Several have complained that I choose to use Barack Hussein Obama's middle name.
I do so mostly because I don't like him, and I don't like him because he doesn't want me to use his middle name. My guess is that he thinks it will remind us of his Muslim connections. Father, step father and some schooling. Fair enough, and I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't think he was trying to get me to not ask questions. And after listening to his excuses about the Reverend Wright and Ayers association, I can see why he doesn't want questions. Especially after he insulted small town America with his demonstrated lack of understanding about middle America.
Michelle Malkin has dubbed him "Snob-ama," a pithy description that is good, but doesn't really capture the man.
So I am going to keep calling him Hussein. Any American running for President who doesn't know how to properly salute the flag of the country he wants to be CIC of doesn't deserve to be President, nor does he deserve the respect of being called what he wants.
Hussein he was. Hussein he is. Hussein he will remain.
Failure to salute Link
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Green power? hehehe
One of the enduring traits I find of most Left wingers is their inability to make an argument that isn’t designed to establish that they are more knowing than others, and ending with some type of insult. They also have a tendency to fall in love with any and all technology that has some connection with reducing carbon dioxide. They just can’t help it. It is in their genes.
Such is the case with Weeder Gander.
On 4/18 I posted a “memo” to “Mr. President” in which I urged him to declare an emergency and start drilling for oil in response to the high gasoline, diesel and other chemical prices that are killing our economy. I also suggested, somewhat in jest, but less so than more so, that he have some serious conversations with OPEC re our belief that they are attacking us.
Weeder responded with a snark about what Bush knew and when, and even managed to come up with a quote supposedly showing he didn’t know about the forecast of $4.00 gasoline from some reporter. I didn’t bother asking for links because it didn’t matter. My post was not about what Bush did, or didn’t know, but about taking action to solve the problem. I even asked Weeder for a solution.
To which he responded that:
Which, if you take only the long view, has some truth in it. Of course in the long view we will all be dead. And when pressed a bit he came up with solar power. More specifically, concentrated solar power, or CSP.
Solar power has been around for sometimes, and is attractive for many reasons. But it has its problems. Chief among them is how do we store heat to run the plant when the sun is not available and the size of the collection/heating areas relative to the required location for transmission. Weeder seemed to agree with these, but instead of offering a specific solution, he argued that the problems are solved. (See my “Solar Power?” post.)
Let’s see, a population of 10,000? That would be a very small town. And given that the per capita energy usage in Spain is probably 60% or so of what it is in the US, the US number would be 6,000. A very small town.
And then we had this:
Given that we are talking cost, the consumer price with NEW technologies is expected to reach 16 cents. Expected, of course, means “hope.” And developing technologies means “maybe.” In other words, your electric bill will be around three times what it is now. A $150 monthly bill becomes $450.
That buys 100 gallons of gas at $3.00 a gallon, or 2000 miles worth of driving. Said driving, of course is necessary to get to work, etc.
That is, the additional price of electrical power adds nothing to the economy. It is just a flat loss. So much for the green economy. It’s green alright. The color of the dollar coming out of your pocket.
Are all these numbers accurate? As a proponent wrote:
Ah yes. Yes indeed.
Such is the case with Weeder Gander.
On 4/18 I posted a “memo” to “Mr. President” in which I urged him to declare an emergency and start drilling for oil in response to the high gasoline, diesel and other chemical prices that are killing our economy. I also suggested, somewhat in jest, but less so than more so, that he have some serious conversations with OPEC re our belief that they are attacking us.
Weeder responded with a snark about what Bush knew and when, and even managed to come up with a quote supposedly showing he didn’t know about the forecast of $4.00 gasoline from some reporter. I didn’t bother asking for links because it didn’t matter. My post was not about what Bush did, or didn’t know, but about taking action to solve the problem. I even asked Weeder for a solution.
To which he responded that:
Drilling for oil in America wouldn't do much for the present crisis. It's like a heroin junkie saying they'll quit using in two weeks.
Which, if you take only the long view, has some truth in it. Of course in the long view we will all be dead. And when pressed a bit he came up with solar power. More specifically, concentrated solar power, or CSP.
Solar power has been around for sometimes, and is attractive for many reasons. But it has its problems. Chief among them is how do we store heat to run the plant when the sun is not available and the size of the collection/heating areas relative to the required location for transmission. Weeder seemed to agree with these, but instead of offering a specific solution, he argued that the problems are solved. (See my “Solar Power?” post.)
The first commercial scale concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in Europe was inaugurated in the Southern Spanish city of Seville in March 2007. The 11 MW plant has been designed to produce 23 GWh of electricity a year, enough to supply a population of 10,000.
Let’s see, a population of 10,000? That would be a very small town. And given that the per capita energy usage in Spain is probably 60% or so of what it is in the US, the US number would be 6,000. A very small town.
And then we had this:
Ausra has said with new CSP technologies they expect to reach $0.08/kWh, and some within the company have said that with economies of scale and implementation of developing technologies the cost could be as low as $0.05/kWh. When you make these charts it is important to use expected costs rather than historical costs. The current costs of CSP is already only in the $0.14 range in the newest CSP facilities
Given that we are talking cost, the consumer price with NEW technologies is expected to reach 16 cents. Expected, of course, means “hope.” And developing technologies means “maybe.” In other words, your electric bill will be around three times what it is now. A $150 monthly bill becomes $450.
That buys 100 gallons of gas at $3.00 a gallon, or 2000 miles worth of driving. Said driving, of course is necessary to get to work, etc.
That is, the additional price of electrical power adds nothing to the economy. It is just a flat loss. So much for the green economy. It’s green alright. The color of the dollar coming out of your pocket.
Are all these numbers accurate? As a proponent wrote:
I just put together a couple graphs for a talk I’m giving on Monday to give people a visual feel of the various technologies for generating electricity. These come with a gigantic caveat: the numbers are far from precise
Ah yes. Yes indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
