Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

I agree with you on nearly every point you made. However, we are in our current mess (as a whole, not just oil related) because of many
mistakes made on both sides due to pandering and a lack of leaders. Every mistake the Executive, Judical, and Legislative branch creates for the next generation stays with our nation in a perpetual state of forever. We need these problems solved---however, we are a nation that never unmistakes ourselves. I don't even think we are a nation that is built to fix shit.

Indefinate detention? Sure Obama will fix it...maybe... after his next election... War in Iraq? Sure the President has a great time table to leave... in due time... Energy plan with little reliance on oil? Well, 30 years after we should have begun, our greatest accomplishment is that we use more oil! We barely use solar, wind or nuclear energy... The list of problems goes on and on, but corporations do not solve problems, and since we are run by the dollar---they win.

>> ^rougy:
There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since June 27th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Winstonfield_Pennypacker">Winstonfield_Pennypacker.
Take BP to court? You mean the same Supreme Court that recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals? The same Supreme Court packed with right-wing ideologues like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts? That's your idea of justice?
You always make these dishonest comparisons. Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.
We need the Fairness Doctrine in radio and television because the right wing, always the money-grubbers, are stacking the deck. Leave the blogs alone. Leave the papers alone. But reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in television and radio and dance to the wailing of the conservative propagandists who would have everybody believe that their point of view is the only point of view.
We're in this mess because of you, man, and because of people like you. We're in this mess because your idea of how the world should work is totally fucked up, only you will never, ever admit it.
You bow to the strong and pick on the week. Now go back to licking your master's boots.

Hey Winston,
Sorry a couple of points I was trying to make got a little muddled and mashed together in my last comment during editing before I rushed out to work. Including my math on 6x10.

What I told youabout my friends building a house and being off the grid is true. I know because they did it, and I've seen it. Their house is in Quebec, not some backhills somewhere. I've been there. They made me pizza.

Yeah, I'm sure that they're paying some interest on the loan they got to pay for it all up front, but they did it for less than $11,000. And fully installed by electricians. They're fully off the grid for electricity. They use a gas stove instead of electric, and they don't have a microwave, in order to cut down on power drain. But they have a fridge, lights, hot water, computers and everything else you would expect a family home to have.

I don't know where you got the rest of your figures. All I can tell you is what I've seen with my own eyes. And that the tomatoes on the pizza were grown in their vegetable garden, the pepperoni sausage came from the meat shop a 10 minute drive away, and it made for a memorable meal.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big.
Elementary geometry says you need TWENTY 6'x5' panels to get 600 sq feet. Regardless, the issue is not the surface area per se but the COST to cover that much surface area. Photovolt panels are expensive, highly inefficient, and use toxic elements. They need maintainance, replacing, repair, and have a lifecycle. Same with the VERY expensive batteries you need to buy.
And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household.
Many estimates put the installation of a fully functional solar powered home at well over $50K. 660 sq ft costs $10,853 just for the panels using the cheapest product I could find. Then there is wiring, connectors, inverters, batteries, mounts, control panels, and monitors... The backhills of Alberta may be different, but in the U.S. it is highly illegal to install your own electrical system... You're looking at thousands in licensing, regulatory, and labor. $10K? Not on this planet.
But let's say you're super lucky and manage to get the whole shebang installed for only $25K somehow. [...]

Why do you have such a blind allegiance to the republican ideals?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The manufacture of solar panels requires the use of toxic elements such as cadmium, lead, mercury, et al...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


The average household uses 1,000kWh a month. This would require 666 sq ft of solar paneling. There were 105 million households in the US in 2000. This means to supply only the residential needs of the U.S. we would need 70 BILLION square feet of solar paneling every 20 years. Those facile with math will note this is 2,590 square miles...

...Or 1/2 the rooftops of New York, L.A. and Los Vegas.

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big. I have some friends that are _completely off the grid_ using this much solar a small windmill. Land space is an invalid argument against solar power.

And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household. My friends, who have no bills for electricity or heating, had their system (including the windmill and battery storage system) installed for just over $10,000 (CDN.) To run powerlines to their house would have cost $15,000, and they would have still had to pay the electric company monthly fees for lights. Yes it was a small loan, but in 5 years that will be paid off, and there will be no more bills, save a little engine oil for the windmill. Whoever is quoting you numbers like $50k per home is misleading you.

It isn't a pipe dream. People are doing it.

Again, you just ignored the facts that I presented to you.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?

No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.
The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!
Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

>> ^rougy:

Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?


No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.

The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!

Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

>> ^rougy:

You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.



Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

You're still a fucking idiot.

The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.

Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted. ...<snip>...
The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Your analogy isn't quite true. Unlike the solar industry, there is a concentration of power/production in the petroleum and nuclear industries which breaks your comparison continuation.

To be fair, the Soviets had many chances and a lot of time to stop Chernobyl from melting down by dropping the core into a giant lead and graphite plug that would seal it and stop the reaction. That is what they were supposed to do if a melt down started. However doing this ruins the plant and turns it into a giant paper weight. The engineers at Chernobyl repeatedly asked permission to drop the core and were denied by the government. In America, if a melt down was immanent, the plant engineers would drop the core because they wouldn't have to ask permission from the president to do so. The Soviets could have averted disaster by sacrificing their plant, but chose to try and stop the reaction AND save the plant so they didn't look foolish to the rest of the world. Uninformed, uneducated politicians were responsible for the Chernobyl disaster, not poor technology or incompetent engineers.


>> ^dingens:

As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^dingens:
>> ^chilaxe:
Chernobyl was caused by Soviet incompetence. It has little relevance to modern nuclear plants.

As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.

Technology can fail, but some technologies are more likely to fail than others. Oil drilling exhibits a predictable rate of disasters. In contrast, what's been the total cost of nuclear failures in all Western countries over the last 50 years? Seemingly a negligible amount.


I don't want to compare oil spills and nuclear accidents (and I don't think, they can be compared that easily), but I think we can agree on this:
Technology can fail and humans can fail.

>> ^dingens:

>> ^chilaxe:
Chernobyl was caused by Soviet incompetence. It has little relevance to modern nuclear plants.

As opposed to ... hmm, let's say, BPs incompetence? Sure, they don't run nuclear plants, but modern technology _can_ fail, especially when run by greedy bastards.


Technology can fail, but some technologies are more likely to fail than others. Oil drilling exhibits a predictable rate of disasters. In contrast, what's been the total cost of nuclear failures in all Western countries over the last 50 years? Seemingly a negligible amount.

>> ^rougy:

The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.


The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.

That's the bottom line.

They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.

It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.

But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.