You're fucking high.

The "over-arching" question is "why would you double up the roadway as a solar-powered generator?" It doesn't make sense, you'd spend just as much time running this solar panels parallel to the roadways.

This idea is impractical as it was the FIRST time I saw this on the sift...

like solar powered landmine boas?

>> ^bmacs27:

Good idea, but it's sort of specific to deserts unfortunately. If only there was something like this for the rain forest.

Surpassed only by the comeback..

I think the green aspect makes it pretty useless as a light source for roads, and they're really dim. Never once mentioned advancements or improvements. Is that as good as it gets? Because it looked bad. Maybe they could be used to clean the air, and shine onto solar panels which store it for later release through an actually decent light. Heh, there's an idea. Solar powered torch (well, carbon powered really).

solar-powered crowdsourced health care solution...

solar-powered: humans and most life on the Earth
Crowdsourced: The crowd was included and aided in the performance
Health care solution: Exercise??? Laughter?

Or maybe the name was just a silly mix of buzzwords.>> ^sillma:

So what the fuck was this clip about?

>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

Which would be a great point if it were true.

Let's look at some data.

Ok, let's see. In 2010 (last year we have data for) oil production was equivalent to 11669000000000000 BTUs or (12311.4467 yottajoules for those of us not living in the 18th century). Seems like a lot to me, and in fact it turns out this was the highest oil production since 2003!

So yeah, you're just plain wrong.

No. I didn't miss anything. You didn't hear what Cenk said. He said that some Republicans were trying to convince voters that a) Obama has been ignoring domestic energy, and b) that's the reason gas prices are high. Cenk put paid to both of these ideas because neither is true. It's the Republicans that Cenk quotes who are saying that oil drilling in the US counts as Domestic Energy, and that it would affect gas prices.

I don't watch any American TV news except what pops up on the Sift, which is almost all Fox News, so I can't compare. I can tell you that Fox is the worst journalism that I have ever seen, so much so that it's not really journalism to me, but shoving opinions down people's throats and still calling it news. If CNN and the rest are the same way, then that's a shame.

FWIW, Fox News viewers consistently poll as among the most misinformed of news consumers, often coming in lower than people who don't watch the news at all.

Also, I've never understood when the word "liberal" became a swear word. It just means "open-mminded." I think being able to receive and process new information and change long-held ideas in the face of such information is a strength rather than a weakness. But if you enjoy believing whatever you believe just because you believe it and like having others tell you that you're right even if it's incorrect, then have at it.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.
I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.
Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.
Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.

>> ^messenger:
You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.

"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"

Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.

Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.

Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.


>> ^messenger:

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Because fossil fuel generation has always been relatively cheap up till now...

This clinging to the whole 'nuclear bad' schtick with little evidence to back it up is just getting old. Anyone who knows anything about solar cell production knows that it not only has many harmful chemicals at the manufacturing end but the panels themselves are dangerous at their end of lifetime if not properly disposed of.

Can nuclear power be dangerous? Of course. Is it a viable alternative for base grid load if we want to eliminate fossil fuels? Currently, it's the only alternative. Renewables are no where close to ready to take over base load and fusion just hasn't happened yet. Pick your poison, but think quick...

http://www.renewableenergygeek.ca/solar-power/solar-panels-health-warning-hazzard/

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Nebosuke:
Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.

Nor does anything produce energy as cleanly as nuclear. It's shame the greens are so scared of the most promising clean energy alternative we currently have just waiting to be used.


So it's not just me...

I'd like to like environmental politics, but their approach to nuclear power is just so ignorant. Nuclear power is by far the best source we have for being clean, safe and effective. Yes, it has problems, but much fewer than any other source. It's cleaner than fossil fuel. Never mind the more obvious pollutants, nuclear plants release less radiation than coal plants.

Meanwhile, renewable sources like the wind farms that this video is pushing produce sod all. All the solar panels in Germany (one of the most solar-powered countries around) produce the same amount of power as Fukushima did, and that's only in the sort of ideal weather conditions that exist for a matter of hours a year.

As horrible as the Fukushima disaster was, this was about the worse case scenario. One of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded, striking near an old power plant and what happened? Zero deaths from radiation, with long term effects yet to be seen of course. Do we need land for agriculture? Yes, although it's debatable just how much as total food production isn't the problem. We also need electricity. We also need to cut pollution. If we invested in nuclear power, thorium in particular, we could achieve all these even before fusion is perfected. Also, we wouldn't need to have 40 year old power plants in earthquake regions if counter-productive environmentalists didn't try so hard to wreak the environment.

Care about the environment? Then support nuclear power!

Wave and solar power are where the investments should be made

Oh for... SIGH. From the Energy Information Administration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The most efficient forms of energy are Coal, Coal, Coal, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natual Gas, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. In that order.

The LEAST efficient forms of energy are Hydro, Biomass, Geo, Solar, Wind, and Wind.

Anyone notice anything interesting about the list there? Anyone? Beueller? Bueller?

"Green" energy is an absolute joke. America has enough Coal, Gas, and Oil to last well into the next century. Sure - put R&D into Solar, Wind, and Tidal - but swapping over to these forms of energy "right now" just for the sake of it is the height of idiocy. You swap energy sources when they make sense - not because of some moronic hoax (I.E. AGW).

Wind power - so overrated. Wave and solar power are where the investments should be made, at least they have sustainable efficiency.

Fantastic. Reminds me of my wife's granddad, so is very moving for me. I'm going to tell you about him because I can, you don't have to read this, it's just that I think he deserves a mention.

He retired at 65 from a career as an engineer and went on to be a tinkerer and inventor. He had a love of steam engines and built a scale model of Stephenson's Rocket in very much the same way as the gentleman in this video, but he made absolutely everything from scratch, including the nuts bolts and washers. It's about 12inches long and runs around a track when connected to compressed air. It still fascinates me to this day. He finished making it when he was 93. He said he'd sometimes drop a piece on his study floor and it would take him most of the day to find it again with his bad eyesight and loss of feeling in his fingers. I can't imagine having the skill to make one now while I'm in my prime. Seeing things like this make me feel awfully humble.

His crowning achievement was making the world's first ever road-legal solar powered car. He liked tinkering with solar power and realised that if he made a solar powered car it would be fun and he wouldn't have to pay road tax (he built and drove an electric sports car to work and back in the 50s for the same reason). So he built it. He wasn't the first to use solar power, he was just the first to make it road legal. I don't think he knew at the time he was the first, and it didn't seem that important to him. It was just something interesting to do. I swear he could have lived to 200 and not run out of ideas or things to do. He makes me realise how little I've done with my life.

If anyone's still reading and is still interested, this is him:

http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/default.asp?resource=6940

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

>> ^longde:
quoting longde:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx
The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:
•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans


Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

I feel like we're shouting at each other. For me to win this argument, I have to convince you that the "Recovery Act" is worthless and ineffective; For you to win, you have to convince me that the "Recovery Act" actually helps the economy more than it hurts us in interest payments on the national debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment. Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.

>> ^dag:

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:
Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.



hear hear

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:

Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.