posted February 26, 2009 11:13 AM            

What happens when you flip that switch...and nothing happens?

You're about to find out. If O'Bomber has his way.

He's already promised to bankrupt the coal industry...and those coal fired electric plants which supply 50% of America's electricity.

There's nothing on the horizon to replace all that lost electricity. O'Bomber and the green nuts...so called enviornmentalists and their lobby are about to devastate energy use in the US. They're against every single viable alternative to coal, oil and natural gas produced electricity. Those are nuclear and hydroelectric.

They propose a "smart grid" but even if their projections are right, that would produce only a 1-2% savings in energy use. So, what about the other 48% of electricity which would be lost when O'Bomber and the nuts surrounding O'Bomber bankrupt the coal industry and those utility companies which own and operate coal fired plants?

The fact is, O'Bomber and the green nuts are total liars and cannot produce what they claim with solar and wind produced electricity. Not possible. The numbers come nowhere near adding up.

It takes 1000 wind turbines on tens of thousands of acres of land to approach the electric generating ability of one (1) coal fired electric plant...and that's only true if the wind is blowing.

Arnold, the RINO Governor of California is in favor of a solar array covering more than 12 square MILES of land to produce the electricity of one small to medium coal fired plant...if the sun is shining. Perhaps Arnold thinks he can somehow make the sun shine at night in California.

So, how many tens of thousands of acres in America are suitable for wind turbines..where there is consistent wind? How many square MILES of land in America are available for solar arrays..where the sun shines reliably? What's all that going to cost...YOU...because YOU are the ones who are going to pay for it.

Tens of Billions of taxpayer dollars have already been thrown at wind and solar power going back to Jimmy (The Teeth) Carter's bankrupt administration and it was money down the rathole.

If I were you, I'd start thinking about what you're going to do when you flip that light switch and nothing happens because that's where O'Bomber and his cadre of enviornmental nuts is proposing to take you.

In the meantime, this same dud duo is going to skyrocket your energy costs as well as causing gigantic cost increases in everything you use..food, gasoline and every item consumed in the United States.

Now, some would say the castrophe coming from O'Bomber and friends is merely a miscalculation on their part and it won't be intentional and besides, their intentions are good and that's what they should be judged on, intentions, not results.

Just keep thinking about O'Bomber's good intentions when you flip that switch on your lights and thermostats and nothing happens. Keep thinking about those good intentions when your refrigerator won't cool, your washing machine won't wash and your dryer won't dry. When you find O'Bomber and his nutty friends have taken America back to the 1850's, remember all those good intentions and also remember he did all that with your taxpayer dollars to solve a problem which doesn't exist; "Man Made Global Warming".

In the meantime, remember to lay in a very large supply of candles. You're going to need them.

posted February 26, 2009 04:25 PM            

There is no viable alternative to coal, oil and natural gas which is not also spurned by O'Bomber and the radicals he's surrounded himself with.

There is now and will be into the far future insufficient capacity to produce electricity from wind and solar. Forget about the cost, there isn't sufficient area for wind farms and solar farms in areas where they might be useful. We're talking about replacing 50% of the "current" electric demand. A demand which does nothing but go up with increased population.

O'Bomber is a liar. Let's hope he's doing the usual on the subject of energy...lying through his teeth because the alternative..if O'Bomber goes forward with his absurd plans means shutting down the United States.

To make O'Bomber's plan even more outrageous is the fact the United States has more energy sources within our borders than all or almost all the rest of the world...combined.

katatonic, I don't have a clue where you come up with your ideas. Who ever told you Conservatives want to take America back to the 1850's. That's the wet dream of leftist radicals in the so called enviornmental movement.

The Green Energy Fantasy
By Keith Lockitch
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, February 26, 2009

Will a green energy industry be an engine of economic growth? Many want us to think so, including our new president. Apparently a booming green economy with millions of new jobs is just around the corner. All we need is the right mix of government “incentives.”

These include a huge (de facto) tax on carbon emissions imposed through a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme, as well as huge government subsidies for “renewable,” carbon-free sources. The hope is that these government sticks and carrots will turn today’s pitiful “green energy” industry, which produces an insignificant fraction of American energy, into a source of abundant, affordable energy that can replace today’s fossil-fuel-dominated industry.

This view is a fantasy -- one that could devastate America’s economy. The reality is that “green energy” is at best a sophisticated make-work program.

There is a reason why less than two percent of the world’s energy currently comes from “renewable” sources such as wind and solar--the very sources that are supposedly going to power the new green economy: despite billions of dollars in government subsidies, funding decades of research, they have not proven themselves to be practical sources of energy. Indeed, without government mandates forcing their adoption in most Western countries, their high cost would make them even less prevalent.

Consider that it takes about 1,000 wind turbines, occupying tens of thousands of acres, to produce as much electricity as just one medium-sized, coal-fired power plant. And that’s if the wind is blowing: the intermittency of wind wreaks havoc on electricity grids, which need a stable flow of power, thus requiring expensive, redundant backup capacity or an unbuilt, unproven “smart grid.”

Or consider the “promise” of solar. Two projects in development will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar cells in the hope of generating about 800 megawatts of power (as much as one large coal-fired plant). But that power output will only be achieved when the sun is shining brightly -- around noon on sunny days; the actual output will be less than a third that amount. And the electricity will cost more than market price, even with the life-support of federal subsidies that keeps the solar industry going. The major factor driving the project is not the promise of abundant power but California’s state quota requiring 20 percent “renewable” electricity by 2010.

More than 81 percent of world energy comes from fossil fuels, and half of America’s electricity is generated by burning coal. Carbon sources are literally keeping us alive. There is no evidence that they have -- or will soon have -- a viable replacement in transportation fuel, and there is only one in electricity generation, nuclear, which “green energy” advocates also oppose.

We all saw the ripple effects last summer when gas prices shot above $4 per gallon, and higher transportation costs drove up prices of everything from plane fares to vegetables. If green policies cause a permanent, and likely far greater, hike in the cost of all forms of energy, what shockwaves would that send through our already badly damaged economy?

We don’t want to find out.

Regardless of one’s views on global warming -- and there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claim that man-made carbon emissions are causing catastrophe -- the fact is that kneecapping the fossil fuel industry while diverting tax dollars into expensive, impractical forms of energy will not be an economic boon, but an economic disaster.

We in developed countries take industrial-scale energy for granted and often fail to appreciate its crucial value to our lives -- including its indispensable role in enabling us to deal with drought, storms, temperature extremes, and other climate challenges we are told to fear by global-warming alarmists.

If we want to restore economic growth and reduce our vulnerability to the elements, what we need is not “green energy” forced upon us by government coercion but real energy delivered on a free market.

posted February 26, 2009 10:20 PM            

i am with you on the global warming thing, jwhop, BUT visualize a picture of LosAngeles from a descending airplane, and another, of a village in the swiss alps. which place would you rather breathe in?

in england (especially london) the "peasoup" fogs were legendary - i have friends who remember walking to school with gas masks on - until the 1950's, when they realized it wasn't fog, but SMOG. smoke producing fires were banned in london and i can attest that only once in 21 years did i experience a peasouper in londontown. out in the country where the bans were not yet in effect, you could take a walk and come home red-eyed and sniveling with smoke inhalation.

the coal industry suffered from this. though they do have some technology that inhibits smoke production in coal! demand fell off. but you are crying about the miners in the same way the global warmers are crying about species extinction - despite the fact that even as some species ARE dying out, hundreds of new ones are being discovered. the cotton business was crippled by the civil war and ramifications, but new industries sprung up to replace it.

posted March 01, 2009 10:54 AM            

In fact katatonic, stop attempting to credit leftists with ANY improvements in America. Their every initiative blows up in America's fact..sooner or later and most of us don't give credit for "good intentions" but rather for solid results. I'm not willing in the least to credit leftists..progressives, Fabian Socialists or the rest of the pack of collectivists with "good intentions".

Your assumption that leftists were responsible for breakthroughs in health care and new drugs to cure illness is laughable at best. Solid Capitalists not brain dead leftist Socialists moved America forward in every area.

For your information, Woodrow Wilson, a leftist progressive..read Fabian Socialist was responsible for agitating for and signing both the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 16th Amendment...the income tax amendment.

FDR..Franklin D. Roosevelt, another leftist progressive..read Fabian Socialist was responsible for the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935 which on it's face was a total fraud. It was a fraud because the benefits from Social Security didn't start until age 65 while the life expectancy of women was 62 and for men, 61. Everyone was supposed to die before ever becoming eligible for Social Security. There is not now and there never was a Social Security Fund from which to pay Social Security Benefits. This was another leftist Socialist taxing scheme for the purpose of enlarging the power, scope and size of the federal government. This is without doubt, the largest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated in the history of the world. If a citizen did what Roosevelt and democrats in Congress did in 1935, they would be in prison for the rest of their lives...and rightfully so.

posted March 01, 2009 12:25 PM            

i am well aware that the AVERAGE life expectancy was lower in the 30's but that is taking into account infant mortality and death from diseases that were fairly rampant at the time compared to today. people who made it to adulthood have generally lived past 65 for a LONG time now! social security is no brainchild or favourite of mine!!

but speaking of ponzi schemes the stock market is well up there in the ranks of all time scams.

your continued insistence that i am a leftist shows that you are wearing your blue blinkers dahling, but i WILL persist in shooting down your more outrageous attacks on everyone who does not meet with your approval.

as long as we have credit(read usury) as part of our system we are in danger of total economic collapse. where is capitalism then? i ask this not because i am a leftist but because i see BIG flaws in the capitalist system too.

posted March 02, 2009 12:30 PM            

smallpox to autism

Listen, life expectancy in 1935 was 62 for women and 61 for men. There's no spinning those facts. There's also no possibility of spinning the fact that Social Security Benefits didn't kick in until age 65...at least 3 years AFTER people who would normally be eligible for SS were to be dead and buried.

You obviously don't know what a Ponzi scheme is or you wouldn't mention the stock market(s).

What makes you think "usury", credit and a fiat currency were ever part of capitalism as envisioned by the founders of the United States.

Just for your information, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was pushed by leftists, including the Fabian Socialist Woodrow Wilson...who signed it into law. "A strong Central Bank" is one of the "planks" of the "Communist Manifesto" written by the 5th rate thinker from the 19th Century, Karl Marx.

Why should you feel so threatened by facts? And why would you consider statements of facts to be an "outrageous attack"?

posted March 02, 2009 12:55 PM            

nor did i say that credit was ever part of the founding fathers' vision for us. it was quite the opposite as even i know. however they did not mind us BORROWING, only lending. which meant we were set up for paying interest which leads to inflation...

i also know that jefferson foresaw that times would change and the constitution would need to change with them to some extent.

posted March 02, 2009 01:20 PM            

I don't know where you get your mistaken beliefs that Conservatives would take America back to the 19th Century. There's not a shred of proof to suggest any such thing. Also not a shred of proof that Conservatives prefer horse poop to exhaust fumes. In fact, it's American Capitalists who have managed to create technology to remove oxides of nitrogen, sulfur and ozone in general from the air for cleaner air...air you can't see.

posted March 02, 2009 01:33 PM            

i said "back to the 1850's" because YOU insist that the socialists have been steadily sabotaging the constitution and our republican way of life for the past 100 years.

posted March 02, 2009 11:06 PM            

quote:

---

Jwhop, sorry, but I think Florida is really boring. I prefer California....because I like the mountains, the vineyards, and the climate better
Does that make me an evil leftist with some kind of odd agenda?..MyVirgo

---

posted March 03, 2009 12:02 AM            

{Yes, these are meant to be generalizations because I'm speaking .... generally. I do know the odd conservative who craves both the farm and the tradition and the odd liberal who craves both more modernity/technology and less moral/religious tradition.}

Realistically speaking, progress is made economically ... it all boils down to money; who is going to invest, produce, market, sell, etc. Forgive me, but I don't know too many self-described liberals who think business, particularly big business, is a nobel calling.]

(on to topic)

If there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels ... who's going to make the investments and run the businesses to make those alternatives a commonplace reality for the rest of us? Will it still be "evil big business" then? Or are we handing everything off to the government? It's just laughable.

More laughable is the fact that anyone would think that most average people, slightly left or right that is, don't want cheaper and less polluting energy sources.

I am fully behind a viable alternative energy source ... if they can ever come up with one (or some) that is realiable and cost effective to put into the market. Solar is not viable all over, neither is wind ... and as Jwhop mentioned, there isn't enough land for it to be nationally or even regionally a feasible alternative. "Water power" has some promising features but again you are geographically limited for one and for two, it is not a method that environmentalists are supportive of (damage to ecosystems, wot?). Nuclear power makes far too many people wet their pants at the very thought. Biofuel can be disastrous in effect because it limits our agricultural districts in their food production in favor of fuel.

Really. Who has a viable, cost effective, market ready alternative RIGHT NOW? Who is going to pay for it? The reality of this "green now" plan is that there is no actual plan. That's my problem with Obama's (and by that I mean this current adminstration's) plan.

Restricting ourselves right now without a viable alternative ready to jump on is a pipe dream (no pun intended) that is going to hurt our economy now and for years to come.

Government control of our banks ... our actual money reserves ... our energy sources ... our schools ... our healthcare .... How is this a good idea? Have you studied the government in action since the early 1900's? Epic Failure and market progress in spite of the government.

posted March 03, 2009 10:34 AM            

Of course government control over all these private sector enterprises isn't a good idea Eleanore. Government control over private sector enterprises is the essence of Fascism and as usual, it's Fascism coming from the left from whence it always comes.

The Congress is the group of imbeciles who couldn't run their own congressional dining rooms, couldn't run their own congressional post office and couldn't run their own congressional bank. Now, these imbeciles want people to believe they can run Ford, GM and Chrysler, want people to believe they can run the banks and insurance companies, can run the oil and utility companies and can run the health care industry.

It's absurd of course. Most of these clowns have never run anything, have never worked in the private sector making anything of value and are the very same idiots who bought hammers for $600 each and toilet seats for more than $100 each.