Report, Solar Panels will not Replace Coal, Stimulus Throwing Money Away

Hit & Run > 110 Years to Pay for Those Denver Solar Panels? - Reason Magazine

President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill after touring the solar panel installation on the roof of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

Since the bill is loaded up with green energy goodies, the president's handlers no doubt thought that the tour made a great photo opportunity. The implied message is that instead of "a chicken in every pot," we'll get "a solar panel on every roof" with the stimulus plan.

But as nice as those panels look, just how practical are they? Well, the Denver Business Journal looked into the project last summer and found that the 465 panel 100-kilowatt installation cost $720,000 and will produce about 130,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. According to the Journal, electricity from the solar array will replace between 2 and 12 per cent of the museum's electricity demand. In fact, an internal museum report says the solar panels will supply only 1 to 2 percent of the museum's electricity need.

110 Years to Pay for Those Denver Solar Panels.

Do you know most solar panels have an expected life-span of 20 to 25 years. So why before signing the $787 billion stimulus package into law on February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden toured an array of solar panels on top of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Because this is what the government, you and I, are paying for.

Obama said "We expect you, the American people, to hold us accountable for the results," he said, citing www.recovery.gov, a website that will track the stimulus spending and allow citizens to comment and question the allocations.

According to the Denver Post's article on the event, “The sun generates enough energy on the museum rooftop to power about 30 homes.” However, that claim cannot be verified at this time, and in fact, seems to be belied by the scant information provided by the museum and other sources. Laura Holtman, Public Relations Manager for the Museum said in an email, “Because the array generates less than 5 percent of the Museum's power, [the purchased energy] is not a particularly large bill.”

Specifically, the Institute asked for:

1 ) Two years worth of electric bills prior to the installation of the solar array,
2 ) All electric bills following the completion of the installation.

The Museum denied those requests.

Blake Jones, chief executive of Namaste Solar, whose company installed 18 rows of panels, said he called other CEOs of solar companies to evaluate what they found in the stimulus bill. "The consensus is that this bill will immediately benefit companies like ours," he said.

The president used the state as a stage to talk about job creation and civic investment. He said the stimulus bill could create 60,000 jobs here and 400,000 jobs nationwide.

Now we know why the stimulus is not working. We are investing in businesses that does not product an effective product. We are investing in solar panels that will never replace coal. If it works show us the facts. let us see the electrical bills before the panels and after the panels. Al Gore panels are not working. He is using more energy. Please President Obama stop wasting our money.

More post from Wag This Dog.
Report, Biofuels Ethanol will not Replace Oil.
Al Gore's 100ft Houseboat, Global Warming can Wait
Global warming alarmist under stress as temperatures fall.


Technorati Tags: Solar Power, Stimulus

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Ron Paul on Stimulas Plan

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's comment “Castrate White Males”

Obama Says Sotomayor’s “Castrate White Males” Comment Taken Out of Context | Carbolic Smoke Ball

WASHINGTON – President Obama said that comments by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in a 2004 speech in which she called for the “castration of all white males until they are no longer dominant,” have been “taken out of context” by right wing ideologues.

In the speech delivered to the San Juan chapter of NOW, Sotomayor said, “I want to be perfectly clear about this next comment so that there is no mistaking my words to mean something other than what they plainly say: the time has come to end white male oppression by castrating every white male until they are no longer dominant in Western culture. That means forcible removal of their testicles. I realize the brutality of  my comment, and I don’t know how to say it more clearly.”

It was revealed that Sotomayor used precisely the same language in seven other speeches.

Castration Tool

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs agreed with President Obama that the
statement “has been taken out of context,” and added that Sotomayor
“certainly did not mean” that white males should be castrated.

Out of the Heart the Mouth speaks. Now do you believe she is a Racist?  It's a racist comment!

More post from Wag This Dog.
Judge Sonia Sotomayer too Liberal for the Supreme Court.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor Racist or Just Wrong more than 60% of the time.

Technorati Tags: Castration, Judge Sotomayer

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Jesse Jackson on Barack Obama * I wanna cut his nuts off!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor too Liberal for the Supreme Court.

"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained

The ubiquitous conservative attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor stems from a statement she made at a conference at Duke University Law School in 2005, in which she described the role appellate justices have in forming policy

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

The remarks, four years later, have hit the central nerve of the conservative psyche. Figures within and outside the GOP have already announced -- even before Sotomayor was tapped to be Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court -- that they would be painting her as an activist from the bench.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term. In addition, law professors Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard), along with Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center,
counseled Senate Democrats in April 2001 "to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever." Specifically, they said, "there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or
erudite."

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.^[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown. Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

On July 12, 2005, Bush met at the White House with the party leaders and ranking Judiciary Committee members from the two major parties — Republicans Bill Frist and Arlen Specter, and Democrats Reid and Patrick Leahy — to discuss the nomination process. During the meeting, the Democrats offered the President the names of three "moderate" Hispanic federal judges that they could accept: Sonia Sotomayor of the Second Circuit, Edward Prado of the Fifth Circuit, and Ricardo Hinojosa, a district court judge from Texas. Reid later told the press he was disappointed that the President had not chosen to discuss his own choice of possible candidates with the Democrats. In the conservative magazine National Review, the three candidates suggested by the Democrats were quickly dismissed as being offered in bad faith because they were too liberal for a conservative president to seriously consider.

So the Democrats can filibuster ten conservative judges, just because they where too conservative? That is because the Democrats believe that judges can make law. Example Roe vs Wade. Law made by the Supreme Court. On the grounds that President Bush thought that Judge Sonia Sotomayor was too Liberal. And we the Conservative Right thinks she is too Liberal. The Republicans should Filibuster her nomination.

More Post from Wag This Dog.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor Racist or Just Wrong more than 60% of the time.
No job growth until after President Obama's four years.
A Thousand People Protest Obama Stimulus Plan in 35 degree St. Louis Weather.



Technorati Tags: Judge Sotomayor, Supreme Court

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor--courts make policy long clip

Report, Biofuels Ethanol will not Replace Oil.

Why Biofuels Burned Up Your Dollars

Farm state politicians, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists have sold biofuels to rest of us as a way to revive rural America, attack the problem of global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

In response, investors and taxpayers have poured many millions of dollars into corn ethanol. The returns have been skimpy.

That, at least, is the conclusion of a new report from the Worldwatch Institute called Red, White, and Green: Transforming U.S. Biofuels. The unhappy news is that we don’t seem to have learned much from our dismal experience with corn ethanol, and unless things change in Washington, we’re going to burn a lot more of it.

So far in 2009, ten ethanol production plants have filed for bankruptcy.

Government support “is the only reason the industry is up and running,” McKeown says. “Otherwise it wouldn’t be profitable.” Even so, much of the industry has failed to survive the combination of rising corn
prices, declining oil prices and the credit crunch.

The United States is increasingly dependent on imported energy to meet our personal, transportation, and industrial needs. As a domestic, renewable source of energy, ethanol can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase the United States' ability to control its own security and economic future by increasing the availability of domestic fuel supplies

One fact is correct, the United States is increasingly dependent on imported oil. What is not true, ethanol can reduce our dependence of foreign oil. By 2030, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects the U.S. will import 70% of its petroleum. So what is going to replace oil? Wind or solar, not yet. We must drill off our coast and on our land.


Oil rigs of the past. Today we have fewer oil rigs.

The production facility of today has been radically streamlined and occupies far less surface area when compared to operations 25 years ago. In 1970, a 20-acre offshore oil rig could drill a mere 0.8 square miles at 10,000 feet. Today , an oil rig of just 2 acres can drill over 80 square miles - again, while spilling almost none of it.

The key word regarding today’s footprint is small.  For instance, one development opened in 2000 in Alaska’s Alpine Field produces from a pad area of 97 acres—just 0.2 percent of the 40,000-acre field.  Directional drilling, zero-waste discharge, roadless development and other innovations were used to minimize the Alpine field’s footprint on the Arctic tundra.

The U.S. oil and gas industry has integrated an environmental ethic into every aspect of business.  The industry actively collaborates with private conservation groups to protect sensitive coastal and marine habitats and wildlife.

We need energy to keep our country going.  If we don't drill now to provide for our economy, our children might have no future. Not from global warming but of no USA.

More post from Wag This Dog.
US Massive Oil Deposits could be 10x Increase to Supply.
Five Nations urge Oil Producers to Boost Output.
US House Votes to Sue OPEC for Price Fixing.


Technorati Tags: Oil, Ethanol

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Senator Obama Speaks Out About America's Oil Addiction. President Obama it's not an addiction, it's our life blood.