Trump energy policy key to reviving economy — Biden plan destroys jobs, raise costs

T. A. Gardner said:
So, you are good with all the negative environmental impacts of solar and wind being scaled up at outrageous cost hum? Do you visit reality often or just live in a Leftist fantasy world?
Click to expand...

The environmental impacts of solar and wind are nothing compared to the destruction of the planet fossil fuels have caused.

Like here:

A 20,000-tonne oil spill is contaminating the Arctic – it could take decades to clean up

When there's a "sun spill" causing massive amounts of sunshine in your neighborhood, then I guess you can complain about the hazards of renewable energy.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Death Valley is a poor choice because of its geology. It is a basin in a basin and range topography and has a major series of faults running through it as it is the spreading center of the ranges on either side. It also is sinking. In addition, it is made up primarily of loose alluvial spoil that has two bad characteristics. The first is that it has a poor soil loading so it doesn't take loads well. The second is that it is expansive soil so when it does rain on an infrequent occasion, the ground will shift and heave.

All of that is very bad for putting anything on it in the way of structure.
Click to expand...

Don't like death valley? Fine. California is our second largest state, and much of it is desert. It's already seen success from solar panels, so to go back on that at this point would be conceding that you lack the ingenuity and innovation to adapt and change. And aren't those two qualities the thing everyone jizzes over for the free market????
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, because solar and wind are uncompetitive with natural gas, coal, oil, nuclear, biomass, hydro, thermal, you-name-it.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but it's not true! You admitted a few posts ago that energy companies are artificially inflating the cost of renewables so they can make a profit. So it's not that renewables are not competitive, they clearly are, it's that renewables aren't profitable for energy companies.

And frankly, fuck energy companies. Fuck their shareholders. Fuck their margins. Fuck their profit motive. Fuck their lobbying. Fuck their fake scientists. And fuck their executives.

Energy companies don't innovate, they don't adapt, they aren't agile, they spend billions lobbying...and we can't afford that rigidity in our economy, nor can we afford that as a society.

There is no earthly reason energy companies have to be run for a profit.
 
Irish said:
It was already spreading in China. Markets were reacting to a Chinese slow down.
Click to expand...

You mean the tax cuts from 2018 over-leveraged the stock market!?!?!?!?!?!?

Gee, who was warning about that? I mean, besides me and every other liberal you ignored.

BTW - even before COVID, the DJIA was growing at its slowest rate since the last Conservative Recession.


Had nothing to do with tax cuts. Tax cuts usually spur the economy.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Tax cuts have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER spurred the economy. NEVER. NOT ONCE. NOT EVER.

Your shitty tax cut was supposed to lead to growth of "at least 3%".

You never hit that growth.

Instead, manufacturing went into a recession back in July 2019, and the country went into one in February 2020.

None of that has to do with COVID.
 
Irish said:
You'll be hard pressed to find an economic expert who thinks raising taxes will help stimulate an economy.
Click to expand...

Not if you tie those tax increases to spending increases.

You cut taxes and the result? A recession. That's what happened.

Your shitty tax cuts, that were supposed to produce growth of at least 3%, turned Obama's economic expansion into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
 
LV426 said:
Don't like death valley? Fine. California is our second largest state, and much of it is desert. It's already seen success from solar panels, so to go back on that at this point would be conceding that you lack the ingenuity and innovation to adapt and change. And aren't those two qualities the thing everyone jizzes over for the free market????
Click to expand...

Like the aforementioned Ivanpah? The plant is on the brink of closure because it can't meet its pollution quota, can't produce sufficient power, and is proving too costly to even operate...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanpah-solar-plant-may-be-forced-to-shut-down-1458170858

Now the environmental Left is against putting huge solar plants in the desert because of the environmental harm they do:

But large solar energy facilities are one threat that cacti weren't built to withstand, according to a study by the University of California, Davis.

The study, published July 20 in the journal Nature Sustainability, chronicles the impacts of ground-mounted solar energy development in the Mojave Desert on native plants and their cultural significance to indigenous tribes in the region.
Click to expand...

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-cacti-iconic-threatened-solar.html

Crescent Dunes is another, slightly smaller, solar plant that's going under financially.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a30472835/crescent-dunes-solar-plant/
https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin...-end-up-in-bankruptcy-developer-says-1865917/

The Trump administration was able to get $200 million out of the $1 billion the Obama administration put into the project back at least.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/30/trump-obama-tonopah-crescent-dunes-solar-energy-solyndra/

Meanwhile in Arizona, the state's largest solar array Solana has seen the largest fine in state history leveled on it for breaking environmental laws

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...rgest-fine-ever-imposed-by-arizona-air-regula
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...olana-solar-plant-air-quality-fines/91135450/
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...but-pollution-is-expected-to-continue-8693310

The got caught in a microburst thunderstorm that destroyed half the plant...

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...ts-worse-after-july-microburst-damage-8671474
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...-transformer-fires-more-air-pollution-9640548

Yep, solar power is just a disaster from start to finish.
 
LV426 said:
You keep saying this, but it's not true! You admitted a few posts ago that energy companies are artificially inflating the cost of renewables so they can make a profit. So it's not that renewables are not competitive, they clearly are, it's that renewables aren't profitable for energy companies.

And frankly, fuck energy companies. Fuck their shareholders. Fuck their margins. Fuck their profit motive. Fuck their lobbying. Fuck their fake scientists. And fuck their executives.

Energy companies don't innovate, they don't adapt, they aren't agile, they spend billions lobbying...and we can't afford that rigidity in our economy, nor can we afford that as a society.

There is no earthly reason energy companies have to be run for a profit.
Click to expand...

Here's your theme song, enjoy:

 
The solution to safe, cheap, efficient, reliable, environmentally friendly and plentiful energy is nuclear backed by natural gas. It's that simple.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The solution to safe, cheap, efficient, reliable, environmentally friendly and plentiful energy is nuclear backed by natural gas. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Nuke is generationally irresponsible.

Keep developing wind, solar, geothermal, etc. by mid-century, all will be viable, affordable, safe & generationally responsible.
 
BartenderElite said:
Nuke is generationally irresponsible.

Keep developing wind, solar, geothermal, etc. by mid-century, all will be viable, affordable, safe & generationally responsible.
Click to expand...

Prove nuclear is "generationally irresponsible" whatever that means.

Solar will never be viable because the power density is far too low and it can only produce a few hours per day. Wind is a bit better but the power density is too low to be viable on a truly large scale. Geothermal and hydro are limited by location.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Prove nuclear is "generationally irresponsible" whatever that means.

Solar will never be viable because the power density is far too low and it can only produce a few hours per day. Wind is a bit better but the power density is too low to be viable on a truly large scale. Geothermal and hydro are limited by location.
Click to expand...
The average energy density of the sun striking the Earth is a kilowatt/meter2 you fucking lying halfwit.
 
Rune said:
Not true.
Click to expand...

True, unlike your ill-informed rebuttal

The photovoltaic panel is one of the most common used solar panel in the world. With the development of the technology, a photovoltaic (PV) solar panel usually have a life expectancy of 20-40 years.
Click to expand...

https://www.siliconsolar.com/what-i...usually have a life expectancy of 20-40 years.

Thin film PV panels generally have the shortest life and are the cheapest to manufacture. These are widely used in home solar arrays.
 
anatta said:
that is in the MANUFACTURING PROCESS> they are not eternal panels -a 20-25 year life expectancy
Click to expand...
Wrong stupid bitch.

The Life Expectancy of Solar Panels

When you’re considering investing in a solar installation, wondering how long home solar panels last is a question that inevitably pops up. To put your mind at ease studies have proven solar panels can last anywhere between 25 to 30 years — or sometimes more.1
However, this doesn’t mean the panels on your roof will stop producing electricity after a couple of decades. It just means their energy production will decrease by what solar panel manufacturers consider optimal to meet the average American family’s energy needs.
What Is the Solar Panel Degradation Rate per Year?

Solar energy system degradation rates vary depending on the brand, as well as the climate where they’re installed. The good news is, recent data has shown modern solar systems are outperforming all expectations.2
According to an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), some premium panel manufacturers offer degradation rates as low as 0.3% per year; and while other brands have higher degradation rates of up to 0.8% per year, that’s still a yearly average degradation rate of only 0.5%.
Meaning, even if you get a standard solar panel 25-year warranty period at 0.5% degradation, your solar panels should continue operating at around 88% of their original capacity after this time.3 Not too shabby at all!

https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-cen... Expectancy of Solar Panels&text=To put your
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top