"Shtop laffling, I'm bing sheeriss!"
Posted on 10/23/2012 7:26:23 AM PDT by crosshairs
One of the most important issues in this year's election is energy. Our ongoing addiction to Mideast oil leaves us dependent on countries that are often unstable and hostile. Developing our own domestic energy resources and investing in renewable energy lessens this dependence. It also has the potential to create jobs and improve our trade deficit.
The two presidential candidates have laid out energy plans that sound similar: both President Obama and Governor Romney want to continue to develop domestic energy resources, including renewable energy, with the aim of making the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. But according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the president of environmental group Waterkeeper Alliance, the plans are different in several important ways.
And President Obama's plan, Kennedy says, is much better for the country. "We need to be energy independent but we can't look into the future by looking in a rearview mirror and say that we're going to do that through carbon," Kennedy says in an exclusive interview with The Daily Ticker. The idea that there's not a future for wind and solar energies in the U.S. "is just a hoax." Related: Clean Energy: Obama Says It's the Future, Paul Ryan Calls It a Fad Kennedy gives the example of a solar plant being built in the Mojave Desert. The plant will be one of the largest power plants in the U.S. and will be completed in three years. Coal plants take 10 years to build, Kennedy points out, and nuclear power plants can take as many 30 years. The solar plant costs $3 billion a gigawatt versus $15 billion for a nuke plant, one-fifth of the cost. Alternative energy sources like solar and wind are not only environmentally friendly policies, they're also smarter economic choices, Kennedy says.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
RFKjr doesn't have a fracking clue.
And President Obama’s plan, Kennedy says, is much better for the country. “We need to be energy independent but we can’t look into the future by looking in a rearview mirror and say that we’re going to do that through carbon,” Kennedy says in an exclusive interview with The Daily Ticker. The idea that there’s not a future for wind and solar energies in the U.S. “is just a hoax.” Related: Clean Energy: Obama Says It’s the Future, Paul Ryan Calls It a Fad Kennedy gives the example of a solar plant being built in the Mojave Desert. The plant will be one of the largest power plants in the U.S. and will be completed in three years. Coal plants take 10 years to build, Kennedy points out, and nuclear power plants can take as many 30 years. The solar plant costs $3 billion a gigawatt versus $15 billion for a nuke plant, one-fifth of the cost. Alternative energy sources like solar and wind are not only environmentally friendly policies, they’re also smarter economic choices, Kennedy says.
If this were so, WHY THE HELL DOES ANY SOLAR POWER GENERATING COMPANY EVEN NEED GOVERNMENT FUNDING, BUSINESSES WOULD BE CLIMBING OVER EACH OTHER TO SETUP THEIR OWN SOLAR POWER STATIONS!
Well, it’s cloudy out today and there is no wind. I guess that leaves what, cow farts?
Looks like he found the aisle with the “Just for Men” hair products.
The Missus was watching the documentary on Ethel Kennedy the other night and I watched a few minutes of it before getting up and leaving the room. On the one hand you can take some comfort from the fact that with time and successive generations, their importance has diminished, become diffused. But you still have to marvel at how much these folks are deep into the 1% that is so often derided by the Democratic Party. In the documentary there was a lot of still photography and film from the childhood of RFK and Ethel (then Ethel Skakel). If you turned off the sound and just looked at the footage (including color movie film from the late 1930’s and early 1940’s) and you see all the still shots of their childhood years - that were clearly taken by professional photographers, you realize the lives of privilege they had, from the mere fact that these photos exist. Mere mortals have snapshots that Uncle Harry took at your 5th birthday. The Kennedy’s have photos taken by elite professional photographers, of all the normal elements of their early years. Old Joe sure knew the value of publicity images.
The Most Dysfunctional Family in America....ever
Really? Advice from the lucky sperm club
Just look at how much money was floating around during the Internet Gold Rush before it went bust.
The Progressives are going to try ‘the next big thing’ with carbon credits. You can make alot of money that way. $20T was the last estimate I read.
This is the same guy who was hitting up Hugo Chavez for free heating oil for his constituents, right?
The “straight face” that Kennedy people put on is a carefully cultivated mask, one which has done the family well over the years. They can call themselves “Catholic”, yet have never a qualm about acting counter to every precept of the Church, much like the Medici of Florence, Italy.
And they delude themselves continually, about being “urbane” and “educated”, though some of them have the table manners of a country bumpkin, and several others have great difficulty carrying on an intelligent conversation. Not one of them is the least accomplished in any of the “hard” sciences, and few of them are genuinely cognizant of the fine arts.
And Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is aupposed to be some sort of “knowledgeable expert” on the effects of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is absolutely ESSENTIAL to all life forms here on earth, and efforts to artificially control or reduce it are doomed to failure, all at excessive expense and to no lasting effect. In fact, the more of it we pour into the air, the greener this world becomes.
Carbon dioxide is plant food. We shall be using carbon-based fuels a century from now, a thousand years, ten thousand years.
And plants shall continue to grow and bloom as a consequence.
Seems to me I read where Robert Kennedy has enormous investments in wind energy and other ‘green’ technology, and stands to make millions of dollars from ‘renewable’ energy.
though you are correct, try looking into how much “Land Mass” it would take to replace 1 nuclear plant with one Solar Plant in terms of megawatts. It is obvious that NOBODY has ever thought this through, because THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LAND IN THE US TO DO THIS.
Here are two questions for you RF'nK, Jr; how much of your own money do you have invested in alternative energy companies?
How much of your money is invested in oil companies?
Liberals and their addiction to government handouts...
And how long will it take once the environmentalists find endangered herringbone lizards and short arm saguaro cacti and hold up development in the Mojave? Or will they be run down because solar is politically favored?
The solar plant costs $3 billion a gigawatt versus $15 billion for a nuke plant, one-fifth of the cost.
One problem. Both have a rated power, but the nuke plant can run that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year while the solar plant will only hit it at noon on the summer solstice. Better hope it's not cloudy that day. Now how many dollars for average power delivered? Also be sure to amortize both over their expected life time with running costs to make it fair. If the nuke plant works longer than the solar plant and requires less maintenance (or if the solar lasts longer and requires less maintenance) you have to count that. Building cost isn't the only expense.
Alternative energy sources like solar and wind are not only environmentally friendly policies, they're also smarter economic choices, Kennedy says.
The same who drove his wife to suicide....
"Shtop laffling, I'm bing sheeriss!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.