FOX News Talking Out Of Their You-Know-What On Solar Energy

We're covering this subject on ATS Live! Tonight

More info here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I also thought it was interesting with all of the clips of Obama in the beginning of the video posted.

I have found it rather strange that so much PR is being put into all of this. Well, not strange, it makes sense to me, just not efficient (ironically).

For over a decade I have been saying that using these so-called "green" energy sources are good. Not only that, but exploration into it may yield some fantastic scientific discoveries. Despite that, I strongly feel that we should be looking at making our entire energy infrastructure more efficient, regardless of the actual method used.

No one believed me when I said, so many years ago, that we would only see an increase in vehicle efficiency (for a specific example) when it was mirrored by a proportionate increase in energy cost (gas prices). I have actually been thinking about doing some graphs on this, but just dont have the time or inclination. It wouldnt convince anyone anyway!

Instead, there has been this artificial division created where you are either a full supporter of fossil fuels and detractor of "green and clean" energy, or a full supporter of "green and clean" energy and detractor of fossil fuels.

The reality is that we need to make them ALL more efficient. That will only happen with a proportionate increase in energy costs though. I said it before, and Ill say it again.

Link. The 2011 model does 0-100km/h in ~12 seconds. ~250 usmpg.

Link. 1994 model does 0-100km/h in ~15 seconds, if I remember correctly. ~45 usmpg (though owners will tell you a different story).

Link. 2010 model does 0-100km/h in ~11 seconds. ~50 usmpg.

Ill admit the above links arent telling the full story (increased safety restrictions, luxuries, etc), nor are they the best comparisons for various reasons. I just found the quickest links I could. There are still major discrepancies even when all of the variables are taken into account though.

Yeeeesh...for those people still saying solar is just some gimmick, will never work, needs massive subsidies, batteries, etc - all I can say is: tell that to Germany, ok?

Perhaps you missed the part in the OP where it states the country already gets 25% of its energy from renewables. The attached link then points out they are set to reach 40% by 2020, and on pace to not only meet, but likely surpass the government target of 80% by 2050. Many people feel they'll actually hit 100%. And it's not like this is some tiny, backwater nation - we're talking about a modern, 1st world, northern climate country of over 80 million people.

Meanwhile the fact is solar is part of a bigger clean energy paradigm that has many alternative solutions to energy storage and load balance. This includes options like:

- Compressed Air Energy Storage
- Molten Salt Thermal Storage
- Pumped-Storage Hydroelectricity

...and overall "smart grid" integration that more forward-thinking countries, companies, and people are already implementing - while FOX News serves its role as a propaganda mouthpiece for the right-wing plutocrat fossil fuel mafia and tells you it's all impossible folks, nothing to see here.


So I have no doubt that this embarrassing little gaffe was more than just an honest mistake. As I alluded to in the title, this was a byproduct of them once again talking out their rear ends about a subject they have a very obvious and clear cut AGENDA against, and they simply got caught in their own web of BS.

It's not like this is the first time. They've been repeatedly caught pulling this sort of nonsense in the way they manipulate the health care debate, or flat out manufacture a climate change debate, or filter and misrepresent the Occupy movement, or undermine Ron Paul, etc, etc, etc.

Those of you who seriously still can't see through all this, good luck to ya. FOX News literally looks at you people as sheep, and ironically this is probably the only thing they've ever actually gotten right.

Solar is a gimmick so how much of a gimmic is it?

The technology is over 40 years old billions of your tax dollars are financing the green push that is utterly ridculous.

Sure some areas of the country will get some good benefit from it however others will not, that will create higher rates for the non solar households.

Then someone want to explain to me the sense of going in to debt 10s of thousands on dollars for 1 or 2 decades for the system to finally pay for itself, but damn the heart of that system is the battery bank, often the most expensive part, and they all have a limited cycle life.

Within 5-10 your going to end up spend thousands of dollars more all to have that 6 bucks utility bill and then same problems with inclimate weather storm damages etc but that part is really nothing new.

Last I heard solar panel efficency has not reached over 50% yet unless that has changed in the last year.

Originally posted by neo96
Then someone want to explain to me the sense of going in to debt 10s of thousands on dollars for 1 or 2 decades for the system to finally pay for itself, but damn the heart of that system is the battery bank, often the most expensive part, and they all have a limited cycle life.

Last I heard solar panel efficency has not reached over 50% yet unless that has changed in the last year.

Originally posted by flexy123
Whether solar cells still are less effective, whether they lose 10% of their effectiveness or whether they need certain amounts of rare metals is entirely IRRELEVANT. This is exactly what the R&D is about, to find new ways to make better, cheaper and more effective ones. Its only a matter of time and developing the technology.

Rather than giving ignorant comments here how "ineffective" solar panels are and how good it would be NOT to waste time on this, the exact opposite must happen in the US..more research/tech money into the field IN THE SAME WAY as Germany did already

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Yeah well R and D should not be at the taxpayers expense.

THE END.

reply to post by neo96


Yeah those tax dollars are reserved for Big Oil/Gas/Pipelines and Wall Street.
It's unbelievable to me that we live in a world where developing green technologies makes less sense than building an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

New stuffs!

reply to post by neo96

Yeah well R and D should not be at the taxpayers expense.

THE END.

I think our military budget should be cut significantly and allocated towards other things, such as R&D for sustainable energy infrastructure.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

Yeah those tax dollars are reserved for Big Oil/Gas/Pipelines and Wall Street.
It's unbelievable to me that we live in a world where developing green technologies makes less sense than building an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.

New stuffs!

How many times do we have to go through this?

In 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons1 (or 3.19 billion barrels2) of gasoline, a daily average of about 367.08 million gallons (8.74 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.38 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 200

www.eia.gov...

139 billion gallons multiplied by 18.4 cents do the math the feds make each and everyday off of gas.

How much do they make off solar,.wind etc?

Nothing.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by neo96

 

Yeah well R and D should not be at the taxpayers expense.

THE END.

I think our military budget should be cut significantly and allocated towards other things, such as R&D for sustainable energy infrastructure.

edit on 9-2-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

What good are those solar and wind farms when someone is blowing them up eh?

Not very "sustainable".

reply to post by neo96


Well as they say on the interwebs "that escalated quickly".

You went from cutting the budget to being completely defenseless.

I don't care much for such extreme leaps of logic.

Calling for a significant reduction in a budget that is significantly larger than other forces (especially our 'enemies') is not rendering us defenseless. But of course the implication of your words is that we need exactly the budget we have to properly defend ourselves. Guess we will have to agree to disagree there.

So basically we can't cut existing budgets AND we can't ask for tax payer money. That leaves us with zero options for developing for the future.

You're exactly what you say you are. A conservative. At least you're true to your words

reply to post by neo96

How many times do we have to go through this?

I know, I know, I don't mind though... you'll get it one of these days.
oil subsidies

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Where do you think the current advancements in the civilian market came from ?

Most everything people take for grant came from that.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

How many times do we have to go through this?

I know, I know, I don't mind though... you'll get it one of these days.
oil subsidies

Actually I do get it unlike some:

www.forbes.com...

the heart of that system is the battery bank, often the most expensive part, and they all have a limited cycle life.

Nope. Not with this:

www.beutilityfree.com...

www.nickel-iron-battery.com...

I built a small home solar system. It's viable.

reply to post by neo96


Too bad most of the oil we got for low income families was from Venezuela.
Next?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

Too bad most of the oil we got for low income families was from Venezuela.
Next?

oh now who is the guy who blocked that oil pipeline from Ca?

If he hadn't maybe we would not be getting oil from there.

reply to post by neo96


Diligence of We the People keeps the pipeline from becoming reality.
Not Obama.
Plus I'd rather it come from Venezuela where the people profit off their oil.

Solar is great free clean energy - my dad had solar planel's installed and positively smiles continuously about how his energy bill has dropped. His system records the daily electricity generation and there is rarely a day goes by where it's 0. The story on viability is trash, I can even charge my iPhone from a solar cell, and solar cell calculators go back as far as I remember.

The issue with Solar is the governments can't control how brightly the sun shines, they can't meter it and they can't turn it off - it's all about control sadly.

Like any new energy method the early days are costly, R&D, implementation, efficiency reviews, but if Apple or Microsoft had worked on the principle of viablility computers wouldn't be where they are today.

Dare to be better, giving up before we even began on Solar is a devestating path to follow.

Oh and the sun shines more in the US than Germany so they are quite frankly lying.

Hey just a heads up - I decided to start a new spin-off thread related to all the people saying this was just a simple mistake on the part of the FOX News "expert" they brought in to discuss solar energy:

Here's 100% Proof That FOX News Are Straight Up Lying, Corporate Shills.

^This thread really shows you what kind of "experts" they like to bring in.