Tag: pro-green pie-in-the-sky bullshit energy

It was settled, except maybe not…

The cultists love to tell us about how the melting of the polar caps, but especially the Antarctic Glacier, validates their cult’s premise that man’s doing this, and not nature. I watched an episode of the heavily politically motivated Cosmos TV show just a week or two ago where they pushed their global warming agenda hard, playing fast and loose with the facts, and never mentioning as alternative energy to fossil fuels the only technology man has today that can meet the existing and future demands: nuclear. They acted as if solar and wind would just do the job when the fact is that both technologies are marginal at best. The whole thing soured me on the show which compared to the Cosmos of Carl Sagan feels so dumbed down its almost cartoonish anyway. But back to the Antarctic and the recent revelation – I am sure the cultists will claim done by people paid by big oil/gas – that nature again was trumping man. From a Daily Caller article discussing these findings we get that:

Researchers from the UTA’s Institute for Geophysics found that the Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica is being eroded by the ocean as well as geothermal heat from magma and subaerial volcanoes. Thwaites is considered a key glacier for understanding future sea level rise.

UTA researchers used radar techniques to map water flows under ice sheets and estimate the rate of ice melt in the glacier. As it turns out, geothermal heat from magma and volcanoes under the glacier is much hotter and covers a much wider area than was previously thought.

“Geothermal flux is one of the most dynamically critical ice sheet boundary conditions but is extremely difficult to constrain at the scale required to understand and predict the behavior of rapidly changing glaciers,” UTA researchers wrote in their study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

My point remains the same: these cultists selling us their Mayan Calendar doomsday Waterworld-is-a-coming scenario don’t know as much as they claim they do. Not even close. But they are really desperate to have us buy their shit, as soon as possible, so they can take away our freedoms and convince us to move back into caves, all while their elites have carbon footprints that match a small city. I think the cultists need to call a pow-wow to figure out how they can come up with some excuse that allows man to be blamed for this geothermal activity too, so they can keep selling the more Marxism-fascism solution that always is the end goal. The thing is people are wising up in record numbers. Maybe we should be taking a look at tapping that geothermal energy, along with more nuclear energy, but I doubt the watermelon want either of that. Doesn’t help the cause or enrich those connected to them like selling the woefully underperforming solar and wind seem to do.

I am going back to incandescent bulbs, man

So let me set this up for you so you can see who startling stupid these green laws really are, and I am gonna use someone else’s work to do this. Let’s set the stage:

Starting Jan. 1, the United States will no longer manufacture or import incandescent bulbs – although stores can still sell what they have in stock. The phaseout is a result of federal rules to switch to more energy-efficient bulbs. Energy-efficient bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs but last much longer and save on energy costs in the long-term. So why are people still buying incandescent bulbs and what will the phaseout mean for you?

Get it? The greens passed a law banning incandescent bulbs because they were considered inefficient, energy wise, had a short life span compared to what they wanted to replace it with, at least so they claimed, and they created too much pollution, both on the energy generation/consumption/efficiency side of the calculation spectrum, and then they created lots of waste once they where spent and had to be done away with. But why take it from me? From the article:

Incandescent bulbs cost much less than their energy-efficient alternatives – mainly CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs (light emitting diodes). An incandescent bulb can cost as little as 70 cents. Meanwhile, a CFL bulb sells for at least a few dollars and an LED starts at $10 but usually runs around $20. The problem with incandescents is you end up paying more in electricity costs. Incandescents are inefficient – 90% of the energy goes toward heat and only 10% toward light.

Incandescent light bulbs also don’t last as long as CFLs and LEDs. The typical incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours, while a 15-watt CFL bulb lasts 10,000 hours and a 12-watt LED bulb lasts 25,000 hours. In other words, incandescent light bulbs last about a year while CFLs can last 10 years and LEDs up to 25. All told, your energy costs can be 25%-80% less by switching to energy-efficient bulbs, according to Energy.gov.

The alternatives sure do look awesome compared to these incandescent bulbs if you were to take this information they peddle as gospel. Also notice what’s missing? The fact that LED and CFL bulbs cost tens of dollars, each unit, compared to the cheap incandescent light bulbs, making it a shitty buy for the consumer unless they really do last at least 10, or more, times as long. Remember that important detail. And for now lets ignore the fact that neither the CFL nor the LED bulbs that are replacing incandescent light bulbs, produce the same amount of light.

That’s not me making up shit. I have replaced some lights in my home with the ultra expensive CFL and LED bulbs, and in every case I had to drastically bump up the wattage to produce the same light. What used to take a 75W bulb to illuminate requires a 100W LED or a 120W CFL. And the higher the wattage on these replacement bulbs, the more pricey they are. Going from a $1.00 per unit (I am being generous since I used to pay less than $3 for a pack of 4 incandescent bulbs) price to anywhere from $6.99 to $25.00 for the alternative bulb (there is a wide distribution/swing in pricing, and the pricing also seems immune to competition since it’s another government mandated pile of shit that completely squashes the need for competition), one can see the conundrum.

These things better work – at least when it comes to life span, since they already failed the light producing test and required higher wattage bulbs to produce the same light – as advertised on their longevity. Bet you already see where this is going, don’t you? Be patient: there is a lot more. Back to the article and why so many are not bothering with these miraculous devices.

Despite the savings, many still stick with incandescents because they typically don’t spend that much in the first place on lighting in their homes. “There hasn’t been a lot of incentive to go more efficient because it’s not going to make a big deal on their electric bill,” said Joe Rey-Barreau, a lighting design professor at the University of Kentucky and a consultant with the American Lighting Association, about why some people haven’t switch to more energy-efficient bulbs.

While an office building may use 21% of its electricity for lighting, a house uses as little as 13%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Home improvement store Lowe’s did a study comparing electricity costs of an LED vs. an incandescent bulb. Energy costs for the LED added up to $30 over the bulb’s 22-year lifespan. Energy costs for using an incandescent bulb over that same period added up to $165 – savings, certainly, but perhaps not significant enough for many homeowners over two decades to alter their buying habits.

Wait a minute? If you were saving between 25-80% on energy, that should make a huge ding on your electric bill, right? So why are we not seeing that efficiency savings in our bills? I bet that’s because you have to use a higher wattage bulb, and that means you are actually not doing a good comparison of efficiency. Maybe someone should have done the efficiency test while factoring the candle power output of these bulbs? Then they would have realized they couldn’t just compare a 75W incandescent bulb to a similar CFL or LED bulb? Go figure! Bad information produced by people with an agenda!

And $165 (nice round number, huh?) spread over 22 years is not that big of a deal, I am sorry to say. I replaced my windows with energy efficient ones and my oil consumption to heat my home dropped to ½ of what it was. That saved me a shit load of money and made it worth it. Similarly, putting in a new central air unit and getting rid of 5 window units saved me about 48% on my annual electric bill.

I am also thinking of replacing my generator with a liquid propane one, since I spend $25 a day to keep my gasoline one running. I have done research and a liquid propane genny will run for $4 a day. Granted, I will not run that too often, but when we had no power in my state, 2 years in a row, for more than 10 days, it added up. The day I get a new generator, at least 4 years from now, since my unit is still in great condition even after 4 years (I do maintenance!), I will get a propane one.

But I ordered me a shit load of incandescent bulbs online, and plan to replace the LED and CFL bulbs I have now out, because they suck, and I got ripped off. The LED and CFL bulbs burn out in months, not decades as advertised, because a lot of my lighting is on dimmers and recessed, which neither unit handles well. Between the variable power and the heating, these super expensive bulbs flame out faster than the supposedly short lived incandescent bulbs. It’s not just my own experience, as the article covers this issue somewhat:

Some consumers complain that CFLs don’t last as long as advertised. One characteristic of CFL bulbs is they are “fairly fragile” and can succumb to overheating, said Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association. “Those life ratings are established in a test lab and not established in somebody’s living room fixture,” McGowan said. “When you put them in a fixture and bottle them up in a glass shade, they get too hot and the life will be shortened.”

LED lights can also overheat. McGowan recommends using these bulbs in light fixtures that have good ventilation. CFL bulbs are also susceptible to shorter life spans when they are frequently turned on and off. A bathroom might not be a good place for a CFL, for example. A table lamp, floor lamp or hallway light would be more likely to extend a CFL bulb’s life span, McGowan said.

It’s not as if this fact was not brought up when the green scumbags pushed this into law! I know several people, including some on IEEE, that pointed this heating issue, as well as the candle power output inefficiency of CFLs and LEDs out, and they did this a long time ago. Long before our green government warlocks straddled us with this idiotic mandate. Those pointing out the problems with the tests and assumptions were basically told to shut up. A lot of people stood to make a shitload of money selling consumers super expensive crappy green shit, mandated by government threat of force, and thus, never subject to the usual pricing mechanism that would lower the cost, which wouldn’t really make that big of a difference in the long run. Don’t buy the nonsense that prices will come down. If they do it will be decades from now, after they lose their government enforced monopoly.

The lesson here is to verify the real life implications of these dumb studies that fool people. Thanks greenies!

Can I say “I told you so” yet?

I, and many others that argued this point, were once demonized for pointing out that the Obama administration’s green agenda amounted to all but a war on fossil fuels and would sooner than later result in higher energy prices. Surprise, surprise, now that they have been getting away with murder and any and all abuses of power are ignored or explained away through insane donkey talking points by their shill in the LSM, these green warriors no longer feel any need to hide the fact that they meant to have a war on coal.

Daniel P. Schrag, a White House climate adviser and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, tells the New York Times “a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.” Later today, President Obama will give a major “climate change” address at Georgetown University.

“Everybody is waiting for action,” Schrag tells the paper. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

The war on coal has been going on since 2009. Don’t be fooled. They are just finally admitting it was going on. This is part & parcel of the Obama administrations campaign to throw some red meat to their constituency in the hopes of getting their help to deflect from the plethora of scandals the WH is now playing damage control with. At a time where the economy is taking another hit, these fucks are yet again targeting good jobs. Don’t worry: I am sure they will come up with some shovel ready stimulus jobs that will only cost tax payers a million dollars, or more, per unsustainable job created. Just like they did back when they convinced us to let them funnel a trillion dollars to their buddies, special interests, lobbyist friends, and own campaign coffers under the guise of stimulus.

At a time when more an more facts come out showing how ludicrous and stupid the whole man made climate change crisis nonsense is, they are doubling down on the stupid. Get used to European level of unemployment, anemic growth, if any growth happens at all, and even more intrusive control of all aspects of our lives. For our own good of course. Our elite masters know what’s best for us after all.

Solyndra update: Pearls to the swine..

The left might be desperate to see this story die, but it is like the gift that keeps on giving. We have often gone back and forth about if this was just people with no clue making stupid decisions, if this was political cronyism, or if it was both, and the more we find out, the more it looks like it is both. The latest revelation is that recently released e-mails show that the DOE was moving toward second loan that would have cost the tax payers and additional half a billion dollars for Solyndra. And this was going on at the same time that the auditors where saying Solyndra was doomed. Check this out.

Newly released e-mails show the Obama administration’s Energy Department was poised to give Solyndra a second taxpayer loan of $469 million last year, even as the company’s financial situation grew increasingly dire.

The department was still considering providing the second loan guarantee to the solar-panel manufacturer in April and May 2010, at a time when Solyndra’s auditors were already warning that the company was in danger of collapsing.

Details of the plan are revealed in e-mails released this week by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the original loan. On Wednesday, the probe intensified as committee Republicans requested that the White House provide all documents, dating back to President Obama’s inauguration, that would show communications between staff members and other officials regarding Solyndra’s original $535 million federal loan guarantee.

Republican leaders said that documents obtained in recent weeks show that Obama’s “closest confidantes” monitored the loan, and that his campaign donors offered advice on the company.

So the DOE knew Solyndra was going down in flames, all the auditors where screaming “toast” and waving this off, and yet, they considered throwing more good money after bad? Why? Seriously, why would they do such a thing? What was in it for them? Was this a case of trying to postpone the inevitable? Did they really think that more money was going to change things? I know these leftists constantly tell us that the answer to every problem from healthcare to schools is to let them take and spend more money, and that since it was just tax payer money they obviously wouldn’t be as concerned about it as if it was their own money on the line, but damn, WTF where they thinking? Maybe there is a clue in the following piece of information:

“Documents reveal a startlingly cozy relationship between wealthy donors and the president’s confidantes, especially in matters related to Solyndra,” Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), chairman of the committee’s investigations panel, said in a statement.

E-mails already made public in the eight-month investigation have kept the White House and the Energy Department on the defensive for weeks, showing in part that Valerie Jarrett and Lawrence H. Summers, top Obama advisers at the time, took part in discussions about Solyndra.


The class warriors serving the Obama overlord where cozy with wealthy donors? Those same wealthy people Team Obama loves to demonize and complain about when they try to incite the usual jackass, with talk about how unfair it is that the poor jackass is suffering the consequences of their bad choices while the rich live it up, into a frothing envious anger so they can pretend their flat out theft of other people’s money is a decent and good thing? Are they fraternizing with the enemy?

Those of us that understand what this nonsense – communism, socialism, class warfare, anti-fossil fuel, pro-green pie-in-the-sky bullshit energy, and in general the left’s core ideology – is about are not surprised. Understand that the left’s belief and efforts to pick the winners & losers, under whatever justified guise they parcel out, really is about overthrowing the current establishment and to replace it with themselves, and you see the kabuki dance for what it really is: they are manipulating stupid people by promising them pennies on the dollars they intend to make for themselves.

And that’s what we have here: Obama’s donor buddies, the new establishment, in bed with the people at the DOE that are responsible for handing out our tax dollars, screwing us all over. We should consider ourselves lucky that the second loan never panned out and that we only lost a half a billion dollars on this deal. We should also find out how many more of these “sweet deals” where made where once the money train runs out, the company will implode. How many more Solyndras are out there, still pretending to be viable, but for the fact that these green energy crooks gave them yet another loan at our expense to keep them afloat for another year or so? And lest you think that this was all above board and that this stuff was ever viable, here is a heavy dose of reality for you:

Solyndra applied for a second loan days after receiving the first one in September 2009. The agency had put Solyndra’s request for a second loan guarantee on a fast-tracked priority list, two sources familiar with the company’s application told The Washington Post. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because the probes of the loan are ongoing.

Really? Just days after they got a half billion they asked for another half billion, and it was again fast-tracked? I can not wait for what else we find out. Maybe we will get lucky and find out how much of this tax payer cash Solyndra larded on democrats, including Obama himself. I should feel gleeful that everything I predicted is coming out and vindicating me, but all I feel is abused. These crooks are seriously ripping us off. Now Obama wants to steal another half a trillion dollars from the tax payers to line the wallets of his chosen few and democrat campaign coffers, under the guise that it is going to create jobs, and with a backloaded tax burden that will cripple the conomy and kill more jobs than this will ever create,in the usual leftist propagandists biggest wet dream, and people need to wise up and tell these fools no thank you.