The Alternative Energy Thread

[hanso]

Wind, Solar, Hydro and other alt energy ...

Open chat and or post stuff about what is out there. Or going online.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pl8dfRuR10s&rel=0&hl=ru_RU&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pl8dfRuR10s&rel=0&hl=ru_RU&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

This looks neat. Solar panels on water. The makers claim that not only is there no water loss, that it will even make the water better off.

[ChrisBrown]

I love this thread.

[Syd]

This looks neat. Solar panels on water. The makers claim that not only is there no water loss, that it will even make the water better off.

There's something behind this -- one of the most limiting factors of solar panels is the heat reduces their efficiency. On the other hand, water is highly corrosive and the useful lifespan on solar panels so near the water can't be much more than a decade at most.

Since ethanol is much maligned around here, I'll give it a bit of a talk. First and foremost, oil supply is in decline. IEA already acknowledged it, at least from conventional sources. (http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil)

So, the other supplies such as shale oil have issues too: first and foremost, it requires the use of water. It's all depending on the particular oil they're working with, but it's generally a few to several barrels of water necessary for every barrel of oil recovered. Given that water is becoming a scarce commodity (read about the Ogallala Aquifer, some of the water pissing matches in TN/GA over water rights, then of course CA/NV/UT/AZ/NM/CO all sucking the Colorado dry) you'll see that shale oil isn't worth the effort or cost after awhile.

So, that brings us to making our own. There's the Fischer-Tropsch to convert coal and other fossil fuels into usable forms of oil. It's a neat process, sort of dirty but requires a significant energy investment that requires more put in than what you recover.

So the choices are: do what ethanol does but is generally more wasteful or embrace ethanol.

You can bitch and moan about subsidies, but all options will require infrastructure development. Ethanol uses some of the same infrastructure, but that infrastructure has to be upgraded to deal with the corrosive nature of it. Can't really pump it through the same pipelines.

Now, onto the types of ethanol:
Corn based, what you know and love. Corn is simple to convert to ethanol, but requires an extreme amount of water. I forget the exact number, but it's more or less 3 barrels of water per barrel of ethanol. Very, very untenable solution to the problem. Still, it's a necessary hoop to go through. We have to get the infrastructure ready to transport ethanol. Given the issues to convert corn to ethanol, it makes it the best choice for a set of training wheels.

Sugar based. I'm a little less versed in this since it's mostly popular in Brazil, but a few people have tried it. Short and sweet of it is it still has a high water usage, not as high as corn but still more water in than ethanol out. It's energy efficient, though, and basically energy in, energy out situation that leaves it as a very viable solution. Texas and some other states will start it, but, sugarcane doesn't grow for shit in America so it will remain a regional option only.

Cellulosic based ethanol. The future, the prime candidate. Cellulosic based ethanol is basically any plant matter. From corn stalks, wood chips and other byproducts of farming as well as purpose-grown crops such as sawgrass or hemp. This is highly energy efficient due to most product being waste, or can be grown very cheaply with little water and little energy expenditure. The plants that convert the biomass to ethanol do use considerable energy, but it's offset by how relatively cheap it is to acquire the biomass.

Not-quite-ethanol-but-same-thing:

Biobutanol. One of the most hampering things of ethanol is that it has a low energy content compared to gas. 100% ethanol has about 2/3rds the energy content of gasoline. That's not all that great, but quite livable for cars. However, for planes, that isn't shit for energy. Biobutanol steps in here, with massive quantities of energy per unit that rivals gas. I've never bothered to read much about this, but some of the limiting factors is that it has a low octane rating -- requiring it to be cut with ethanol to be used in certain types of engines to prevent knock. It's grown from who the fuck knows, but I believe under similar circumstances to ethanol crop.

So, in short -- ethanol is your friend. Corn based ethanol is a necessary evil and will require subsidization. Oil is required for modern society and isn't going to last forever -- otherwise it wouldn't be $100+/barrel. You'll hear super-reserves being tapped, but the rate of extraction pale in comparison to the daily needs of a state, much less an entire nation. America uses about 20m barrels of oil daily and continues to climb (at least when we're not in a recession :thumbup:) Most new fields do have potentially high reserves, but the fact that we're stumbling onto them now means they're A) difficult/expensive to get to, and, B) subsequently quite likely not going to offer a high rate of extraction either due to technical difficulties or exorbitant price.

[Crash]

There's something behind this -- one of the most limiting factors of solar panels is the heat reduces their efficiency. On the other hand, water is highly corrosive and the useful lifespan on solar panels so near the water can't be much more than a decade at most.

Since ethanol is much maligned around here, I'll give it a bit of a talk. First and foremost, oil supply is in decline. IEA already acknowledged it, at least from conventional sources. (http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil)

So, the other supplies such as shale oil have issues too: first and foremost, it requires the use of water. It's all depending on the particular oil they're working with, but it's generally a few to several barrels of water necessary for every barrel of oil recovered. Given that water is becoming a scarce commodity (read about the Ogallala Aquifer, some of the water pissing matches in TN/GA over water rights, then of course CA/NV/UT/AZ/NM/CO all sucking the Colorado dry) you'll see that shale oil isn't worth the effort or cost after awhile.

So, that brings us to making our own. There's the Fischer-Tropsch to convert coal and other fossil fuels into usable forms of oil. It's a neat process, sort of dirty but requires a significant energy investment that requires more put in than what you recover.

So the choices are: do what ethanol does but is generally more wasteful or embrace ethanol.

You can bitch and moan about subsidies, but all options will require infrastructure development. Ethanol uses some of the same infrastructure, but that infrastructure has to be upgraded to deal with the corrosive nature of it. Can't really pump it through the same pipelines.

Now, onto the types of ethanol:
Corn based, what you know and love. Corn is simple to convert to ethanol, but requires an extreme amount of water. I forget the exact number, but it's more or less 3 barrels of water per barrel of ethanol. Very, very untenable solution to the problem. Still, it's a necessary hoop to go through. We have to get the infrastructure ready to transport ethanol. Given the issues to convert corn to ethanol, it makes it the best choice for a set of training wheels.

Sugar based. I'm a little less versed in this since it's mostly popular in Brazil, but a few people have tried it. Short and sweet of it is it still has a high water usage, not as high as corn but still more water in than ethanol out. It's energy efficient, though, and basically energy in, energy out situation that leaves it as a very viable solution. Texas and some other states will start it, but, sugarcane doesn't grow for shit in America so it will remain a regional option only.

Cellulosic based ethanol. The future, the prime candidate. Cellulosic based ethanol is basically any plant matter. From corn stalks, wood chips and other byproducts of farming as well as purpose-grown crops such as sawgrass or hemp. This is highly energy efficient due to most product being waste, or can be grown very cheaply with little water and little energy expenditure. The plants that convert the biomass to ethanol do use considerable energy, but it's offset by how relatively cheap it is to acquire the biomass.

Not-quite-ethanol-but-same-thing:

Biobutanol. One of the most hampering things of ethanol is that it has a low energy content compared to gas. 100% ethanol has about 2/3rds the energy content of gasoline. That's not all that great, but quite livable for cars. However, for planes, that isn't shit for energy. Biobutanol steps in here, with massive quantities of energy per unit that rivals gas. I've never bothered to read much about this, but some of the limiting factors is that it has a low octane rating -- requiring it to be cut with ethanol to be used in certain types of engines to prevent knock. It's grown from who the fuck knows, but I believe under similar circumstances to ethanol crop.

So, in short -- ethanol is your friend. Corn based ethanol is a necessary evil and will require subsidization. Oil is required for modern society and isn't going to last forever -- otherwise it wouldn't be $100+/barrel. You'll hear super-reserves being tapped, but the rate of extraction pale in comparison to the daily needs of a state, much less an entire nation. America uses about 20m barrels of oil daily and continues to climb (at least when we're not in a recession :thumbup:) Most new fields do have potentially high reserves, but the fact that we're stumbling onto them now means they're A) difficult/expensive to get to, and, B) subsequently quite likely not going to offer a high rate of extraction either due to technical difficulties or exorbitant price.

I vote for Syd as RonFez.Net Energy Czar.

[hanso]

There's something behind this -- one of the most limiting factors of solar panels is the heat reduces their efficiency. On the other hand, water is highly corrosive and the useful lifespan on solar panels so near the water can't be much more than a decade at most.

Since ethanol is much maligned around here, I'll give it a bit of a talk. First and foremost, oil supply is in decline. IEA already acknowledged it, at least from conventional sources. (http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil)

So, the other supplies such as shale oil have issues too: first and foremost, it requires the use of water. It's all depending on the particular oil they're working with, but it's generally a few to several barrels of water necessary for every barrel of oil recovered. Given that water is becoming a scarce commodity (read about the Ogallala Aquifer, some of the water pissing matches in TN/GA over water rights, then of course CA/NV/UT/AZ/NM/CO all sucking the Colorado dry) you'll see that shale oil isn't worth the effort or cost after awhile.

So, that brings us to making our own. There's the Fischer-Tropsch to convert coal and other fossil fuels into usable forms of oil. It's a neat process, sort of dirty but requires a significant energy investment that requires more put in than what you recover.

So the choices are: do what ethanol does but is generally more wasteful or embrace ethanol.

You can bitch and moan about subsidies, but all options will require infrastructure development. Ethanol uses some of the same infrastructure, but that infrastructure has to be upgraded to deal with the corrosive nature of it. Can't really pump it through the same pipelines.

Now, onto the types of ethanol:
Corn based, what you know and love. Corn is simple to convert to ethanol, but requires an extreme amount of water. I forget the exact number, but it's more or less 3 barrels of water per barrel of ethanol. Very, very untenable solution to the problem. Still, it's a necessary hoop to go through. We have to get the infrastructure ready to transport ethanol. Given the issues to convert corn to ethanol, it makes it the best choice for a set of training wheels.

Sugar based. I'm a little less versed in this since it's mostly popular in Brazil, but a few people have tried it. Short and sweet of it is it still has a high water usage, not as high as corn but still more water in than ethanol out. It's energy efficient, though, and basically energy in, energy out situation that leaves it as a very viable solution. Texas and some other states will start it, but, sugarcane doesn't grow for shit in America so it will remain a regional option only.

Cellulosic based ethanol. The future, the prime candidate. Cellulosic based ethanol is basically any plant matter. From corn stalks, wood chips and other byproducts of farming as well as purpose-grown crops such as sawgrass or hemp. This is highly energy efficient due to most product being waste, or can be grown very cheaply with little water and little energy expenditure. The plants that convert the biomass to ethanol do use considerable energy, but it's offset by how relatively cheap it is to acquire the biomass.

Not-quite-ethanol-but-same-thing:

Biobutanol. One of the most hampering things of ethanol is that it has a low energy content compared to gas. 100% ethanol has about 2/3rds the energy content of gasoline. That's not all that great, but quite livable for cars. However, for planes, that isn't shit for energy. Biobutanol steps in here, with massive quantities of energy per unit that rivals gas. I've never bothered to read much about this, but some of the limiting factors is that it has a low octane rating -- requiring it to be cut with ethanol to be used in certain types of engines to prevent knock. It's grown from who the fuck knows, but I believe under similar circumstances to ethanol crop.

So, in short -- ethanol is your friend. Corn based ethanol is a necessary evil and will require subsidization. Oil is required for modern society and isn't going to last forever -- otherwise it wouldn't be $100+/barrel. You'll hear super-reserves being tapped, but the rate of extraction pale in comparison to the daily needs of a state, much less an entire nation. America uses about 20m barrels of oil daily and continues to climb (at least when we're not in a recession :thumbup:) Most new fields do have potentially high reserves, but the fact that we're stumbling onto them now means they're A) difficult/expensive to get to, and, B) subsequently quite likely not going to offer a high rate of extraction either due to technical difficulties or exorbitant price.

This one looks best to me.

Switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow

[StanUpshaw]

Where do you get the land?

What is the carbon impact of converting existing ecosystems into feedstock (ignoring all other ecological issues)?

How are you going to convince farmers to grow a crop that isn't worth any money? Subsidies?

What happens to food prices when farmers switch from growing food to biomass?

[Syd]

Where do you get the land?

The beauty of hemp, sawgrass and switchgrass is that it can be grown in non-standard farming areas. In areas unsuitable for corn, wheat and such can be perfectly suitable for other energy crop. Soil acidity, topography, weather and other factors that keep, say, Montana from growing corn (it's basically dead last amongst states) don't prevent it from being a major supplier of biomass for energy.

What is the carbon impact of converting existing ecosystems into feedstock (ignoring all other ecological issues)?

Massive reduction in carbon footprint by replacing oil.

How are you going to convince farmers to grow a crop that isn't worth any money? Subsidies?

It is worth money -- the subsidies go toward creating cellulosic ethanol plants.

What happens to food prices when farmers switch from growing food to biomass?

What happens now when farmers simply destroy crop instead of sell it?

[StanUpshaw]

If switchgrass is worth money, then how come those marginal lands aren't already being exploited?

In your future, you're going to be pumping all sorts of cash for facilities, pipelines, etc. All sorts of cash to staff and power the facilities. But you're ignoring the cost of the raw material. There's only so much waste cellulose produced in a year. After that, you're going to have to pay someone to grow your switchgrass.

You're going to have to make that price pretty high if you want enough biomass, but then as soon as it becomes profitable to grow non-food crops, you run the risk of people switching from growing food to non-food. And when you decrease supply, price goes up. And then what happens? Since you chose to dodge that question before, I'll answer: Rising Food Prices Force Millions Into Poverty (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110215-710622.html)



Shit, I almost forgot the bigger issue...the CO2 reductions are not as clear cut as you imagine. You need to read up on Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_land_use_change_impacts_of_biofuels).

[Syd]

If switchgrass is worth money, then how come those marginal lands aren't already being exploited?

It isn't worth money now because ethanol still has the following issues: Not enough cellulosic ethanol plants online and an insufficient infrastructure for it. I don't even think there are any non-test or pioneer plants online yet and America uses 20 million barrels of oil a day. So, yeah, there's your reason.

In your future, you're going to be pumping all sorts of cash for facilities, pipelines, etc. All sorts of cash to staff and power the facilities. But you're ignoring the cost of the raw material. There's only so much waste cellulose produced in a year. After that, you're going to have to pay someone to grow your switchgrass.

So, what's your future? We just don't use oil? I'm not ignoring the cost of raw material, I'm saying the choice is either "We will have a medium cheap enough to store energy that allows for society to go on in a manner similar to what it does now" or "We no longer have a medium to store energy that is cheap enough to allow society to go on in a manner similar to what it does now"

You're going to have to make that price pretty high if you want enough biomass, but then as soon as it becomes profitable to grow non-food crops, you run the risk of people switching from growing food to non-food. And when you decrease supply, price goes up. And then what happens? Since you chose to dodge that question before, I'll answer: Rising Food Prices Force Millions Into Poverty (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110215-710622.html)

I didn't choose to dodge the issue, it's a non-issue. We already grow more food than we need to eat and Americans do tend to eat something like 30-40% more calories than we actually need to. There's extra room for ethanol and then some.

Now let me ask you this: what happens to food prices when gas prices increase? You don't think that has any impact on the poverty levels? You keep on arguing my point, that the endgame for oil needs to be addressed rather than ignored or with half-assed attempts like the Prius.



Shit, I almost forgot the bigger issue...the CO2 reductions are not as clear cut as you imagine. You need to read up on Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_land_use_change_impacts_of_biofuels).

I have read about that, and maybe you should too? That article addresses problems that belong to Brazil, that they cut down rainforest in order to increase farmland. America has a massive amount of viable farmland and very little in the way of conservation areas that can provide for crops. Desert southwest, Rockies and Alaska all aren't all that valid for growing biomass. It goes on and specifically states the massive reduction in carbon due to growing of crops to provide for fuel instead of pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air.

The only problematic issue is that cellulosic ethanol plants require power, power that will come from fossil fuels. In addition to that, thanks to things like the laws of thermodynamics, we're never going to be able to completely stop using oil. It'll still be a necessity to run the tractors, the tankers and the trains all essential to the growing of crop or supplying coal to power plants and so on and so forth. Still, as technology progresses, the need for storing energy in a combustible fuel will become less and less in demand if for no other reason than we're going to have issues maintaining American society with oil becoming ever more expensive.

[hanso]

I heard about this years ago. It seemed to have gone away as I have not seen anymore on this.

But advances might have been made. And it takes some digging to find the news on this.

http://news.google.com/news/more?q=Switchgrass&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dPkakDzQIz7Fh8MZHd2D8DsF93FSM&ei=2WWFTfXLJ8-G0QGZ47HECA&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=2&ved=0CC0QqgIwAQ

[hanso]

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ-J91SwP8w&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ-J91SwP8w&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 Seconds.

[cougarjake13]

cool video


but it really bothered me that the guy or girl drawing was left handed

[hanso]

<object id="dtvplayer" width="480" height="360"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/89252.js" /> <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" flashvars="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/89252.js"/></embed></object> <br><a href="http://www.disclose.tv" title="UFO Videos Conspiracy Forum">Disclose.tv</a> - <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/89252/Electric_Car_Without_Battery__make_VIRAL__/">Electric Car Without Battery, make VIRAL ! Video</a><br>

Add this guy to the list that no one has heard from ever again.

[StanUpshaw]

<object id="dtvplayer" width="480" height="360"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/89252.js" /> <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://www.disclose.tv/swf/player.swf" flashvars="config=http://www.disclose.tv/videos/config/flv/89252.js"/></embed></object> <br><a href="http://www.disclose.tv" title="UFO Videos Conspiracy Forum">Disclose.tv</a> - <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/89252/Electric_Car_Without_Battery__make_VIRAL__/">Electric Car Without Battery, make VIRAL ! Video</a><br>

Add this guy to the list that no one has heard from ever again.

Yes, people tend to stop listening when someone claims to invent a perpetual motion machine.

Though I'm positive syd would love for Obama to sink trillions into developing it; he has a track record for picking winners.

[Chigworthy]

http://i.picasion.com/pic50/f9ea35e9bd464a0e5a11a4abdc33bfa7.gif (http://picasion.com/)

[WRESTLINGFAN]

So whats the next company that received Gov't loans to go Bankrupt

[hanso]

So whats the next company that received Gov't loans to go Bankrupt

GM?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

GM?

:laugh:

[hanso]

Oregon poised for wave energy

United States' first commercially licensed grid-connected wave energy device is in its final stage of testing before its scheduled launch next month in Oregon.

The 40-foot-wide, 260-ton PowerBuoy, developed by New Jersey company Ocean Power Technologies, will extend more than 100 feet into the sea and rise another 30 feet from the surface, The Oregonian newspaper reports.

Part of the buoy's structure is designed to move like a piston to generate the charge. From its anchorage site 2.5 miles offshore near Reedsport, Ore., the buoy will send electricity to shore via an ocean-bottom cable.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/09/07/Oregon-poised-for-wave-energy/UPI-41271347035774/?spt=hs&or=er

[hanso]

Printable A3-sized solar cells hit a new milestone in green energy

"

Researchers from the Victorian Organic Solar Cell Consortium (VICOSC) have developed a printer that can print 10 meters of flexible solar cells a minute. Unlike traditional silicon solar cells, printed solar cells are made using organic semi-conducting polymers, which can be dissolved in a solvent and used like an ink, allowing solar cells to be printed.

Not only can the VICOSC machine print flexible A3 solar cells, the machine can print directly on to steel, opening up the possibility for solar cells to be embedded directly into building materials.

"Eventually we see these being laminated to windows that line skyscrapers," said David Jones, a researcher at University of Melbourne who is involved with the work. "By printing directly to materials like steel, we'll also be able to embed cells onto roofing materials."

The news comes just a month before Harvard's Clean Energy Project plans to make public in June a giant database of compounds that can be used for printing solar cells. The list of 20,000 organic compounds may help scientists develop computer models for more efficient and less expensive printable solar cells.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/05/printable-a3-sized-solar-cells-hit-a-new-milestone-in-green-energy/

[hanso]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XGEc8KBKO8I?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[hanso]

With US-made panels, White House goes solar ... again

Jimmy Carter put up solar panels in 1979, then Ronald Reagan took them down in 1986. Now the Obama administration is fulfilling a long-delayed promise to put solar panels back on the White House.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0815/With-US-made-panels-White-House-goes-solar-again

[A.J.]

Just when I thought the Obama Administration couldn't be any more like the Carter Administration...

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I wonder if the solar company received tax credits and other goodies via crony capitalism

[spoon]

Just when I thought the Obama Administration couldn't be any more like the Carter Administration...

yah, too bad he didn't get his way with our investment into solar, alternative energies, much higher MPG standards even by today's hybrids and electric cars and of course no fucking wars...nice to big oil bullshit

Reagan gets way too much praise, Carter way too little for what he envisioned but was torn down in true GOP fashion from day one of his admin to the last day of Reagan's foggy one.

[spoon]

I wonder if the solar company received tax credits and other goodies via crony capitalism


oh God, me too

i so wonder

[hanso]

Four new wind farms in upper Midwest could power 750,000 homes

[A.J.]

So can all the oil that's buried up there.

[spoon]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/AckbarStanding.jpg

[Dude!]

Four new wind farms in upper Midwest could power 750,000 homes

So can all the oil that's buried up there.

for oil, you could add
a zero or two to the 750,000

[A.J.]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/AckbarStanding.jpg

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/37250475.jpg

[spoon]

Diesel? (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/diesel-comeback--model-tally-set-to-double-for-2014-184447278.html)

[PapaBear]

Diesel? (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/diesel-comeback--model-tally-set-to-double-for-2014-184447278.html)
http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/TksfcIOAKMAtthvMU6EbDw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/autos/2013-08-27/0e901b10-fda3-4814-8dc7-8796a5a1f242_diesel-fuel-no2.jpg

Is this another fucking Fast and Furious sequil?

[Kevin]

yah, too bad he didn't get his way with our investment into solar, alternative energies, much higher MPG standards even by today's hybrids and electric cars and of course no fucking wars...nice to big oil bullshit

Reagan gets way too much praise, Carter way too little for what he envisioned but was torn down in true GOP fashion from day one of his admin to the last day of Reagan's foggy one.

Reagan was probably the worst President in our history.

8 reasons



1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -

Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.

2. Tripling the National Debt -

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

3. Iran/Contra -

In 1986, a group of Americans were being held hostage by a terrorist group with ties to Iran. In an attempt to free the hostages, Ronald Reagan secretly sold arms and money to Iran. Much of the money that was received from the trade went to fund the Nicaragua Contra rebels who were in a war with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. When the scandal broke in the Untied States it became the biggest story in the country, Reagan tried to down play what happened, but never fully recovered.

4. Reagan funded Terrorists -

The attacks on 9/11 by al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden brought new attention to international terrorism. All of a sudden, Americans coast to coast wore their American flag pins, ate their freedom fries and couldn't wait to go to war with anyone who looked like a Muslim. What Americans didn't realize was that the same group that attacked the United States on 9/11 was funded by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Prepping for a possible war with the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.

5. Unemployment issues -

When Ronald Reagan came into office 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. After Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, he began raising taxes on the middle and lower class. Corporations started to ship more jobs out of the United States while hiring cheap foreign labor in order to make a bigger profit. While corporations made billions, Americans across the country lost their jobs. As 1982 came to a close, unemployment was nearly 11%. Unemployment began to drop as the years went on, but the jobs that were created were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet. The middle and lower class had their wages nearly frozen as the top earners saw dramatic increases in salary.

6. Ignoring AIDS -

By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants -

In today's GOP, the idea of any immigrant staying in the United States whether they are legal or illegal isn't something that conservatives embrace. What might shock them is that in 1982 Ronald Reagan gave nearly 3 million undocumented workers amnesty. The biggest reason for undocumented workers coming to the United States is because corporations hire them at a cheaper rate than they would an American citizen. All the laws that would have cracked down on companies who hire undocumented workers were, of course, removed from the bill.

8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class - The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.

[spoon]

no argument here

this nailed it too

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/imjL8dfJVkA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[hanso]

You left out legal pot, Carter was ahead of his time on that, it was even on his platform for 2nd term.

[SonOfSmeagol]

yah, too bad he didn't get his way with our investment into solar, alternative energies, much higher MPG standards even by today's hybrids and electric cars and of course no fucking wars...nice to big oil bullshit

Reagan gets way too much praise, Carter way too little for what he envisioned but was torn down in true GOP fashion from day one of his admin to the last day of Reagan's foggy one.
WRONG - because the dems had full control of the Senate and House for the entire Carter administration, including a "supermajority" for about half of that time. in fact, some say he was "torn down" by the "kennedy wing" in congress.
You left out legal pot, Carter was ahead of his time on that, it was even on his platform for 2nd term.
:laugh:

He did preside over the Camp David Accords - a great accomplishment indeed.

however, I'm thinking that even Jimmy Carter didn't want a second term - three starter reasons:
14.8% inflation
18% interest
444 days in Iran

then of course there's Ted Kennedy trying to take the nominiation away from him in 1980 - incredible to watch.

like many others after Watergate and Ford we were looking for something, anything to bring us up. Carter failed miserably. Truly the worst of modern times.


and Kevin, next time you make a post entirely from someone else's words, you might want to at least give an attribution:
8 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime (http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime)

[spoon]

not wrong, you just added to it

there is a difference

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The article has an error. Amnesty was passed in 1986 not 1982. The law was passed by congress sponsored by Simpson and Mazzoli.

Reagan reluctantly signed it with a guarantee from congress that it would be a 1 time deal
And the laws would be enforced. 3 million illegals who would eventually become legalized has grown more than 6 fold to
20 million today.

[sailor]

I don't think kev was trying to pass that off as his own work.

[spoon]

I don't think kev was trying to pass that off as his own work.

what gave it away?

the lack of grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors throughout?

[Kevin]

what gave it away?

the lack of grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors throughout?

It was not yours because it lacked batshit insanity, hypocrisy and the repetitiveness over and over for 12 years.

[spoon]

It was not yours because it lacked batshit insanity, hypocrisy and the repetitiveness over and over for 12 years.

Hypocrisy? Do provide proof...and this part, "repetitiveness over and over" is simply hilarious!

Good retort kev. That post that was not mine was simply bc it was not mine...period.

[CountryBob]

Regan was my favorite Pres.

[sailor]

Regan was my favorite Pres.

Jason Finn never got the credit he deserved.

[Jujubees2]

Regan was my favorite Pres.

Nancy?

[spoon]

Nancy?

Nah, he loves the president so much he got the name wrong.

[Syd]

WRONG - because the dems had full control of the Senate and House for the entire Carter administration, including a "supermajority" for about half of that time.

the Democrats weren't exactly unified back then as there were actual leftist politicians in the Senate and House (that's why Nixon gets credit as a liberal/leftist president when it was just the massive number of leftists in power)

like many others after Watergate and Ford we were looking for something, anything to bring us up. Carter failed miserably. Truly the worst of modern times.

the worst of modern times? not the guy who sold weapons and provided support to a government that actively engaged in ethnic cleansings? or the guy who had the greatest number of convictions of administration officials? or the guy who sold weapons to an enemy state to fund death squads? or the guy who propped up dictators who would drop dissidents out of aircraft? or the guy who supported a fascist regime and turned a blind eye when they sold weapons of mass destruction to an arab state? or the guy who had obvious signs of loss of mental faculties but was left in power? or the guy who steered low income housing contracts toward his campaign donors? or the guy who wanted to spend several trillion dollars (luckily it stopped at only ~$50 billion, mostly to campaign donors) on a weapons system that had no basis in reality?

[SonOfSmeagol]

the Democrats weren't exactly unified back then as there were actual leftist politicians in the Senate and House (that's why Nixon gets credit as a liberal/leftist president when it was just the massive number of leftists in power)
no, they weren't - they needed a leader and couldn't find one. but like I said carter had the entire government on his "side" and the suggestion that the GOP somehow stymied his agenda is just nonsense - it's on him and his lack of leadership. here's a guy that asked his entire cabinet to resign 3 years into his presidency! I think people wanted him to succeed, somehow someway - I did - but he was just miserable!

the worst of modern times? not the guy who sold weapons and provided support to a government that actively engaged in ethnic cleansings? or the guy who had the greatest number of convictions of administration officials? or the guy who sold weapons to an enemy state to fund death squads? or the guy who propped up dictators who would drop dissidents out of aircraft? or the guy who supported a fascist regime and turned a blind eye when they sold weapons of mass destruction to an arab state? or the guy who had obvious signs of loss of mental faculties but was left in power? or the guy who steered low income housing contracts toward his campaign donors? or the guy who wanted to spend several trillion dollars (luckily it stopped at only ~$50 billion, mostly to campaign donors) on a weapons system that had no basis in reality?

and he blew up the challenger and killed 242 Marines in lebanon, too

[Syd]

and he blew up the challenger and killed 242 Marines in lebanon, too

well the space shuttle is part of the whole republican "lets see how much money we can spend on the military" mantra and lebanon was another in the long line of republican ideas of going into former french colonies to try to get involved in spreading freedom (read: spending lots of money on the military)

[SonOfSmeagol]

well the space shuttle is part of the whole republican "lets see how much money we can spend on the military" mantra and lebanon was another in the long line of republican ideas of going into former french colonies to try to get involved in spreading freedom (read: spending lots of money on the military)

yeah, if they had done it right though we should have had freaking army bases on the moon by now, goddammit. naval bases too!

I think like 50 french Soldiers died in the barracks too before the invasion was rebuffed and the evil occupation twarted. were we helping them retake lebanon or trying to grab it for ourselves? I can't remember

[WRESTLINGFAN]

well the space shuttle is part of the whole republican "lets see how much money we can spend on the military" mantra and lebanon was another in the long line of republican ideas of going into former french colonies to try to get involved in spreading freedom (read: spending lots of money on the military)



Former French colonies like Syria too?

[spoon]

what carter did get through, or tried for that matter were usually very forward and for lack of a better phrase, ahead of its time type agenda/policy especially on the environment and the auto industry. like ~45 mpg cars in the near future (from his term not now), and we are still not to this point (average car).

A look back from the eyes a few years back...ha! (http://hnn.us/node/52030#disqus_thread)

[Syd]

Carter was a smart man put into a bad position. The world was changing and the global south was becoming increasingly relevant at the cost of the global north. America should have faced the facts that we couldn't blindly consume and call dibs on everything through our military. Instead we got a snake oil salesman and a mindset of letting the financial industry do whatever the fuck they want and let everyone else clean up the mess. Ol' Slick Willy made sure that there was no difference in economic policy between R and D either with NAFTA, too.

Former French colonies like Syria too?

We'll bomb it up some and offer some money to the military to create a regime like Mubarak. No one is going to put anything other than CIA troops on the ground there because it's literally Vietnam on PCP -- the original Syrian rebellion is at best lukewarm toward the west, the "Al Qaeda" rebels (Muslim Brotherhood) hate the west because of the unwavering support toward Saudi Arabia and Israel and the government has set up shop with China, Russia and India because no one else would touch them with a 10' pole

[Syd]

yeah, if they had done it right though we should have had freaking army bases on the moon by now, goddammit. naval bases too!

if we still had cool shit like moon bases because of military spending I'd be on board, all that spending from before and we have velcro, GPS and the internet but instead now we have shitty levels in call of duty games

I think like 50 french Soldiers died in the barracks too before the invasion was rebuffed and the evil occupation twarted. were we helping them retake lebanon or trying to grab it for ourselves? I can't remember

lebanon was getting freedom'd up because they have shittons of oil/natty gas along with fresh water and at the time were right next door to lil' USSR (Syria)

[SonOfSmeagol]

if we still had cool shit like moon bases because of military spending I'd be on board, all that spending from before and we have velcro, GPS and the internet but instead now we have shitty levels in call of duty games
:laugh: I know the military $ needs to be better spent, but we do need to stay at least 20-30 years ahead as a superpower. it's a cold cruel world
lebanon was getting freedom'd up because they have shittons of oil/natty gas along with fresh water and at the time were right next door to lil' USSR (Syria)
actually, I think syria occupied lebanon for the better part of 30 years from the 70s to the 00s. hope they got what they wanted

[spoon]

actually, I think syria occupied lebanon for the better part of 30 years from the 70s to the 00s. hope they got what they wanted

tons of open air cafes according to yelp

[A.J.]

actually, I think syria occupied lebanon for the better part of 30 years from the 70s to the 00s. hope they got what they wanted

Well, after they killed Rafik Hariri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution)probably not.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

tons of open air cafes according to yelp



Makes drone strikes easier

[spoon]

Makes drone strikes easier

no dumb ass, it's BECAUSE of the bombings and warfare there constantly...but yes, drone strikes in leb

[WRESTLINGFAN]

There are tons of open air cafes in the middle east. The illegal killing of Al Awaki's son in Yemen is an example.

The Al Awaki killing is also illegal as both were American citizens

[hanso]

Solar and wind power now cheaper than coal power in the U.S.

And silent hill burns on. Let's clean up this mess. :smile:

[spoon]

they'll continue to fight it every single step of the way and maximize profits

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Hop to it. Put those wind farms off Nantucket

RFK Jr made the excuse that they wouldn't fit in Yellowstone when he wrote his op Ed years back!

Bullshit!! He doesn't want his family's pristine view blocked by turbines.

[hanso]

Silent Hill taken from this story in real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

[spoon]

good old creepy columbia county

seriously creepy area and fucked up situation!

[hanso]

Arizona's New Fee Puts A Dent In Rooftop Solar Economics



Last week, Arizona regulators gave the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service, the authority to charge homeowners with solar panels on their roofs a fee for plugging into the grid and in some cases, selling electricity back onto it. Beginning next year, homeowners who install rooftop solar systems will have to pay a monthly levy - the first ever in the U.S. - equal to 70¢ per kilowatt of installed capacity.

That’s well below the $8 per kw that APS had initially sought. Depending on how big their home system is, the fee will end up costing consumers anywhere from $3 to $6 a month, according to a report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. APS had hoped to be able to charge about $50 a month per home. The 18,000 rooftop solar systems already present in APS’s service territory will be grandfathered; only those installed after Dec. 31, 2013, will be subject to the levy.

“This is a body blow for the Arizona solar industry, not a knockout punch,” says Stefan Linder, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “While this fixed fee will cut into the economics of residential solar, for many homeowners it will still make financial sense to go solar.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-22/arizonas-new-fee-puts-a-dent-in-rooftop-solar-economics

[sailor]

Don't know about the actual pricing, but overall it makes sense. If they're tied into the grid, they're using the infrastructure and there should be some fee involved.

[hanso]

Don't know about the actual pricing, but overall it makes sense. If they're tied into the grid, they're using the infrastructure and there should be some fee involved.

Can we charge the power co. a fee for selling to us?

[sailor]

Can we charge the power co. a fee for selling to us?

Unrelated. If you're tied to the grid you're storing the electricity you create in their system. That's what you're paying for. Like if you had an oil well in your back yard and stored the oil you pump down at the Mobil station. Even if you're creating more than you use, and sell them the surplus, you'd obviously have to pay them to hold the stuff you're not selling to them.

[hanso]

What are YOU doing in MY fucking house ?!

[SonOfSmeagol]

Pandora's Promise (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/world/cnn-films-pandoras-promise/index.html)
didn't see the film...

Climate change warriors: It's time to go nuclear (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/)

hey maybe someday, hopefully "soon", we can shoot the nuke waste into the sun, or something

[Syd]

bury the shit into boreholes like the french

[hanso]

Can we charge the power co. a fee for selling to us?

meant us selling to them.

[hanso]

Scientists in California make landmark advance towards unlimited fusion energy

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/12/scientists-in-california-make-landmark-advance-towards-unlimited-fusion-energy/

smashing success