Obama legacy will be power blackouts

By |2016-06-06T19:31:49+00:00June 6th, 2016|CFACT Insights|110 Comments

burnbridgePresident Obama is burning his so-called bridges to a “green energy” future that will leave America’s families and industries powerlessly impoverished.

Any notions that generously subsidized solar and wind will significantly compensate capacity losses from shuttered coal plants and overregulated oil and natural gas suppliers are scientifically and economically delusional.

And as for any prospects that truly clean non-fossil nuclear or hydropower can make up the slack, forget about that too.

Let’s start with some simple arithmetic. If you have heard some USenergy2015really exciting news that the Obama Administration has already doubled the amount of total U.S. energy derived from “renewable alternative” sources (solar, wind, and biofuels), that would be true.

Thanks largely to $150 billion in generous federal subsidies, combined total renewables (not including hydropower) grew from supplying slightly more than 2% of our “primary fuel” (including electricity) to a whopping 4% today.

Meanwhile over the same period, the total increase of non-subsidized oil and gas also doubled, but added eight times more energy than the total growth of wind, solar, and biofuels combined. Oil and gas now supply about 63% of all U.S. primary fuel. Coal provides another 19%.

BilLGatesBill Gates, a leading “green energy proponent,” candidly discussed false industry narrative in a November 2015 Atlantic magazine article titled “We Need an Energy Miracle.”

Referring to “self-defeating claims of some clean-energy enthusiasts,” he said, “They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbons. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements.

What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what?”

As Gates pointed out, “The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this [economical energy technology] thing is. So false solutions like divestment or ‘Oh, it’s easy to do’ hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated.”

Google learned the same very hard lesson. In 2007 the company KFinitiated an ambitious program known as RE<C (renewable energy less than coal) to invest in promising renewable energy technologies with the goal of generating gigawatt-scale electricity more cheaply than coal plants within years rather than decades.

Included were a wide range of innovative self-assembling wind turbine towers, drilling systems for geothermal energy, and solar thermal power systems, which capture the sun’s energy as heat.

Google shut down RE<C in 2011 after determining that it could not meet its target.

Google’s engineers also concluded that even their most optimistic cost-reduction scenarios for solar power, wind power, energy storage, and electric vehicles would have little climate impact. They appropriately noted that today’s renewable sources are limited by suitable geography and intermittent nature.

Wind farms, for example, make economic sense only in certain parts of the nation. Google’s best-case renewable supply models indicated that fossil fuel use would continue to be necessary for electricity generation, transportation, agriculture, and construction.

Bill Gates is honest about the dishonesty of alarmist climate claims, pointing out that global heating levels have not matched model predictions — with much uncertainty on both the “good and bad side.” He admits, “By over-claiming, or even trying to ascribe current things more to climate change than to other effects, environmentalists lend weight to the skeptics.

“Like, in the near term, the Pacific oscillation, this El Nino thing, has a much bigger impact on current weather than [man-made] climate change has had so far.”

Nevertheless, in the interest of ending billions of years of those climate changes, President Obama has made good on his pledge to bankrupt the coal industry. And don’t expect his administration’s like-minded allies’ war on fossil fuel carnage to end there.

lenaWhile previously touting natural gas as a lower emission bridge fuel to renewables, Sierra Club’s “Beyond Dirty Fuels” campaign leader Lena Moffitt takes great pride that her organization has “moved to a very clear and firm and vehement position of opposing gas.”

Interviewed on S&P Global Market Intelligence, she said, “We are doing everything we can to bring the same expertise that we brought to taking down the coal industry and coal-fired power in this country to taking on gas in the same way.”

Moffitt emphasized, “That is the one Sierra Club policy that we are all working toward: Getting us to 100% clean energy, which, of course, would include no new gas.”

Yes, this includes opposition to fracking to get it, refineries to process it, pipelines to transport it, LNG terminals to export it, and the future energy and jobs that will rely on it.

In other words, to burn down a bridge fuel to nowhere.


NOTE:  This article first appeared at: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/blackouts-coal-power-renewable/2016/06/06/id/732444/#ixzz4Aoh3RQzg


  1. VACornell June 9, 2016 at 11:55 AM

    When will we remember that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last
    70 years has enhanced plant growth by up to 20 percent?, This helps all animals
    Including the species called Homo sapiens…

    • Dano2 June 9, 2016 at 1:37 PM

      enhanced plant growth by up to 20 percent?

      [citation needed]



      • VACornell June 9, 2016 at 2:32 PM

        I cannot report to you an exact place…
        It’s what I read..as you do.
        Hope this helps

        • Dano2 June 9, 2016 at 2:51 PM

          Totes convincing, thanks!



      • Leigh June 10, 2016 at 11:48 AM
        • Dano2 June 10, 2016 at 11:55 AM

          It is the up to 20 percent that is key here.



      • Brin Jenkins June 12, 2016 at 7:57 PM

        Wake up and and smell the coffee whilst its still hot. Wishfull thinking can not make greenie ideals practicle. An understanding of radiated heat energy might help you see whats meant in this sensible article.

        • jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM

          Ignorance of the science of thermodynamics seems to be the most common denominator of the AGW crowd.

        • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 10:01 AM

          You can’t provide a citation either? SHOCKER



        • Junior Bruce June 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM

          They need to replace tree-for-tree, when they log them. When they cut them down, sunlight then bounces heat back into the atmosphere, creating high pressure zones, that pushes cold fronts around them, eventually starving these areas of the previous amounts of rain and snow that is needed for creating and sustaining life in these areas. I remember as a kid, it USED to snow during Christmas AND my birthday, where I grew up. Now, it almost NEVER snows there and if it does, it’s in MARCH, or JUNE. There has been SO MUCH housing growth, that it has affected the climate, because the trees are about all gone and it gets HOTTER there now, than it did in the early ’70’s.
          There NEEDS to be something planted to OBSORB the heat from the sun, rather than bounce it back into the atmosphere and heating up these zones.

    • Duane L Petersen June 10, 2016 at 3:48 PM

      The species Homo Moronis will never listen to the truth as long as the communist have control of the education system and the DemocRATic party

      • Junior Bruce June 21, 2016 at 1:20 PM

        I think that the right should infiltrate the education system and begin teaching the TRUTH about our country’s history. I also believe that they should make it a CRIME for any teacher to push THEIR opinion onto students, to influence them into siding with them politically. That’s NOT their job! Their job is to TEACH THE TRUTH, NOT push their own agendas.

    • Doug Bentley June 11, 2016 at 6:41 PM

      maybe when we re-remember that CO2 is a basic building block of life and not global public enemy #1.

    • timothy price June 18, 2016 at 4:08 PM

      CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. No argument there. All the solar energy that has been stored over millions of years is being burned in a short 150 year span of time.
      What does fossil fuel get used for? To produce heat. It heats your home, it heats your food, it heats your Earth. When everything has been in equilibrium for thousands of years, and suddenly your turn the heat up…. guess what happens.
      You are witnessing climate change largely triggered by human activity that has upset the balance. Suck it up.

      • Syrte Berenice June 27, 2016 at 12:19 AM

        heat! that is all? now, that is very enlightening!

        • timothy price June 27, 2016 at 6:26 AM

          And the acidification of the oceans…. the mercury pollution of our waters here in the east, No way is the amount if fossil fuel used benign. Temperature increases, of even slight amounts, causes expansion of the crust, producing earth quakes and volcanoes…… There is also the political pollution that the wealth produces…. Rockefeller… British Empire,..the Rothschilds and the Saudis….. and finally, Hitlary.
          Prince of Darkness:

  2. Dano2 June 9, 2016 at 1:38 PM

    So more secure distributed generation and cheaper power on them grid means less secure lecktrick? Srsly?



    • reagangs June 10, 2016 at 12:09 PM


      • Dano2 June 10, 2016 at 12:28 PM

        Exactly. The premise of poor hapless Larry’s column is absurd.



        • J T June 10, 2016 at 1:04 PM

          “D” is for douchebag.



  3. reagangs June 10, 2016 at 12:07 PM

    How much does it really cost (ROI) to make, transport and install, without subsidies, solar cells/panels ??? How much does it really cost to make, transport, install and maintain, without subsidies, wind turbines ??? I would guess the ROI, given the typical life time average, would be rather pathetic if not impossible. Yes, we need to be developing/using alternative renewable energy sources, but not at break neck speeds and at the risk of the hard working patriotic American tax payers. The failure of the current BHO admin at losing $$$$billions, is criminal. Let our private industry develop these and reap the reward or failure. No wonder we are $$$$$trillions in debt that our future children will carry. It’s time to end the politico corrupt cronyism once and for all. Out law and imprison all lobbyist and political enablers and “special interest” persons and groups. No more executive actions and proclamations. No more back room deals that require “we have to pass it so we will know what’s in it” crap. No more ObummerCare’s written by lobby interest groups with socialist leanings. Bring back our REAL America that hasn’t been tainted with sick twisted ideologies.

    • Dano2 June 10, 2016 at 12:19 PM

      I would guess the ROI, given the typical life time average, would be rather pathetic if not impossible.

      Your guess would be hilariously wrong.


      D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6cfdfe7f2bea2a54e486d22281dd274153cbe5b6d6b46170d442e161d4711765.jpg

      • wally12 June 10, 2016 at 5:01 PM

        @Dano2: You didn’t read the disclaimer in the chart you gave for cost per Mwh. It specifically states that standby power for alternate energies is not considered. Thus, the chart is simply a wish list and nothing more.

        • Dano2 June 10, 2016 at 5:14 PM

          It is the cost, thanks!



          • BigWaveDave June 18, 2016 at 4:07 PM

            No, it specifically excluded cost, idiot.

            • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 4:14 PM

              Smart guy lacks smarts to grasp concept. Unsurprising.



              • BigWaveDave June 18, 2016 at 4:37 PM

                The chicken is bleeding.

                • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 7:47 PM




  4. timothy price June 10, 2016 at 12:14 PM

    Don’t believe a word of this silly article. Pure nonsense.
    I think the USA, the western regions, certainly, has abundant power available .
    Here are a couple of examples.



    • Red Baker June 10, 2016 at 1:17 PM

      Your nonsense, instead.
      1. A giant bird-roaster
      2. Remote, fairly unusable plants which cannot make enough to pay for themselves.


      • timothy price June 10, 2016 at 1:53 PM

        You could understand the articles i linked to?
        You sound like a large pile of shill.

        • Redbird June 11, 2016 at 12:45 PM

          I wonder what you will think when “global warming” turns into “global cooling” (which it already has started) and all the outlawed fossil fuel power sources have been outlawed and decommissioned. There WILL BE people dying. Good luck up there in tropical Vermont home of the leftist loonies.

          • timothy price June 11, 2016 at 12:49 PM

            Seriously, you need to get off the internet and do something useful. You are a big negative, a vacuum, a hole….

            • Redbird June 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM

              Nope, just someone who actually thinks for himself instead of blindly following the b.s. coming from the criminals running the climate change scam. Go do something useful for your own mental health and just research one simple thing: find out the percentage of increase in how many molecules of CO2 are in the atmosphere since 1800. Then find an accurate analogy of what sort of effect that percentage would have on something like the entire atmosphere surrounding earth. Or you could just shut your peabrain off and on continue listening to the scam artists trying to control everything you do.

    • Concerned June 10, 2016 at 5:03 PM

      Perhaps you have not read how many solar companies are going out of business once the subsidies dry up. Infrastructure (T-Lines) is a huge issue, but also the reliability of the power. California is struggling to have a viable plan to accommodate wind and solar (at 10% to 20% of the total) as they go on-line and off-line erratically and as you enter the late afternoon hours when demand is maximum. They don’t know how to handle it if wind + solar reach 30% for average use. This means that for low generation periods, alternative fossil fuel back-up must be available or you have black-outs & brown-outs.
      Europe has learned their lesson as the addition of wind and solar has forced energy rates to 4X that of the U.S., and they again supply only about 20% of their needs! It was estimated that in 2014, 40,000 people died (in addition to the normal death-rate) in the U.K. and Europe due to “Energy Poverty” since people could not afford their electric bills. Older folks have to set their priorities, heat energy, food, or medications??
      The point is that large governments must have good long-term plans. If the plan is to lower their population, then they have achieved it.

      • timothy price June 10, 2016 at 5:11 PM

        Oh really? There is much that the population has to learn about how they use energy. I live in Vermont. Not the sunniest place on earth. I am off grid. Learning how to stop wasting energy was the biggest challenge. But once you get it, life is great.
        So suck it up and act like someone with a real purpose to do something useful with your life.

        • Concerned June 10, 2016 at 5:23 PM

          Great, my congratulations to you and your family. You have every right to be proud of your accomplishments and yes I would agree that more people should do the same if they are able.. However, taking your home “off grid” is a whole lot easier than taking a manufacturing company off-grid or for a family living on social security to be able to afford solar.
          Many folks in the U.K. died because the wind became nearly non-existent for about 6 weeks in the middle of winter, at which time solar power was nearly useless due to cloud cover and their latitude. Families were breaking up furniture and cutting trees in their yards to burn in what wood-burning stoves were available during that specific cold spell. I did not read what the people in Germany did.

          • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 11:02 AM

            Hilarious comedy skit! I LOLzed! Many folks in the U.K. died because the wind became nearly non-existent for about 6 weeks in the middle of winter, at which time solar power was nearly useless due to cloud cover and their latitude. Families were breaking up furniture and cutting trees in their yards to burn in what wood-burning stoves were available during that specific cold spell.

            It’s like you read an Asimov short story and internalized it!



            • Concerned June 13, 2016 at 9:42 AM

              The U.S. is spoiled by our low cost of electricity. If Obama has his way, he will “force” the cost of energy to quadruple what it was when he took office.
              Since Europe feels they are ahead of the U.S. in “going green” the attached article and many comments and references are worth reading, whether you believe this or not. There are not too many old or poor people in the U.K. and Europe who believe this is the “hilarious comedy skit.”


              • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM

                More hilarity: If Obama has his way, he will “force” the cost of energy to quadruple what it was when he took office.

                I LOLzed!



      • timothy price June 10, 2016 at 8:45 PM

        One of the methods employed is to use power when it is available, and not use it when it is not. If it is a sunny morning, ‘lets have waffles”. If it is cloudy, its fruit, nuts and yogurt. We do work that uses power: washing, vacuuming, power saws, drills, etc. on sunny days. Book-work and gardening on cloudy days. Planned adaptation is the key. In the southwest, there there are cloudless weeks on end.
        Course, we could remain addicted to cheap power, easy riches, become wealthy on the use of fossil fuels…. but there are risks too.
        “Old Satan Coal” is a music video that shows biblical teachings.

        • Redbird June 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM

          Yeah, like that’s a viable suggestion. Get everyone to drive electric cars and then when you get several cloudy days, everyone stays home and weaves baskets instead of going to work and being truly productive. You people are all sick or delusional.

          • timothy price June 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM

            You stick to your punch card time clock, be very regular and eat your prunes.. We are thriving just fine, completely independent. Love being “sick and delusional”. Ha ha ah.

            • Redbird June 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM

              Yep, spoken like a typical democrat – as long as I’m o.k. screw everyone else

              • jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM

                He is not ok redbird. He is delusional. He has to wait for the sun to shine to toast his waffle. Would you want that?

          • jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 9:19 AM

            The range of the Tesla an all electric car is 325 miles at 25 mph. That is with new batteries. It takes at least 20 minutes to recharge even the fast charge batteries. Add to that, the power is still generated by fossil fuel, so what has been gained? Certainly not convenience.

        • Barefoot in MN June 11, 2016 at 12:59 PM

          so, you’re saying, the entire population of the Northern states are welcome to your place? I sure hope so.

          • timothy price June 11, 2016 at 1:06 PM

            Don’t follow you… that wouldn’t work at all. But I do suggest that people need to take responsibility for themselves cause that is how they will survive. If you can’t adapt to stay alive, you will adapt by dying.

        • BigWaveDave June 13, 2016 at 11:28 AM

          What an idiotic video. Why are you so against natural organic stored solar energy?

          • timothy price June 13, 2016 at 12:59 PM

            What do you find idiotic about a video showing stored carbon energy being owned by the Rockefellers, the Queen of England, and other elites, subverting democratic systems with their power, while at the same time making people sick, weak, polluting the environment, and increasing global climate change? Natural organic stored solar energy… that is so funny. You haven’t really thought much have you.

            • BigWaveDave June 14, 2016 at 7:26 PM

              There is nothing funny about natural organic stored solar energy. We have spent over a hundred years learning how to use it safely and cleanly. Now that we know how we are not permitted to use it because unthinking folks believe “it is making people sick, weak, polluting the environment, and increasing global climate change”.

              • timothy price June 14, 2016 at 7:34 PM

                Right, and we can no longer eat the fish in our lakes and rivers in Vermont cause of coal fired power plants in the west… and for what… the waste in power usage is mammoth.
                Look at the obesity epidemic, cause people do no work. look at the food people eat, driving their cars to fast food joints.
                Go stick your weeny in a light socket… and be sure it is on.

                • BigWaveDave June 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM

                  “Right, and we can no longer eat the fish in our lakes and rivers in Vermont cause of coal fired power plants in the west.” If true, it is not from any pollution controlled coal fired power plants. The rest of your comment is irrelevant, or just stupid.

      • jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 9:10 AM

        Solar panels work well in space where there is no oxygen to burn fossil fuel and sunlight is available 24/7, but not so good on earth where conditions favorable to solar do not exist.

    • Concerned June 10, 2016 at 5:32 PM

      You are correct, the U.S. has more coal, oil, and gas reserves than any other country in the world.

  5. got my licence June 10, 2016 at 12:21 PM

    Hydroelectric is the real renewable energy but they are taking out all the damns. Damns also provide water storage but I guess if you solve a problem you can’t ask for more money. PS, does anyone remember the nature films showing salmon jumping up a waterfall? I do, so why is there a problem with a fish ladder?

    • The Grump June 10, 2016 at 4:06 PM

      There isn’t a problem with a fish ladder, nor with hydros. No money is exactly right. And azzwipes as so called leaders. O’azzwipe “leading” the way.

  6. GRAMPA June 10, 2016 at 1:16 PM

    Our nation is indeed in danger. What direction do we head of to. To pull the simplest answer isn’t to refurbish the infrastructure. We do need it but efforts in other directions Could provide solutions that would give America the precious time needed to work on the main problems. Replacement of transformers damaged by terrorists by blast or the dreaded EMP attack or with a natural pulse could with proper organization use every undamaged unit to restructure and provide the electrical resource so important for survival. Looking at what we have and what we can do with what we have is the critical step. The direction must be temporarily changed for government to function. Unfortunately it will look like a military run government. Will we have insurgence as to what we will have? No. I haven’t the knowledge that would give us these answers. I have the ideas to modify and fix our power for I am an electrical contractor. even with this knowledge it must be linked with engineers that work to solve the large problems such as Matching and sizing the parts to make a functioning system. The important start is to get our plants working that will give us gas and oil products and the components for medical supplies. Setting the priorities will be critical. We all would like to have power but if we fail to survive lights are worthless. Every source of power must be utilized. As a nation we are fortunate to have many rivers. We dont need to build a dam to provide power. Water wheels will provide for small industry that will provide parts to repair our nation. Even an engine on the railroad would provide power that is normally drive the traction motors. because they are oil driven the supply for these is critical. Many hospitals have backup generators that also are critical and parts for maintenance would be a strong solution for providing critical medical attention. I have touched on only a few ways that power could be supplied. Even the river I live near would provide many sources for power if we could spend a small percentage in preparation ahead of time. We have the people with the skills and tools and more important the will to work. We have no place for the sponges who like parasites live off the good will of society We will have no time or efforts to waste on the non productive. Only with efforts and cooperation and the ability to adapt will America survive. It is clear to me and hope it would be clear to most that government is the problem. I have little hope that government could organize something this large. Our history of the world shows they don’t have the skill for their desire for power comes first. The people who step up to lead must take the shit thrown from all directons. Above all he or she must have enough will to disregard the attacks and tell the people what they must do to survive and give them their choice to follow or leave. If they leave the way back in is hard. The rules set must be simple and to violate them without valid reason is expelled or killed upon set standards agreed upon by the community Well I have overdone myself as usual but I hope that i have given my fellow citizens some Idea that this crisis would be survivable. Power is a very small section of the problems. The amount caused by hunger and disease would be our largest problem. In areas of large population we would have the largest problem. If ways to feed and water the people along with shelter and sanitary means is the first step. if this can be done then we have a chance. We will have gangs that are armed and without any real direction that will have no thought for tomorrow. This is why it is imperative for communities and counties stand organize and defend to preserve the best chance for mankind to survive. Having leaders that understand what it will take and which steps must be taken first to accomplish order must be in place or we will have none.

  7. Proud_to_be_American June 10, 2016 at 1:26 PM

    I have been researching residential solar for a few months now thinking it would keep my home powered during blackouts (at least during the day time) Not so I’ve been told by all the reps if SCE’s power went down mine would also stop producing be cause they don’t want it feeding back while the crews are working on the lines. Logical, But if they can make cutoffs for large industry, why not residential?

  8. Cass Moret June 10, 2016 at 3:21 PM

    Although I retired in 1994 and I’m willing to concede that technology advances, I remain convinced that so-called solar power (photovoltaic conversion of sunlight into electricity) cannot compete with conventional sources of electric power – and that by a large margin. The Carter administration spent millions on a variety of approaches to making photovoltaics competitive to no avail. Were it competitive, it would by now account for a much larger share in electric generation. That it doesn’t, even with government subsidies, is telling enough.
    I was intimately involved in evaluating the technology and economics of photovoltaics as a business opportunity before retirement. I once had a framed 1 sq. cm. single-crystal cell hanging on the wall of my office. It had been carefully prepared using the best possible techniques in a laboratory (not as part of a factory run). We believed it to be literally the world’s greatest cell. Its peak conversion efficiency was well under 25%! In other words, when 100 units of sunlight power struck the cell, it produced less than 25 units of electric power.
    Anyone, such as Obama, who thinks photovoltaics is, or will be, a major viable source of electric power is either uninformed or misled by government intervention that hides the real costs

    • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 10:59 AM

      The market disagrees with you. Solar doubling ~22 months.



      • Redbird June 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM

        Good ole’ Dano. Still trolling the Web spewing his nonsensical denials and never backed up by any real data such as what he’s dealing with here. Troll on Idiot!

        • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 2:24 PM

          Position too weak to refute my statement. Got it.



      • Cass Moret June 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM

        1. Yes, there are solar panels in place. And yes, people claim savings. BUT to get at a true cost to the user, you have to subtract the contribution made by the federal government in a variety of forms. And this can be difficult because they are often hidden.
        2. Doubling a small number is still a small number. The technology has remained virtually unchanged for more than 30 years. Corporate America would not have passed up an opportunity to produce a profitable product during that time if photovoltaics were indeed profitable. Obama’s pet company went bankrupt!
        3. You have to distinguish between photovoltaics (again, direct conversion of sunlight to electricity) and technology used to capture heat from sunlight. The two are often lumped together to make “solar” look more attractive.
        4. Here are a few reasons PV is not viable as a significant source of electric power.
        a. Mass production of panels is not very susceptible to economies of scale. A panel produced in a run of 1,000 cost less than one produced in a run of 100 – but not much less.
        b. Flat plate glass, used to cover the PV cells, is a significant cost component. But this glass is produced in large quantities, economies of scale have been “squeezed” out and the cost is not likely to decrease.
        c. Under the very best conditions, there is a theoretical limit to conversion efficiency. Need more power? Then you need more panels. If they are not mounted on roofs, that means more land. The opportunity cost of the land is seldom considered as a contributing cost.
        d. PV panels produce the most power in the middle of the day. But the daily demand for power in the US is in the evening. Capturing that power means battery storage – more cost.
        e. PV panels produce DC current which doesn’t “travel” well (Tesla won that argument with Edison). More significantly the US runs on AC. That means a device to convert DC to AC – more cost.
        f. PV production depends on latitude and weather. Obama’s visit to a village inside the artic circle (six months of poor sunlight) to tell them we have to stop using fossil fuels was, to put it mildly, ridiculous.
        Is there a place for PV in the US? Yes, in locations with 1. ample sunlight, 2. congenial weather AND 3. a prohibitive cost to connect to the grid. It could be a viable alternative to local diesel generators. But it will still be WAY more expensive than what you get at your wall outlet

        • Dano2 June 11, 2016 at 2:23 PM

          to get at a true cost to the user, you have to subtract the contribution made by the federal government in a variety of forms. And this can be difficult because they are often hidden.

          Indeed – if we counted the true cost of fossil energy, it would have been gone decades ago.

          Doubling a small number is still a small number.

          Wow. No wonder nobody saves money – according to your maths, it doesn’t ever amount to anything.



          • Cass Moret June 12, 2016 at 4:31 PM

            Ever hear of compound interest?

            • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM

              Great, thanks!



          • Brin Jenkins June 12, 2016 at 8:02 PM

            Citation needed clown

            • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 10:01 AM

              Thanks smartie boot-boot: citation for what?



          • jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 9:03 AM

            “Doubling a small number is still a small number.”

            Maybe that is why investors buy dividend paying stocks instead of putting their money in the bank and getting maybe 1% return on it.

            • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM

              Sure, sure.



          • BigWaveDave June 13, 2016 at 11:42 AM

            You keep talking about the true costs of naturally stored solar energy as if someone were subsidizing its use.

            What is gone from decades ago is the pollution.

            • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 12:28 PM

              Surely you jest. Hundreds of thousands of excess deaths from particulates alone.



              • BigWaveDave June 18, 2016 at 4:04 PM

                “Hundreds of thousands of excess deaths from particulates alone.”

                Where? This is certainly not from modern coal fired plants in the US.

                You probably aren’t old enough to have ever seen the real pollution that has been cleaned up with the help of coal fired power plants.

                • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 4:10 PM

                  Start with China.


                  Anyhoo, ~200K in Murrica, 7M worldwide.

                  /basic knowledge outside of Faux “News” circles



                  • BigWaveDave June 18, 2016 at 4:34 PM

                    You can’t read. Why don’t you take a course or something?

                    • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 7:47 PM

                      I’ll take that as your capitulation.



                    • BigWaveDave January 13, 2017 at 12:23 AM

                      I’ll take that as your capitulation.

                      No, you didn’t address the question of where pollution from modern coal fired plants in the US is killing people.

                      China has not yet cleaned up their pollution. A few decades ago, cities in the US looked like Chinese cities do today. Now, the air in most US cities is the cleanest it has ever been.

                      Why are you so reluctant to accept the truth?

                    • Dano2 January 13, 2017 at 8:58 AM

                      /basic knowledge outside of Faux “News” circles



          • VACornell January 11, 2017 at 11:18 PM

            You question the true cost of fossil fuels…!
            Please explain this.
            I purchase gasoline for a few dollars for about 30 miles in my car.
            That’s the upfront cost.
            Where is you true cost ?
            Where does this lead you?

            • Dano2 January 12, 2017 at 12:16 AM




        • RLTMLT June 11, 2016 at 6:12 PM

          Good point, If the Corporations had seen a significant source of future profits in Solar the surrounding landscape would be covered with them by now !

          • Cass Moret June 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM

            To me, this is the most telling point of all. Between the time of my lengthy post and my reply to you, I was reading about Obama’s incentives to boost the use of PV solar. Just more insane waste of the tax payer’s money. Any technology that needs continuing federal support, as this one has for years, is not viable in a free market. But then, what does Obama care abut free markets. According to him, if we don’t stop using fossil fuels, the world will burn up. It’s his signature legacy. Idiot!

            • News4free June 12, 2016 at 9:49 PM

              You are exactly right. Just the storage of the DC that the panels produce, then the conversion to AC to be used causes panels to be non-viable as a reliable source on a grand scale. Most don’t understand just how much energy it takes to keep residential power going, let alone manufacturing plants and commercial business. .

              • yo neighbor June 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM

                So… that $4500 solar generator that charges up a battery isn’t such a good buy huh… glad I didn’t invest… thanks.

      • yo neighbor June 17, 2016 at 9:03 PM

        Cass is very patient… he actually answered you in detail… good day ☺

  9. dje3 June 11, 2016 at 1:39 AM

    I built 120 Wind Turbine Generators and installed the substation etc..a full windpark. I can tell you this…wind power is renewable and in CA especially the afternoons are the best time for generation…into the evening. This means that they work when they are best delivery online. There are many areas in the US that have exception al wind and can be used to generate power in huge amounts.

    Cass Moret (below) talks of what he knows about photovoltaics…I wanted to get involved in them..until I researched the rare earth metals necessary and involved in their production and that of batteries. Just the mining of those rare earth metals is so damaging to our environment, and the actual costs so high that it is literally INSANE to consider it a viable alternative to any of the options except ONE option that is extremely viable.

    SOLAR WATER HEAT. The technology is VERY simple and can be used anywhere the sun shines, even in places where ambient temperatures plummet in the winter. The Hot Water is stored in abundance and can handle many days without sun, with electrical backup or even gas it is a simple system that WORKS well.

    Here in FL I have installed several units. A single panel installation for a family of three was BOILING WATER IN THE STORAGE TANK in summer. That water was allowed to boil and a mixing valve adds cool water at delivery to assure no scalding and increase efficiency. We even had to bank off 1/2 of the panel in summer as it boiled too violently!

    The cost..several thousand. The return..probably over 30 years at about 25-35% of a house’s total utility use. It is VIABLE.

    The biggest issue today, is that solar water heat is not required ANYWHERE at new build and that houses do not have to be built with extremely high efficiency…I know of methods and materials that can reduce consumption to about 20-25% of average power needs…

    If we put the emphasis on increased efficiency we can reduce need easier than we can produce power! The problem with that? well…if we reduce your use 75% then the cost will have to go up 300-400% by definition! We all lose no matter what.

  10. MarcJ June 11, 2016 at 12:29 PM

    In the Middle Ages we had rich princes and nobles financing their alchemists in their efforts to invent
    1) Philosopher’s Stone – that would give them eternal youth;
    2) Process to transform lead into gold; and
    3) Perpetuum mobile – a machine that would, once started, work forever without any further inputs.
    Today we have B. Hussein Obama (our Marxist Muslim President from Kenya), and his Eco-Nazis honchos in the DOE and EPA promoting, using many billions of printed money, financing, in an eerie echo of those dark Middle Ages,
    1) Solar energy;
    2) Wind mills; and
    3) Bio-fuels.
    All of these are inevitably destined to an eventual sordid failure, leaving the taxpayers another trillion dollars or two more in the hock.

  11. Mervyn June 12, 2016 at 2:35 AM

    Sadly, nothing is ever going to undo the “climate change” agenda until politicians recognise and accept that it is simply the greatest ever pseudo-scientific deception.

    No matter how many ground breaking scientific papers are published scientifically debunking the catastrophic man-made global warming myth, the political agenda of “climate change” will continue.

    Having said that, there may indeed be some hope … if Donald Trump becomes the 45th American president.

    • Dano2 June 12, 2016 at 9:07 AM

      No matter how many ground breaking scientific papers are published scientifically debunking the catastrophic man-made global warming myth,

      How many?!

      There have been zero papers doing so.

      Zero. Nada. Nothing. Nichts. Nil. Null set. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.



      • Cass Moret June 12, 2016 at 4:10 PM

        Do you just enjoy being argumentative? Read “Climate Change: The Facts” edited by Alan Moran. You will find citations.

        • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 10:00 AM

          Thanks ever so much, there are not many ground breaking scientific papers are published scientifically debunking the catastrophic man-made global warming myth, thanks!



          • BigWaveDave June 13, 2016 at 11:50 AM

            There is no paper anywhere in the world that gives any physical basis for the belief that CO2 causes warming or climate change, is there?
            All you have is the belief based on a mistaken theory of how a greenhouse works.

            • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 12:27 PM

              There are papers from the 1820s. Where would you like me to begin?



              • BigWaveDave January 12, 2017 at 4:50 AM

                All you have in Fourier’s work from the 1820s is a belief based on a presumption that the atmosphere behaves like an opaque solid, and a mistaken theory of how a greenhouse works.

                I’ll quote myself, “There is no paper anywhere in the world that gives any physical basis for the belief that CO2 causes warming or climate change…”

                If you think there is, you can begin by quoting the relevant part.

                • Dano2 January 12, 2017 at 8:51 AM

                  Nonetheless, you cannot show a different science. GHGs keep the earth from being an ice ball. You can’t refute it.



                  • BigWaveDave January 12, 2017 at 5:54 PM

                    Of course I can refute that ghgs keep the Earth from being an ice ball.

                    The Sun heats Earth’s surface to much higher than the average temperature, and the heated surface cools at night.

                    No ghgs are needed. Why are there people stupid enough to believe that the Sun can’t heat the Earth?

                    • Dano2 January 12, 2017 at 10:40 PM

                      Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang, you smart bro.



                    • BigWaveDave January 13, 2017 at 12:28 AM

                      So, do you agree that the Sun is capable of warming the surface without ghgs?

                      Do you agree that the oceans can store heat?

                    • Dano2 January 13, 2017 at 8:57 AM

                      I also agree with you that GHGs prevent the earth from being a ball of ice. Good job making your thinks!



    • Cass Moret June 12, 2016 at 4:28 PM

      Global Warming, aka Climate Change, aka Climate Disturbance is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science. The “scientists” involved in the fraud have one objective: prove that human activity, if not drastically curtailed, will cause a catastrophic increase in global temperature. The ultimate goal of the movement is not to prevent global warming per se, but rather, as John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor puts it, to de-develop the US economy and those of other industrialized nations. Radical environmentalists like Holdren and Maurice Strong (the principal architect of the movement) believe there are too many people on earth and that humans ar destroying the planet. Google those names.

  12. benevolent_dictator June 12, 2016 at 10:29 AM

    Why does the pie chart show total renewable energy at 10% but the text says it went from 2% to 4%?

    • Cass Moret June 12, 2016 at 3:09 PM

      Good question; but then look who produced the chart. The chart is wrong.

    • jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 9:26 AM

      Probably because they included hydro which has been around for more than 100 years.

  13. jreb57 June 13, 2016 at 8:43 AM

    Remember when the environmental movement stopped the building of nuclear power plants 30+ years ago?. Nuclear is one method of generation that adds no CO2 to the atmosphere (if you think that is important), is competitive cost wise with coal and natural gas and does not add to the heat budget of the planet since the fuel (uranium) will decay and produce heat and radiation whether or not it is in the core of a reactor. Use it or lose it, just like wind and solar except it is 24/7 power.

  14. Junior Bruce June 21, 2016 at 1:14 PM

    Then, they’ll claim the word, ‘BLACK OUT’ is racist. Come to think of it, I can’t wait til America has ITS ‘black out’, when ohomo leaves the white house. 😀

  15. Duane L Petersen June 22, 2016 at 5:59 PM

    CO2 has a very narrow range of absorption from and Infer red ..034 to .o4 once the first 100 PPM get in the air it absorbs 60% of that range the next 100PPM absorbs about 20% of that range the next 100 PPM absorb about 10% then 5%, 2%and on down to almost nothing.

Comments are closed.