Given all this, what might the triumvirate of large energy, the Republican Party and the commentators above be inclined to do? Certainly not disparage renewables, and certainly not some in the Republican Party introducing legislation that would favor old energy over new energy. And I'm certainly not implying that there is a straight line connection between those actions, am I?
You can respond to me preferably at markmaginn91@gmail.com, or at markmaginn@comcast.net
I've written a few lengthy comments. Please read them and decide.
Mark Maginn
Alternative energy sources.
Lets just put it this way. The day oil runs out or becomes to expensive to extract billions of people will die because oil is used for much more than driving a car.
Look things up. You might learn something new.
Why do you keep placing humans above natural law? Is it because the universe is supposed to look after us?
There is a reason human population couldn't surpass 1.5 billion before the discovery of oil. What makes you think it can be sustained without it?
I'm not placing humans above natural law. Why do you have to lie about what I said?
And your last statement is false causation and basically fantastically idiotic to think that population would stop at 1.5 billion because oil wasn't discovered.
First you lie about what I said, then tell a lie about population and oil. Why must you lie to make a point?
Give me a reason why for thousands of years before the discovery of oil the population remained about 1 billion, and in the last 300 years it has grown exponentially to 8 billion?
Could it be because through the discovery of oil we were able to invent internal combustion engines and fertilizers, allowing us to mass produce food, which in turn allows more people to exist. Can you supply a better reason?
Stop referring to everything you disagree with as a lie.
Also I did not lie about what you said, I was merely giving you my interpretation of what you were saying in a question form. All you had to say was that you don't put humans above natural law, but no you said I was lying because you did not agree with my question.
I can't because that's not true.
The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Bubonic Plague around the years 1348-1350.
The population didn't reach 1 billion until 1804 and 2 billion until 1927. Therefore, you're telling another lie.
I was merely giving you my interpretation of what you were saying in a question form
Yes, even though the question didn't refer to anything I wrote, it was not a lie. I take that one back.
Ok it didn't reach 1 billion until 1804. However, the growth was linear for the preceding 100,000 years up till then. Then once we discovered oil and other fossil fuels population has grown exponentially. There is no denying that fact.
Human population.
Your analysis is simplistic and frankly, incomplete and borderline wrong.
I think the "explosion" of population has been due to many simultaneous issues. Among these are: increased longevity, reduced mortality - especially infant, increased land usage/productivity. All of these were due to increased scientific knowledge (petroleum exploitation has occurred concurrently). It's more of an effect than a cause. I think the population explosion shows a lack of foresight and too much prevalence of religion (or the wrong religions). We as humans seem to require a disaster (sometimes catastrophic) to alter our collective course. Democracies are similar, we can't seem to get together unless faced with an epic crisis. I don't see the population explosion ceasing until we have an absolute crisis.
I am sorry I should have been more broad with my assertion. Fossil fuels, not just oil, have been the catalyst to the growth in population.
Do liberals really struggle with seeing the connection between fossil fuels and the industrial revolution that lead to our current society?
Wood River Junction
SL-1 (this one killed three people)
Harry K. Daghlian, Jr.
Louis Slotin
care to try again?
Compare the deaths at both nuclear power plants and wind power plants.
Despite the fact that it was an experiment I'll give it to you. More people have still died as a result of wind power than nuclear power.
SOURCE
should have used your head a bit more.
lets see wind turbines are mostly hollow tubes
nuclear power plants are reinforced concrete........
could that possibly explain the death rate?
if wind turbines were made of reinforced concrete and steel i bet those death rates would lower......but that doesnt fit into your argument.
In the United States, if you go by death rates, wind power plants are more dangerous than nuclear power plants.
There. Is that specific enough for you? Can we agree on that statement?
but as i said above make them reinforced buildings and i guarantee death rates will go down
My point is that completely shutting down the use of nuclear power in this country because of what's happening in Japan is illogical. We certainly can learn about better way to secure our nuclear reactors, but to think about shutting them down completely is ridiculous.
Not only that, but wind farms take up a huge amount of space for relatively little power. It may be "cleaner" but it certainly isn't as efficient as other methods of energy production when looked at on a per square mile basis.
should start by shutting down all the plants that would be in danger from earthquakes, tsunamis, or other seismic and geological disasters.
There's plenty of land in the USA for wind farms or solar arrays.
Wind and solar power are viable in certain scenarios, just not to be our primary method of energy production.
It's not BS. Your nonsense about citing absurd and irrelevant death rates (people die all the time after falls and from traffic accidents while on the job, so citing them as directly attributible to wind power is ridiculous) is BS. It ignores the other factors regarding the variety of power generation sources we have - how potentially dangerous is it to humans, to the environment, how costly, is it a non-renewable source, what by-products are there, and are those by-products dangerous, etc. Your concentration on one untrue stat is dishonest.
Potential threats to the health of Americans is important too, and that's why we want to limit those things that are potentially more dangerous and utilize things that are potentially less dangerous.
Binary thinkers only look at one variable. Dishonest people do that too. You're both.
If I only talk about all the people who were killed using stairs, versus the number of people killed using ramps, you'd think that we should destroy any building that has stairs, but of course that's not true nor is it reasonable.
In the United States, if you go by death rates, wind power plants are more dangerous than nuclear power plants.
There. Is that specific enough for you? Can we agree on that statement?
That's a bold-faced lie.
There were plenty of people who died when nuclear power plants were being built in the USA. They fell from high places, and were killed on the road while construction parts were being transported, just like the deaths involving wind turbines.
Then, top that off with the fact that any argument that relies only upon death rates, rather than upon the potential risks and actual risks, is a wholly dishonest argument.
but ESPECIALLY SL-1........people died. and that was a nuclear reactor. in refutation of your idiotic claim that no american has died by nuclear power.
What they offer, they say, is technological savvy, unconventional thinking and flexible schedules, usually unencumbered by family commitments
Chew on this from Hampton Roads area, one big problem is teaching our kids that they can simply run some bullcrap business and make lots of money, it is coming to an abrupt ending.
Cecil Kelley
Wood River Junction
SL-1 (this one killed three people)
Harry K. Daghlian, Jr.
Louis Slotin
I can't find anybody who has died as a result of nuclear power. It seems that you previously listed three people who have died working at nuclear laps for various experiments.
Even IF you include those three people, I can find sources in which more people have died working with wind power than with nuclear power.
guess what genius......thats what happened with SL 1
here check this out and try to say no one died from nuclear power
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326644.pdf
Ann Coulter: Radiation Is 'Good For You' (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/ann-coulter-radiation-is-_n_837512.html
Don't let MagCynic and his simplistic thinking steer you off the track. Have you asked how long nuclear waste material is dangerous after it's use? Which states will store it or want to? Will it be(waste material) be safe from natural disasters? Will the waste material be safe from infiltrating our natural underwater springs? Then there is this:
March 17, 2011 03:00 PM
What No One Ever Told You About The Long-Term Effects Of Three Mile Island's Nuclear Accident
By Susie Madrak
(Pay particular attention to this part and ask if this could not be a reason that the count from nuclear accidents are so low.)
"...Health studies conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, various federal government agencies, and Columbia University supported the nuclear industry claims. The affected citizens contend these studies were sloppy and included people who should not have been counted, excluded many who should have been, or the researchers did not do the necessary follow-up on people who left the area after the accident. The citizens also say study authors uncritically accepted the premise that not enough radiation was released to cause the illnesses people were experiencing, so that even when higher disease rates were found, they were attributed to other factors such as stress or “lifestyle factors" like smoking, drinking, poor diet, or taking too much anti-anxiety medication..."
(Then there is this):
"According to Sternglass, a student of Albert Einstein's who holds several patents on X-ray technology, the health impacts from the accident were unquestionable, significant, and included a sharp spike in infant deaths and hypothyroidism. Dr. Gordon MacLeod, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Health at the time, tried to ensure all health impacts from the accident were fully disclosed. He was fired by then Governor Dick Thornburgh for his efforts. More recently, University of North Carolina epidemiologist Steve Wing reanalyzed the data from the Columbia University study and concluded that people living closer to the path of the radiation cloud developed all types of cancers more frequently. In the areas of greatest fallout, lung cancer rates jumped 400 percent, and leukemia rates climbed 700 percent. These scientists -- and others who question the nuclear orthodoxy -- have all been either drowned out or viciously attacked as biased, unprofessional purveyors of panic with an anti-nuclear axe to grind..."
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/what-no-one-ever-told-you-about-long-
The nuclear industry pays a lot of money to keep information from you and to poo-poo reports and studies that question the safety of their industry and have found a willing dupe in MagCynic. No surprise as he is always a willing defender of Beck/Faux.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Nuclear+industry+spends+millions+in+lobbying+and+reports&mkt=en-us&FORM=HPDTLB&PC=HPDTDF
That's because you are an idiot.
Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects
I know the answer already. I'm just seeing if you do, too.
I've posted that link before to that much more comprehensive study.
There's no one in the USA who's been killed as a direct result of a failure at a US commercial nuclear power plant. But it's a bogus, irrelevant fact. It's the potential threat from nuclear power plants that's much more relevant, as well as the problems with the construction cost of those plants and the problem of disposal of the waste.
Add that to the fact that there hasn't been hardly any construction on any nuclear plants in the USA in the past 40 years, and a comparison of the deaths in that industry versus wind power is a dishonest argument, and totally like your typical argument.
You could argue that the potential for catastrophe is much higher at nuclear power plants, but you can't argue the actual statistics.
It's a number sourced from a blog, where people didn't cite any deaths indirectly associated with nuclear power plants, but did cite every death indirectly associated with wind power.
I can argue both, and I have successfully done so.
They do not even consider that the country that develops clean new energy will stay or become the next great Super Power in the World. It is time to invest in clean energy development, before someone else does...
Ultimately, all disputes are over sustenance, land, or energy. Every other reason stems from these things. While David Gs wording may be a bit clunky, his point remains:
Control the energy, control the nation.
The issue with this is the assumption that renewable energy will be able to sustain the globalized world fossil fuels have created.