sd'sker Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 If you want a good explanation of "solar power", read "Physics for Future Presidents". There's roughly a gigawatt in a one square kilometer of sunlight, but the whole thing is, I think before they can go crazy with the whole "solar energy/going green", they need to make the way we gather solar energy, much more efficient. so it is a battery issue, which seems to be improving in leaps and bounds. But from what I gather solar cells are only 15% to 20% effiicient... that is too bad. i guess the technology can not all happen at once. hopefully the development is exponential and not incremental. Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 If you want a good explanation of "solar power", read "Physics for Future Presidents". There's roughly a gigawatt in a one square kilometer of sunlight, but the whole thing is, I think before they can go crazy with the whole "solar energy/going green", they need to make the way we gather solar energy, much more efficient. so it is a battery issue, which seems to be improving in leaps and bounds. But from what I gather solar cells are only 15% to 20% effiicient... that is too bad. i guess the technology can not all happen at once. hopefully the development is exponential and not incremental. I would hope so too. But the cost of making those panels isn't exactly cheap either, so we can have all these celebrities "using solar energy" when joe and jill six pack, can't afford it... Link to comment
bshirt Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 i am not sure what your point is. it seems like a free market success story with obama having a noble intent. green energy is a solution to all the jobs we have lost in detroit. it is a burgeoning market that can create jobs here that can not be outsourced, while helping our own infrastructure and increasing energy concerns. it appears it could have been ran better, but obama merely funded it. it is not his place to meddle with free enterprise. Did you actually type in "it seems like a free market success story"? If going broke is your definition of a success story, then the Obama administration is really succeeding. As for my point, I think that giving millions of tax dollars to a company who didn't have a trained workforce is a bad investment. If it's not the President's place to "meddle with free enterprise" then it's not his place to be throwing around millions of dollars to fund them. Solyndra cost us half a billion. Exactly. Having endless money for mindless (and/or bought out) bureaucrats to blow is the ultimate waste of money, energy and expertise. Throwing money at the professional parasites is a tradition well established from Nero and even long, long before. Sadly, the great tradition continues. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I think before they can go crazy with the whole "solar energy/going green", they need to make the way we gather solar energy, much more efficient. Agreed. Also, we need nuclear power and we need to France's lead in handling nuclear waste. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 It's even worse than it looks. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) says that these are not only failed companies but they are comparable to the Soviet Union and Cuba . . . When Soledad O'Brien asked, "You're surely not suggesting that the idea and the concept behind Solyndra and other green energies like Solyndra is comparable to the Soviet Union and Cuba, right?" the Republican senator replied, "No, I am suggesting that." O'Brien noted that Mitt Romney backed the same loan guarantees, at which point Johnson changed the subject. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romney-a-solyndra-like-failure-report-article-1.1088822 . . . until . . . of course . . . it was pointed out to him that Mitt Romney backed the same loan guarantees. Then he'd rather talk about something else. Let's call it "conditional socialism." When the other guys do it . . . it's terrible and socialism. When their guys do it . . . they would rather talk about something else. 3 Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I think before they can go crazy with the whole "solar energy/going green", they need to make the way we gather solar energy, much more efficient. Agreed. Also, we need nuclear power and we need to France's lead in handling nuclear waste. Carl, you need to read "Physics for Future Presidents".... He mentioned the french using small pebbles, for lack of a better term, in their reactors, making the upkeep easier... Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. romneycare? Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. romneycare? Didn't cost me a cent. Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. romneycare? Didn't cost me a cent. dude, I hate to burst your bubble, thats not the guy in the oval office.. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. romneycare? Didn't cost me a cent. that is a pretty facile response. Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. romneycare? Didn't cost me a cent. that is a pretty facile response. Truth sometimes is. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 When Romney backs something, it doesn't cost us tax dollars. romneycare? Didn't cost me a cent. that is a pretty facile response. Truth sometimes is. the definition of facile i was using was: appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial. but if this is about personal experience, and not the practical affects of policy, obama has not costed me a cent. i have received a tax return every year of his presidency, and i have had larger returners (by a lot, thank you home-buyers tax credit) than i did during the previous administration. romney has not done a damn thing for me. Link to comment
walksalone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 the definition of facile i was using was: appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial. but if this is about personal experience, and not the practical affects of policy, obama has not costed me a cent. i have received a tax return every year of his presidency, and i have had larger returners (by a lot, thank you home-buyers tax credit) than i did during the previous administration. romney has not done a damn thing for me. Your words are small and difficult to read 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 the definition of facile i was using was: appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial. but if this is about personal experience, and not the practical affects of policy, obama has not costed me a cent. i have received a tax return every year of his presidency, and i have had larger returners (by a lot, thank you home-buyers tax credit) than i did during the previous administration. romney has not done a damn thing for me. Your words are small and difficult to read i am trying to save space/energy. you know, do my part and such. Link to comment
Recommended Posts