Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 60 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3241 Members
13 Forums
5318 Topics
49470 Posts

Max Online: 382 @ 11/07/12 05:45 AM
Page 7 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#35040 - 01/30/14 02:38 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
Whitney Fan Offline


Registered: 12/02/09
Posts: 213
Loc: Las Vegas
Thread. Must. Die. Please.

Top
#35041 - 01/30/14 07:19 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Whitney Fan]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
You just started a Page 7 with your plea. cry



Edited by SierraNevada (01/30/14 07:31 AM)

Top
#35043 - 01/30/14 09:10 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1239
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Steve,

You don't have a problem him calling me a liar or implying I am parroting those on talk radio. Why is that, Steve? You have not chastise him...only me.

I though it was obvious that anyone using NET PROFIT only, and repeats it over, over and over as a a reason for punitive measures is laughable. The component SN doesn't mention is revenue. There is a reason for those profits being large that is sales. No comment on his drug deal and pawn shop thingy? I take it you consider that germane to this discussion. 9.5% Net is windfall to be punished extraordinarily?

When someone puts up a canned talking point as gospel rather than giving it some creditable examination...it is what exactly?

What exactly are your views but one-sided? Solar because it is an unlimited source of energy...I get it. There is more to this than than...and I have stated it over and over but you ignore what is going on in Europe. Why should expensive energy not act as impediment to economic activity like higher taxes and regulation? I have been holistic in my approach here.

You have asked why am I sticking up for the oil companies? I am not sticking up them, I am sticking up for the rule of law. I could not care less about the oil companies. If IBM and AAPL get depreciation allowance, why shouldn't XOM, BP, COP or CVX? Just because?

Top
#35044 - 01/30/14 09:24 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1239
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
SN,

Without a basis, all this rates as a very big so what. Revenue-COGS=GP-EXP=NP...mix in that equation. There is a reason XOM makes the most money...it has big revenues. All you want to do is punish a successful company...I get it. Along with the tax and rate payers...I get that, too. I also know decisions will be made on where plants are to be built and business expanded because of the cost of power. This is something you and everyone else here has ran away because you want solar...I get that, too.

It has nothing to do about winning. It has to do with getting out ideas many haven't heard.

Top
#35045 - 01/30/14 09:28 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: wbtravis
Steve,
You don't have a problem him calling me a liar or implying I am parroting those on talk radio.

For the record, WBT, I never wrote that you are a liar. You get facts wrong and twist things, but everybody does that to some degree by accident due to their unique perspective on things. Sometimes people do it deliberately, and that's different. I'm not accusing you of that. When a thread on solar energy drifts into WWII, Hollywood, Europe, Obama, population growth, and endless repetition about subsidies, etc etc it's just a shotgun blast of conservative BS, in my opinion, which I'm entitled to.

"I listen to FM radio, sorry" is all I wrote. I apologize if that offended you. It would be nice if you could reciprocate with an apology for your insults toward me - good way to wrap it up amicably. Let's agree to disagree respectfully and cut this thread. There's plenty of info and links for anyone who wants to know more about solar energy. Your opinion is well documented, as is mine, and several others.

Edited to be more conciliatory and add an olive branch.


Edited by SierraNevada (01/30/14 07:43 PM)

Top
#35046 - 01/30/14 09:54 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Whitney Fan]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: Whitney Fan
Thread. Must. Die. Please.


Hint: You can skip it
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#35051 - 01/30/14 06:41 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Bee]
Whitney Fan Offline


Registered: 12/02/09
Posts: 213
Loc: Las Vegas
Can skip it or . . . keep reading with optimism that things might turn around.

Top
#35052 - 01/30/14 07:52 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Whitney Fan]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Whitney Fan
Can skip it or . . . keep reading with optimism that things might turn around.

Things are turning around. Even the Tea Party and Ultra Conservatives are Pro Solar

Tea Party Fights for Solar in Red States

Here's a plug for solar energy from arch conservative Barry Goldwater Jr. Conservatives might find his message compelling.
Don't Kill Solar.com










Edited by SierraNevada (01/30/14 08:18 PM)

Top
#35059 - 01/31/14 09:43 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1239
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
SN,

What exactly does BS mean these days? That means lies, and in this case a series of lies but that's OK. Rather than refute you belittle.

Why mention FM radio at all, if it wasn't meant as a slight against sources. Just because? Seriously.

Why did it drift into WW II? Could it be I found an analogy false and said so...if you had not noticed. Ken did not appreciate it and the topic veered off course for a while. However, WW II was instructive as to weather in NW Europe and the folly of putting solar panels in an area that does not see sun a big part of the year...historic weather is mentioned in many of the books about the air war; therefore, it was on topic.

Europe itself is instructive because they are ahead of us and renewables are starting to fail under their own weight because the governments cannot support the current level of subsidy, they can't meet hard emission goals without damaging their economies and the long term of the welfare state is jeopardy because the Europe is dying...if I'm not mistaken renewables dependent on the largess of governments for their very survival because they are unprofitable. But none of this is relevant because solar is good.

You use the term shotgun blast because you do not like my approach on this, period. It is a derisive term. You don't want to discuss any of this because your damn the torpedoes attitude about solar development.

Make it competitive and I will support it, period.

Top
#35060 - 01/31/14 02:27 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: wbtravis
What exactly does BS mean these days? That means lies, and in this case a series of lies but that's OK. Rather than refute you belittle.

Why mention FM radio at all, if it wasn't meant as a slight against sources. Just because? Seriously.

You use the term shotgun blast because you do not like my approach on this, period.
So you ignore a simple apology and olive branch. Instead you continue with yet more insults and accusations.
If "BS" is too confusing, try shotgun blast of "Baloney," "Malarkey," or "Nonsense." That's my observation of your behavior and my opinion of it. Your style of discourse is echoed on AM right wing radio every day, it goes like this:

1. Make a series of bold black and white proclamations that sound right. Example, "The US is just like Europe" "Europe is doomed." Therefore, "The US is doomed." (never mind we don't even speak the same languages, or have the same energy policies, party systems, or tax systems)

2. Simplify the issue even more and blame it on liberals, especially Obama. Use buzz words like "socialist" "nanny state" "welfare state" etc. Example: "The welfare state needs continuous population growth to survive" Repeat 1-2 on several different topics in one post.

3. Explain what liberals think. Summarize their position in black and white terms that look really stupid. Example, "All you want to do is punish a successful company." Not my position at all. I'm just more concerned with our federal deficit, Exxon doesn't need financial assistance, and their product needs to be phased out eventually. Ironically, AM radio screens liberals off their shows quite effectively, but somehow they know exactly what all liberals think.

4. Claim that people are not addressing one of these points you stated, preferably a point that's buried in a link somewhere. Imply they are afraid or they can't think of a rebuttal to that one point, therefore you must be right. This also conveniently redirects the discussion off the main topic.

5. Repeat 1-4 on as many topics as fast as possible. WWII, Europe, Subsidies, Hollywood, Subsidies, Poor Oil Companies, Obama, subsides, etc. Bury everyone in piles and piles of BS and wear them down. It's simple bullying. One by one everyone gives up exhausted. I will too, so you will "win" by attrition. Congratulations, your certificate is in the mail.

There's one thing that they do on the radio that you can't do on an internet forum. When an intelligent opposing voice gets through the call screener somehow, they cut off the mic. Then the host rambles on until you forget what the person said, then cut to commercial. When they return, conservative caller after caller comments on how stupid that person was. Well, you can wear everyone down with steps 1-5 and declare some type of victory, but you can't cut the mic and you can't delete our posts. People can see what's going on, but very few people care to read 7 pages of shotgun blast BS. In between this nonsense, I'm trying to add some cool stuff about solar energy, the topic of the thread. This is cutting edge technology and it will change the world. Even George W. Bush and Barry Goldwater Jr. are on board. It's okay, let go, we'll survive and prosper.

The hypocrisy of being so deathly afraid of subsidies for solar energy is glaring against your support for subsidizing Exxon Mobil. Debating about net profit to claim Exxon is not making record profits, claiming every company gets oil and gas subsidies, and crying that taxpayers are "punishing" oil and gas companies for not wanting to give them $4 billion in tax breaks every year? The contradiction is obvious.


Edited by SierraNevada (01/31/14 05:34 PM)

Top
#35061 - 01/31/14 04:47 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
KevinR Offline


Registered: 11/03/09
Posts: 578
Loc: Manchester, NH
Well stated, SN. About the only thing I'd add to the characterization of style is hubristic - "extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power"

Top
#35062 - 01/31/14 05:11 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: KevinR]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
And not one word about the Tea Party or Barry Goldwater Jr. supporting solar. Skipped right over that too. I kinda like that video, maybe Oscar material, Emmy Award easy. Barry would do well in Hollywood.

Top
#35063 - 01/31/14 05:28 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
KevinR Offline


Registered: 11/03/09
Posts: 578
Loc: Manchester, NH
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
And not one word about the Tea Party or Barry Goldwater Jr. supporting solar. Skipped right over that too. I kinda like that video, maybe Oscar material, Emmy Award easy. Barry would do well in Hollywood.
Well, now that you mention the video - rather painful to watch, isn't it? I found myself reeling from watching the smaller gorilla getting tossed like a sack of potatoes, and then trying to focus on Junior standing in his (someone's) backyard squinting into the sun. As you point out - rather high production values on that one.

Top
#35064 - 01/31/14 05:35 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: KevinR]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
The Gorilla fight was an excellent metaphor wouldn't you say?

It's refreshing when Liberal and Libertarian values coincide.


Edited by SierraNevada (01/31/14 05:37 PM)

Top
#35065 - 01/31/14 06:12 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
Energy Storage Market Set To Explode

Energy storage is often heralded as the “holy grail” of the energy market. It seems that a number of researchers and companies have worked hard and long enough that this holy grail is ready to see the light. According to market research firm IHS, the energy storage market is set to “explode” to an annual installation size of 6 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 and over 40 GW by 2022 — from an initial base of only 0.34 GW installed in 2012 and 2013.

The IHS report pits the US as the largest market for grid-connected energy storage installations through 2017. It projects that the US will install 43% of the capacity additions from 2012–2017. Germany and Japan are projected to be other top markets, as any regular reader, long-time of CleanTechnica would surely assume.
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/31/energy-storage-market-set-explode/#tF9hFqfxU84G55gF.99

Top
#35066 - 02/01/14 07:02 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
Our military is playing a lead role on moving toward renewable energy, for a variety of reasons. This list from National Defense Magazine shows Climate Change as #4 of the top 5 threats to national security. Here are a few quotes from the links at the bottom to illustrate how fast they are moving:

- Each of the military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) plans on getting 1 gigawatt of renewable energy installed near its bases by 2025.

- U.S. armed forces have a target that’s similar to Europe’s -- 25 percent renewables -- but is on track to meet it five years sooner.

- The greening of the military wasn’t an Obama project snuck into the piles of stimulus funds during the financial crisis. The toughest renewables targets were passed under George W. Bush, most notably with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006.

- The push for renewables cuts costs, reduces dependence on vulnerable supply lines and helps ensure 24/7 access to electricity. And it’s happening at little or no cost to taxpayers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29...well-armed.html

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/1010_energy/

http://www.armyeitf.com/

Top
#35075 - 02/02/14 10:31 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1239
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
And not one word about the Tea Party or Barry Goldwater Jr. supporting solar. Skipped right over that too. I kinda like that video, maybe Oscar material, Emmy Award easy. Barry would do well in Hollywood.


Why wouldn't I skip over? Conflating a small subsection of the tea party and a individual to conservatives as a whole and not debate.

The debate is on the viability of solar power and what it mean to economy. You do not want to debate that you would rather post kids saying how wonderful it is.

Top
#35076 - 02/02/14 11:01 AM Re: Solar Energy [Re: SierraNevada]
wbtravis Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1239
Loc: Corner of Jack Benny and Roche...
Oh my, bullying, an over used term if I ever heard one and one that is misapplied here.

So tell me, who do you listen to on AM radio and for how long? It is nice to know I was right about your AM radio comment.

Black and white...seems to me you are the one who is black and white. I solar uber alles. You offer nothing more.

Yes, I did say the welfare state needs a growing vibrant population to succeed and that has stopped in Europe and Japan, and it is coming to a North American country near you. Again, how do you not make various cuts when you have one beneficiary to one worker. You want to avoid this like the plague. The baby boom is going to take us to 2 to 1. If you don't think this isn't going to make for cuts to various welfare programs corporate or individual, I got this bridge in San Pedro that needs selling.

How can it be black and white when I bring up all sort of issues on Solar? See the top of the page.

The main topic is what? I thought it was the best means of power generation. You want us to buy a Yugo but pay for a Toyota and you don't want to discuss the economic impact.

So, want to take $4 bln. in depreciation away from just oil companies, just because they are a set of companies you don't like. They make too much money by your talking point, not in the real world of business. Therefore, why should Digital Realty Trust be able to depreciate their buildings? Or your solar companies depreciated their solar panels? If only for favorites, then there is no equal protection. I do believe we have this thing called a Constitution.

Top
#35077 - 02/02/14 12:35 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: Steve C]
CMC2 Offline


Registered: 11/04/09
Posts: 160
Loc: CO
Steve, the groundhog predicts 6 more weeks of Winter. Does this also mean 6 more weeks of Solar Energy posts?

Maybe it has run its course here and those really interested could e mail or PM each other?

I think Bee has the best idea and normally I do ignore & skip, but since today was 2/2 I couldn't resist.

Top
#35078 - 02/02/14 06:53 PM Re: Solar Energy [Re: wbtravis]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1098
Loc: NorCal
This is yet another great example of exactly the bullying shotgun blast of nonsense I described several posts ago on this page, right out of the AM radio playbook. Can anyone even count the number of topics, subtopics, and accusations I'm suppose to address? The mind reading that claims to know what I think is hilarious.

For anyone who doesn't know, a shotgun shell consists of lots small pellets (topics, subtopics, accusations) that spread out into a wide pattern with distance. That's how Dick Cheney was able to shoot his friend in the face and he still lived, he was far enough away.

I'm going to follow what everyone else has done, step back from the shotgun blast, and let the pellet go by. Clearly it will never end if I don't. CMC2, even the mighty Groundhog could not end this in 6 weeks. crazy



Edited by SierraNevada (02/02/14 08:46 PM)

Top
Page 7 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >