Indoctrination to Conservative "Reality"

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Indoctrination to Conservative "Reality"
46
Wed, 12-07-2011 - 8:00pm

Thinking of converting to Conservatism this year? The Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of books to read in 2012:

You need the First Principles gift list. We have collected the top 10 books from our list:

  1. Religious Liberty in the American Republic

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

There wasn't anything in your sources (which, BTW, I do appreciate and found informative) "explaining how the big grid is more efficienct [sic] than decntralized [sic] systems.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2011

As requested, here are some more links for you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2011

That was a very good read, thank you. Their approach is the same.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 01-03-2012 - 11:41pm
Honestly. Your posts would have a great deal more credibility if substantiating links were posted. But that would mean having to prove bad science, sweeping statements, baseless accusations, and patronizing attitudes. Not possible, eh?

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2011
Tue, 01-03-2012 - 11:07pm

"There were no falsehoods, nor contradictions from me"

Really? You claim we should get rid of the big grid and implement things like wind power yet wind power makes absolutely no sense in small grid or decentralized applications. As the diameter of the blades on a wind generator double, the potential power output quadruples. Wind power, by necessity of physics must go onto a large grid. No other common use application makes any sense for it.

You then claim we should use excess power to produce hydrogen and dispense with the big grid when hydrogen storage loses more than 50% of the energy it takes to make while the grid only loses 10%. You have yet to explain why wasting this extra 40% is better than keeping the grid and dumping surplus power there.

Those sound like contradictions to me.

"Given the reluctance of conservatives to conserve or practice conservation"

You're the one promoting wasting 40% of your excess capacity instead of letting someone else use it immediately.

"Sending power down the line" is fine in theory but if it's not needed, then storage makes sense."

It does not. Offgrid PV systems typically use batteries to store their power. The batteries for a small home cost $15,000 and need to be replaced about every 5 years. That's $3,000 a year in cost just to store your surplus. A system big enough to generate enough surplus to keep the average home going when the sun isn't shining runs about $100,000.

A system delivering the exact same amount of power for your home tied to the grid and net metered costs $45,000 and you don't need the batteries. So I need to ask how storage makes sense but sending power down the line is only ok in theory. It's not theory. It's well known and is why you see people net meter instead of going off the grid.

"Until the Obama administration, they got next to nothing from government subsidies.”

Oh please, Renewable have gotten over a trillion in subsidies before the present administration. According to you:

"The main problem is storing generated electricity so it can be tapped into when needed."

So you're trying to say with a trillion $s they can't figure out how to store energy efficiently?

The most efficient mechanism of storing excess power has been around for more than 40 years. All you have to do is pump water into a holding tank. It's on the order of about 99% efficient. I don't care how much money you spend, you're not going to beat that anytime soon especially when considering its low cost. It's old technology, cheap and highly reliable. The technology is here and has been here for a long time so why isn't it in use? It's because the homeowner would need a tank the size of their house to store sufficient power.

You made several unsupported claims in your original post. I refuted them and asked only a few questions. Instead of a rational response I got what appears to be another tirade of:

"AEI production. Vice President (and Hawk-in-Chief) Dick Cheney was an AEI fellow immediately before joining the Bush White House, and his wife Lynne still is. Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy and, outside of Cheney, the most robotic defender of the Iraq invasion, was an AEI fellow. So was Laurie Mylroie, the leading academic proponent of the crackpot theory"



If you can't/won't support your claims with something rational/credible I'll move on. You could've saved us both the time and simply said you hate Bush/Cheney and anything to do with big for-profit companies and that's why you support installing expensive renewable systems and wasting 40% of the power they generate. That would've at least made more sense than:


"There's nothing which requires their backup power plants to be nuclear or fossil fuel burning; whether it's natural gas or coal. The main problem is storing generated electricity so it can be tapped into when needed."

Generating power as you propose costs $.22 a watt, losing more than 50% of it to store for later use and then losing another 40% of what's left in the generator converting the hydrogen back into electricity. People can't afford $.50 a watt for energy, but that's what you offer as a 'solution'. Sure something requires the use of those conventional generators. It's called people starving in the dark doing it your way.



iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

Corporatism is socialism, not capitalism.

I tend to think of corporatism as fascism rather than socialism, but your comment led me to this article, which I will re-read when I am not hungry. :)

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977978454

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006

It is always interesting to me when two different people read the same post and take away with a very different message.

:smileysurprised:

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009

There were no falsehoods, nor contradictions from me, accusations notwithstanding.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-03-2012

I appreciate reading your posts.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-2011
Tue, 01-03-2012 - 12:47pm

There are so many falsehoods and contradictions in your post it’s difficult to know where to begin. I said nothing about ‘clean coal’ yet you felt the need to go on some tirade about it. The irony of your whole post is the more wind and solar projects you get built and paid for, the more conventional plants you also get build and paid for. So in the end (doing it your way) instead of getting 1 base-load coal plant which is very expensive because of regulatory controls you get a cheaper, dirtier plant producing 80% the power but several times the pollution as the base-load plant all with the added cost of your very expensive 20% capable wind farm.

Pages