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!
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.
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.
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.
"Shtop laffling, I'm bing sheeriss!"