Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

SMH... wrote:

And lubricate your inefficient windmills, and everything else used to produce your "free energy".

Those "inefficient windmills" are being used more and more all over the world because it's the cheapest form of energy in a place where the wind blows a lot.

The thing that is inefficient is to explore for oil, find the oil, pump the oil, ship the oil, refine the oil, ship it again, and then pump it again.

Now you've finally got a petroleum product that can be used in an internal combustion engine that loses 80% of its energy to heat!!!!

You'd be hard pressed to find an energy source less efficient than oil.

"I lost my a-- in wind power" and I sold my stakes in it

Fat hurts wrote:

PIO! wrote:

Sometimes you seem like an intelligent fellow.

When you post things like,

"If I did run for office, free energy would be my central theme.

We could run the whole country on solar and wind within 10 years. Our energy would be essentially free . . ."

you sound like a moron.

Earth to Fat guy: solar and wind power are not remotely close to free.

The inputs are free. Nobody has to pay for sunshine. "Free energy" is the political slogan.

And compared to what we pay now for energy, power generation would be essentially free over the long haul.

And where are you going to put all this stuff?

Fat hurts wrote:

PIO! wrote:

Sometimes you seem like an intelligent fellow.

When you post things like,

"If I did run for office, free energy would be my central theme.

We could run the whole country on solar and wind within 10 years. Our energy would be essentially free . . ."

you sound like a moron.

Let me also say this. I've been studying this issue for awhile now but I've never talked about it on these boards until today.

I'm a numbers guy, so I've looked at the numbers.

I'm also a technology guy, so I've looked at the technology.

This is very doable. To coin a phrase, "We put a man on the moon", so we can do this too.

But free energy is MUCH easier than a moon shot. We already have the technology to do it.

I'm asking again. As a voter, would you support free energy?

This sounds an awful lot like Flagpole.

You aren’t fooling anyone, Flag.

Fat hurts wrote:

PIO! wrote:

Sometimes you seem like an intelligent fellow.

When you post things like,

"If I did run for office, free energy would be my central theme.

We could run the whole country on solar and wind within 10 years. Our energy would be essentially free . . ."

you sound like a moron.

Earth to Fat guy: solar and wind power are not remotely close to free.

The inputs are free. Nobody has to pay for sunshine. "Free energy" is the political slogan.

And compared to what we pay now for energy, power generation would be essentially free over the long haul.

If by "essentially free" you mean "more expensive than fossil fuel based energy" then you are correct.

But that seems like a weird definition for "essentially free."

Fat hurts wrote:

PIO! wrote:

Sometimes you seem like an intelligent fellow.

When you post things like,

"If I did run for office, free energy would be my central theme.

We could run the whole country on solar and wind within 10 years. Our energy would be essentially free . . ."

you sound like a moron.

Let me also say this. I've been studying this issue for awhile now but I've never talked about it on these boards until today.

I'm a numbers guy, so I've looked at the numbers.

I'm also a technology guy, so I've looked at the technology.

This is very doable. To coin a phrase, "We put a man on the moon", so we can do this too.

But free energy is MUCH easier than a moon shot. We already have the technology to do it.

I'm asking again. As a voter, would you support free energy?

Sorry dude, but I'm a mathematician who has been consulting for thirty years to those interested in energy markets of all kinds. I know what I'm talking about.

Your "free energy" remains more expensive than the alternatives for the bulk of our energy needs. So, if you want to move to wind and solar, that's great. I think that's what we should be doing, myself. But it' going to cost you. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Location location location wrote:

And where are you going to put all this stuff?

Some of it goes on existing rooftops. Most homeowners today can install solar and get a positive return on investment in 7 to 10 years if they don't have to finance. But that long wait is discouraging.

So the large bulk of the solar generation plants go in the deserts of the midwest. Much of the land is already owned by the taxpayers.

It is estimated that you only need about 10,000 square miles of solar panels to power the entire nation. And that assumes today's solar technology.

I smell a flag wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Let me also say this. I've been studying this issue for awhile now but I've never talked about it on these boards until today.

I'm a numbers guy, so I've looked at the numbers.

I'm also a technology guy, so I've looked at the technology.

This is very doable. To coin a phrase, "We put a man on the moon", so we can do this too.

But free energy is MUCH easier than a moon shot. We already have the technology to do it.

I'm asking again. As a voter, would you support free energy?

This sounds an awful lot like Flagpole.

You aren’t fooling anyone, Flag.

I'm definitely not Flagpole. In fact, I think I was the first to say his guaranteed Hillary victory was pure bull. You can go back and see.

I don't think we sound alike at all.

PIO! wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The inputs are free. Nobody has to pay for sunshine. "Free energy" is the political slogan.

And compared to what we pay now for energy, power generation would be essentially free over the long haul.

If by "essentially free" you mean "more expensive than fossil fuel based energy" then you are correct.

But that seems like a weird definition for "essentially free."

I mean "essentially free", as in solar is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. I have math on my side. The infrastructure cost for solar and oil are basically the same. Once the infrastructure is in place, sunshine is free while oil is expensive.

Fat hurts wrote:

Location location location wrote:

And where are you going to put all this stuff?

Some of it goes on existing rooftops. Most homeowners today can install solar and get a positive return on investment in 7 to 10 years if they don't have to finance. But that long wait is discouraging.

So the large bulk of the solar generation plants go in the deserts of the midwest. Much of the land is already owned by the taxpayers.

It is estimated that you only need about 10,000 square miles of solar panels to power the entire nation. And that assumes today's solar technology.

Deserts if the Midwest, you say.

And how are you distributing this energy to everyone? By electric cars? Lol

You really have thought through this?

Fat hurts wrote:

PIO! wrote:

If by "essentially free" you mean "more expensive than fossil fuel based energy" then you are correct.

But that seems like a weird definition for "essentially free."

I mean "essentially free", as in solar is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. I have math on my side. The infrastructure cost for solar and oil are basically the same. Once the infrastructure is in place, sunshine is free while oil is expensive.

And who is paying for all this?

Got to Be Trolling wrote:

And how are you distributing this energy to everyone? By electric cars? Lol

How do you get your "energy" now. How is it being "distributed" you? Does it pop out of the ground where you stand when you need it? Please think before you post.

Check yo facts wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I mean "essentially free", as in solar is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. I have math on my side. The infrastructure cost for solar and oil are basically the same. Once the infrastructure is in place, sunshine is free while oil is expensive.

And who is paying for all this?

Please explain how you get everything the sends energy to you for free? Maybe someone paid for it. Take a guess who?

Got to Be Trolling wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Some of it goes on existing rooftops. Most homeowners today can install solar and get a positive return on investment in 7 to 10 years if they don't have to finance. But that long wait is discouraging.

So the large bulk of the solar generation plants go in the deserts of the midwest. Much of the land is already owned by the taxpayers.

It is estimated that you only need about 10,000 square miles of solar panels to power the entire nation. And that assumes today's solar technology.

Deserts if the Midwest, you say.

And how are you distributing this energy to everyone? By electric cars? Lol

You really have thought through this?

The transmission line is a very, very old technology. We know how to do this.

Dod you get it for free? wrote:

Please explain how you get everything the sends energy to you for free? Maybe someone paid for it. Take a guess who?

Energy infrastructure will be built and upgraded no matter what the energy source.

It's better to invest in infrastructure for free energy like sunshine instead of expensive energy like oil and coal.

The nation that does this first will have a huge advantage. If we invest heavily in solar then we can sell our excess energy to Mexico and Canada. We can sell it so cheaply that it will never be cost effective for Mexico and Canada to build their own.

But if we wait and Mexico does it first, it might be that we have to be the ones buying energy from Mexico.

Maybe the slogan should be, "We're going to build out solar and Mexico is going to pay for it". But this time, it will have the advantage of being partially true.

Fat hurts wrote:

PIO! wrote:

If by "essentially free" you mean "more expensive than fossil fuel based energy" then you are correct.

But that seems like a weird definition for "essentially free."

I mean "essentially free", as in solar is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. I have math on my side. The infrastructure cost for solar and oil are basically the same. Once the infrastructure is in place, sunshine is free while oil is expensive.

1) Oil generates an infinitesimal fraction of the electricity in this country. So even starting out by comparing solar/wind (which generate electricity) to oil is ignorant. Solar and wind are more expensive than natural gas fired generation which is the predominant fuel for new power generation.

2) So, no, you do not have the math on your side. Your starting point is ignorance (see 1 above) which is a very bad starting point for any mathematical analysis.

3) No offense, (I think you're a good guy) but you sound frighteningly similar to the Trumpettes who insist that global warming is all a hoax. Aren't you the fellow who advises them to choose one:

A) scientists are all stupid

B) scientists are all in on an enormous conspiracy

C) global warming is real

((reader's digest condensed version) ?

Here is the same advice for you here:

A) Businessmen are all stupid

B) Businessmen are all in on an enormous conspiracy (against their own best interests!)

C) Wind/Solar are not generally cheaper than the alternatives

Choose one

PIO! wrote:

1) Oil generates an infinitesimal fraction of the electricity in this country. So even starting out by comparing solar/wind (which generate electricity) to oil is ignorant. Solar and wind are more expensive than natural gas fired generation which is the predominant fuel for new power generation.

Your assumption is that the uses of electricity will remain constant in the future. Dumb conclusion.

Oil supplies 40% of the energy needs of the USA. Home heating, and transportation are the major oil users. But there are alternatives that will run on electricity for both energy segments. In NY 8% of the electricity is produced using oil; which is burned to create heat (hot gas to water converted to steam) that drives turbines--hardly minuscule as you claim.

D) Businesman often look for short term profits over very long term benefits and they can’t control the rules for everyone the way government can.

Businesses don’t create the roads and bridges they use for their distribution.

They are at the whim of technological advances that others create such as the internet and software development.

They will use a cheaper method to do something if it is developed by someone else.

They rarely create the cheaper methods themselves.

In other words, businessmen have no control of the macro eceonomics that affect them.

PIO! wrote:

I mean "essentially free", as in solar is an order of magnitude cheaper than oil. I have math on my side. The infrastructure cost for solar and oil are basically the same. Once the infrastructure is in place, sunshine is free while oil is expensive.

1) Oil generates an infinitesimal fraction of the electricity in this country. So even starting out by comparing solar/wind (which generate electricity) to oil is ignorant. Solar and wind are more expensive than natural gas fired generation which is the predominant fuel for new power generation.

2) So, no, you do not have the math on your side. Your starting point is ignorance (see 1 above) which is a very bad starting point for any mathematical analysis.[/quote]

You are missing a few important points.

* I'm using "oil" as shorthand for all fossil fuels. We get 63% of our electricity from fossil fuels.

* We get almost 100% of our transportation energy from fossil fuels. When electricity is essentially free, most transportation migrates to electric power, which is happening anyway, but this would speed the transition.

Solar is NOT more expensive than fossil fuels in the long run. The problem is that there is an up front infrastructure cost. But in the long run, solar beats fossil fuels by a country mile. Over 7-10 years, it's cheaper to put solar panels on your roof than to pay the electric company. The same is true for electric transport. Electric cars are already way cheaper in the long run than gas cars, but they require a higher up front cost.

I've done the math, but more importantly, people who study this stuff for a living have done the math. Go look at the studies yourself. It checks out.