While Obama seems to want to double and triple-down on failed and expensive green technologies, the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction. All across Europe, because of serious debt problems, slowing economies and revenues, and an effort to avoid bankruptcies, governments are considering austerity plans that don't include subsidized wind and solar energy expansion. Instead, these governments are focusing in on absolutely essential activities.
The same is true in China. But, China is much different than Europe, in that China's economy is in good health. So, why not continue government-subsidized wind and solar? Well, China is no dummy. They can see that the world is jumping off the solar and wind bandwagon. They know that one of Spain's biggest reasons for being on the brink of bankruptcy was its push to be the world leader in wind power. The Chinese government knows that the best thing it can do is provide cheap energy for its people and its growing businesses. After all, it was cheap energy that made the United States such an economic powerhouse. So, now, that country is investing in oil, nuclear, hydro-electric, and natural gas.
Without government-support, green technologies are doomed. Green is non-competitive and too expensive to stand on its lonesome when going up against the cheapness of coal, natural gas, and gasoline in producing energy. Increasingly, the climate science that was supposed to drive "green" is being found to be greatly flawed.
The news articles in support of the above opinion are as follows:
Showing posts with label green technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green technology. Show all posts
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Chevy Volt: Obama's Tax Break For The Rich
For months, now, President Obama has been preaching about fairness and how the rich should pay their fair share in taxes. Yet, for over a year, Obama has been handing out $7,000 checks to a bunch of wealthy, liberal environmentalists who bought a Chevy Volt. Last year, those checks amounted to more than $100 million of tax payer money. And, for what? A car that must be recharged for at least 10 hours a day while using up enough electricity to continuously run fourteen 100 watt light bulbs over the entire period of the recharge. And, what's really laughable about these supposedly green cars is that most of the electricity used to recharge them comes primarily from coal and other fossil fuels. But, those buying the Volt aren't really concerned about that little "dirty energy" part of their Volt ownership. Instead, they want their Volts so they can proudly "wear" them as proof of how eco-friendly they are.
For sure, the Volt is no poor-man's car. With a $41,000 price tag and with the first year costs exceeding $4500 (sales tax, vehicle tax, and insurance), your talking about spending $2000 more than what the average American makes in a year. It also means that the typical Volt owner has to be making more than the $250,000 that Obama, himself, defines as being rich.
I just think that if you're rich, and that committed to being a show-off to all your environmental friends, you don't need a tax break. But, no, Obama wants a million electric cars on the road by 2015 and he will waste as much taxpayer money he needs to in order to make that happen. In fact, his latest budget ups the $7000 tax rebate to $10,000. That's because sales of the Chevy Volts are floundering and these "pigs" could really use another 40% "lipstick" boost to attract new buyers. I'm just waiting for Obama to declare the Volt a health benefit and force the insurance companies to give them out for free. You know. just like contraceptives.
For sure, the Volt is no poor-man's car. With a $41,000 price tag and with the first year costs exceeding $4500 (sales tax, vehicle tax, and insurance), your talking about spending $2000 more than what the average American makes in a year. It also means that the typical Volt owner has to be making more than the $250,000 that Obama, himself, defines as being rich.
I just think that if you're rich, and that committed to being a show-off to all your environmental friends, you don't need a tax break. But, no, Obama wants a million electric cars on the road by 2015 and he will waste as much taxpayer money he needs to in order to make that happen. In fact, his latest budget ups the $7000 tax rebate to $10,000. That's because sales of the Chevy Volts are floundering and these "pigs" could really use another 40% "lipstick" boost to attract new buyers. I'm just waiting for Obama to declare the Volt a health benefit and force the insurance companies to give them out for free. You know. just like contraceptives.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Obama's Nuke-y Kabuki
In another one of Obama's theatrics, he's pledged $8 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of two new nuclear power plants in Georgia in what is being billed as an outreach to the Republicans (Click to See Full Story: Obama's latest bipartisan outreach: nuclear energy). However, in reality, Obama knows very well that those two plants will never, ever, be built.
Money has never been the issue as to why America hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. So, Obama's loan guarantees are just a hollow effort. We haven't built any new plants because of regulations and because of the environmental movement. In the last three decades, the environmentalists like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and other non-affiliated local eco groups have kept every newly proposed nuclear plant tied up in the courts for years upon years until the builders/operators finally just give up in frustration. Even when the builders/operators do win and approval is given to proceed, the conditions of that win are so punitive that it makes the power plant economically unjustifiable and the plant is never built. Typically, this is because the nuclear plant designers are forced to include very costly, multi-millennium, highly secure storage capability at the local site; rather than rely on the more cost- effective solution of centralized storage at Yucca Mountain.
Obama knows this. He's campaigned "against" nuclear plants and the safe storage of nuclear waste at Yucca:
In fact, Obama's budget has removed all but maintenance spending for Yucca Mountain. Stephen Chu, Obama's Energy Secretary, has already indicated that he will pull Yucca Mountain's operating license at the end of this month; which is the final step prior to shutting it down completely.
So, you be the judge. Is he really serious about nuclear power? Or, as the title of this blog entry suggests, isn't this just another form of Kabuki Theater on Obama's part?
Lastly, the political left of this country is adamant about shutting Yucca Mountain down. They know that as long as Yucca doesn't become operational, the cost and space needed to build and locally store spent nuclear fuel will make most new nuclear power plants both operationally and economically impracticable.
Money has never been the issue as to why America hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. So, Obama's loan guarantees are just a hollow effort. We haven't built any new plants because of regulations and because of the environmental movement. In the last three decades, the environmentalists like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and other non-affiliated local eco groups have kept every newly proposed nuclear plant tied up in the courts for years upon years until the builders/operators finally just give up in frustration. Even when the builders/operators do win and approval is given to proceed, the conditions of that win are so punitive that it makes the power plant economically unjustifiable and the plant is never built. Typically, this is because the nuclear plant designers are forced to include very costly, multi-millennium, highly secure storage capability at the local site; rather than rely on the more cost- effective solution of centralized storage at Yucca Mountain.
Obama knows this. He's campaigned "against" nuclear plants and the safe storage of nuclear waste at Yucca:
In fact, Obama's budget has removed all but maintenance spending for Yucca Mountain. Stephen Chu, Obama's Energy Secretary, has already indicated that he will pull Yucca Mountain's operating license at the end of this month; which is the final step prior to shutting it down completely.
So, you be the judge. Is he really serious about nuclear power? Or, as the title of this blog entry suggests, isn't this just another form of Kabuki Theater on Obama's part?
Lastly, the political left of this country is adamant about shutting Yucca Mountain down. They know that as long as Yucca doesn't become operational, the cost and space needed to build and locally store spent nuclear fuel will make most new nuclear power plants both operationally and economically impracticable.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
When One Left Agenda Meets Another Left Agenda
Back in August of 2008, I wrote the following:
Well, the truth of that statement has truly come home to roost.
At the time I wrote that, I was talking about how the Kennedy's (Ted and R.F.K., Jr.) were blocking an offshore wind farm in Nantucket. Now, today, in a desert area of Mojave, the Sierra Club is blocking the installation of acres of solar mirrors to deliver green energy to 142,000 homes in Southern California (Click to See Full Story: "Clash: Green energy vs. turtle")..
As predicted, the left is its own worst enemy when it comes to its environmental agenda. On the one hand, they want green energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind. But, on the other hand, the don't want the land and the animals to be hurt or even disturbed. All too often, the only places you can put green energy systems such as wind turbines are in remote areas that just happen to be occupied by some endangered species. Or, as in the case of Nantucket, these "green" power producers are just plain ugly and they will destroy the pristine environment with horrid reminders that mankind is on this earth.
When Obama talks about green energy, he's talking to the political left who wants to save the planet from the ravages of CO2. At the same time, he's forgetting the political left who wants to save every critter on earth; even if there is only one of their kind left on the planet. So, as I predicted, groups like the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace will spend billions of dollars in court fights to block the erection of green wind and solar farms. For that reason, Obama's dream of green energy is just that -- a dream. And, its a dream because Obama can't please the many factions of his own political party.
There are always the environmental and conservationist elitists who are ready to block anything that hasn't been put on earth by God. They will be blocking wind farms because of the impact on wildlife. They will argue that these structures will have detrimental impact on bird migration and their foraging and nesting habits and habitats. Wind farms will pose a threat to wildlife and insects because of the noise and ground vibration they create. For sure, the great "vistas" of this country will need to be protected from these gigantic monstrosities of mankind.
Well, the truth of that statement has truly come home to roost.
At the time I wrote that, I was talking about how the Kennedy's (Ted and R.F.K., Jr.) were blocking an offshore wind farm in Nantucket. Now, today, in a desert area of Mojave, the Sierra Club is blocking the installation of acres of solar mirrors to deliver green energy to 142,000 homes in Southern California (Click to See Full Story: "Clash: Green energy vs. turtle")..
As predicted, the left is its own worst enemy when it comes to its environmental agenda. On the one hand, they want green energy such as solar, geothermal, and wind. But, on the other hand, the don't want the land and the animals to be hurt or even disturbed. All too often, the only places you can put green energy systems such as wind turbines are in remote areas that just happen to be occupied by some endangered species. Or, as in the case of Nantucket, these "green" power producers are just plain ugly and they will destroy the pristine environment with horrid reminders that mankind is on this earth.
When Obama talks about green energy, he's talking to the political left who wants to save the planet from the ravages of CO2. At the same time, he's forgetting the political left who wants to save every critter on earth; even if there is only one of their kind left on the planet. So, as I predicted, groups like the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace will spend billions of dollars in court fights to block the erection of green wind and solar farms. For that reason, Obama's dream of green energy is just that -- a dream. And, its a dream because Obama can't please the many factions of his own political party.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Climate Change Week on NBC. What Uuuh surprise?
Apparently, NBC will incorporate "green" propaganda into all of it's prime time shows and their news activities next week (Click to See Full Story: "NBC enlists prime-time programs in green message"). Al Gore will also cameo on the NBC program "30 Rock" alongside other left wingers on that show such as Alec Baldwin and Tina "Trash Palin" Fey.
NBC, of course, has always been the news media's prime cheerleader for Obama and would do absolutely anything to push his left wing agenda; especially on climate change. That's because the parent company of NBC, General Electric, has a lot to gain if Obama is able to get "Cap and Trade" passed through both houses of Congress. Right now, Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of GE, sits on Obama's board of economic advisers. He clearly has the President's ear. So, it is no wonder that GE has gotten such favorable treatment within the details of the "Cap and Trade" legislation that is working its way through Congress. GE makes the wind turbines that are sure to benefit from "Cap and Trade". GE also wants to completely restructure our electric grid with their "Smart Grid" technology. For GE, the benefit could be in the billions of dollars; if not trillion in the next 20 or 30 years. Recently, the Obama mouthpiece, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, complained that Chinese built wind turbines were being bought by recipients of Stimulus Plan money and that restrictions should be imposed to insure that Stimulus funds were only used to buy American wind turbines (Click to See Full Story: "No Stimulus Funds for Chinese Wind Turbines, Says Schumer"). Gee! Who just might benefit from that action? Not gee...GE!
All I know is that if this kind of cozy relationship had existed during the Bush Administration, the New York Times and the Washington Post and others would have run daily front-page smack-downs until it relented. Just think about all the bad press that Cheney got whenever there was the slightest hint that Halliburton was benefiting from anything that the Bush Administration was doing. Yet, for the GE/Obama conflicts of interest, the mainstream media remains totally silent.
The only problem GE and NBC have with their all-out climate change offensive is the fact that NBC has no viewers. And, given their obvious left wing slant, I am quite sure that the only viewers that are remaining already have life size portraits of Obama and Gore on their living room walls. So, in effect, they will be preaching to the choir. But, then, I'm quite sure that Immelt will still score big with the O-man! And, Obama might throw Immelt another few billion dollars worth of bones for being such a good little doggie. Maybe something like forced retrofitting of the American Airline fleet with more fuel efficient jet engines built by -- Guess Who? -- General Electric.
By The Way: Isn't Immelt doing a great job in his role of advising the O-man on the economy? I'm sure glad that Obama picked a person like Immelt who has nothing but America's best interests at heart! This is the same guy that allowed General Electric to sell products to Iran; despite the trade embargo with that terrorist spawning country. And, he continued to sell to Iran; even though there was enough evidence that Iran was shipping weapons to Iraq that were used to kill our soldiers. Apparently, in the world of Immelt, he is "GE" first and American second. Maybe even third! Who knows?
NBC, of course, has always been the news media's prime cheerleader for Obama and would do absolutely anything to push his left wing agenda; especially on climate change. That's because the parent company of NBC, General Electric, has a lot to gain if Obama is able to get "Cap and Trade" passed through both houses of Congress. Right now, Jeffery Immelt, the CEO of GE, sits on Obama's board of economic advisers. He clearly has the President's ear. So, it is no wonder that GE has gotten such favorable treatment within the details of the "Cap and Trade" legislation that is working its way through Congress. GE makes the wind turbines that are sure to benefit from "Cap and Trade". GE also wants to completely restructure our electric grid with their "Smart Grid" technology. For GE, the benefit could be in the billions of dollars; if not trillion in the next 20 or 30 years. Recently, the Obama mouthpiece, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, complained that Chinese built wind turbines were being bought by recipients of Stimulus Plan money and that restrictions should be imposed to insure that Stimulus funds were only used to buy American wind turbines (Click to See Full Story: "No Stimulus Funds for Chinese Wind Turbines, Says Schumer"). Gee! Who just might benefit from that action? Not gee...GE!
All I know is that if this kind of cozy relationship had existed during the Bush Administration, the New York Times and the Washington Post and others would have run daily front-page smack-downs until it relented. Just think about all the bad press that Cheney got whenever there was the slightest hint that Halliburton was benefiting from anything that the Bush Administration was doing. Yet, for the GE/Obama conflicts of interest, the mainstream media remains totally silent.
The only problem GE and NBC have with their all-out climate change offensive is the fact that NBC has no viewers. And, given their obvious left wing slant, I am quite sure that the only viewers that are remaining already have life size portraits of Obama and Gore on their living room walls. So, in effect, they will be preaching to the choir. But, then, I'm quite sure that Immelt will still score big with the O-man! And, Obama might throw Immelt another few billion dollars worth of bones for being such a good little doggie. Maybe something like forced retrofitting of the American Airline fleet with more fuel efficient jet engines built by -- Guess Who? -- General Electric.
By The Way: Isn't Immelt doing a great job in his role of advising the O-man on the economy? I'm sure glad that Obama picked a person like Immelt who has nothing but America's best interests at heart! This is the same guy that allowed General Electric to sell products to Iran; despite the trade embargo with that terrorist spawning country. And, he continued to sell to Iran; even though there was enough evidence that Iran was shipping weapons to Iraq that were used to kill our soldiers. Apparently, in the world of Immelt, he is "GE" first and American second. Maybe even third! Who knows?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Our Future Under Green Power
Most people don't know it but, Texas is one of the "greenest" states in the Union. That's because, long ago, a then-Governor, George W. Bush, signed legislation that would move Texas into the realm of Wind Power as its energy requirements grew. But, what a lot people also don't know, it was Texas' dependence on Wind Power and a serious lack of wind on a stormy February day in 2008 that caused massive power outages across that state (Click to See Wall Street Journal Story: "No Breeze: The Day the Wind Died in Texas").
Now, that very windy and then windless day in Texas might just be an omen for the United Kingdom with its push toward green power. According to this article, "Britain facing blackouts for first time since 1970s", the future demands for electrical energy are not being met due to the United Kingdom's push toward wind and solar.
A while back I wrote the blog entry, "Can You Stick It Where The Sun Don't Shine?", where I talked about the fact that wind and solar is too dependent on nature being cooperative. For that reason, wind and solar power must be excessively overbuilt with an extremely expensive upgrade of our national grid system in order to overcome the whims of nature and in order to provide constant energy. This is especially true at dusk when the wind dies down and the sun doesn't shine.
The real folly in all the green power mumbo-jumbo is that we will need to keep a lot of conventional fossil fuel energy production facilities in either partial or complete standby operation to overcome those non-productive days and hours of green power. This can also be true during very windy conditions. That's because wind turbines must be idle during high winds to keep from flying apart. That, in itself, will be very expensive because staff and stockpiles of fuel will have to be maintained on top of the very high cost of wind and solar equipment that will also have to be maintained.
Wind and solar are fine choices as a supplemental power source; but only on a limited basis and where their high costs make sense. But, by no means, should this or any other country become totally dependent on such systems. If we did,we might have serious power problems in the future. Problems that the United Kingdom may see sooner than later.
Now, that very windy and then windless day in Texas might just be an omen for the United Kingdom with its push toward green power. According to this article, "Britain facing blackouts for first time since 1970s", the future demands for electrical energy are not being met due to the United Kingdom's push toward wind and solar.
A while back I wrote the blog entry, "Can You Stick It Where The Sun Don't Shine?", where I talked about the fact that wind and solar is too dependent on nature being cooperative. For that reason, wind and solar power must be excessively overbuilt with an extremely expensive upgrade of our national grid system in order to overcome the whims of nature and in order to provide constant energy. This is especially true at dusk when the wind dies down and the sun doesn't shine.
The real folly in all the green power mumbo-jumbo is that we will need to keep a lot of conventional fossil fuel energy production facilities in either partial or complete standby operation to overcome those non-productive days and hours of green power. This can also be true during very windy conditions. That's because wind turbines must be idle during high winds to keep from flying apart. That, in itself, will be very expensive because staff and stockpiles of fuel will have to be maintained on top of the very high cost of wind and solar equipment that will also have to be maintained.
Wind and solar are fine choices as a supplemental power source; but only on a limited basis and where their high costs make sense. But, by no means, should this or any other country become totally dependent on such systems. If we did,we might have serious power problems in the future. Problems that the United Kingdom may see sooner than later.
Monday, August 31, 2009
When Green Is The Color Of Oil
In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown's government can certainly be said to be "green" leaning. Just like Obama, Brown plans big spending on green projects as a means to economic recovery.
So, why are these two, Obama and Brown, so interested in the not-so-green participation in drilling for oil?
Just recently, the U.S. Export-Import Bank (a separate agency of the United States Government that reports directly to Obama) issued a $10 billion line of credit to the Brazilian national oil company, Petrobas, to facilitate both expanded and new off-shore drilling operations in Brazil (Click to See Full Story).
In the case of the "slithering" Brown, his government negotiated the release of the Pan Am/Lockerbie bomber so that the United Kingdom could get a piece of any new oil production in Libya (Click to See Full: "Secret documents uncover UK's interest in Libyan oil Story").
I guess oil is a "green thing" when it can be extracted by some other country and not done at home. That kind of thinking is often called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard; but, it hardly does anything for the overall improvement of the world's environment.
Both these hypocrites talk the "green" talk but really understand that oil will be needed by us all for a very long time. They both want to make sure their countries have plenty of oil in the future because both these fools know that oil is absolutely essential to the national security of both their nations.
Does anyone think that wheeling and dealing for foreign oil production sounds like Obama is serious about getting America off imported oil?
As I have said before in this blog" 10 years from now we will be even more dependent on foreign oil than we are today. Our production is going down while our demand is rising and will continue to rise. Wind and solar are never going to counteract that reality. The only thing wind or solar will do is eat into our own natural gas and coal production and won't save a drop of imported oil.
Lastly, I find Brazil's need to drill for oil the most interesting of the above deals. Three years ago, as oil prices kept rising, Brazil was being held up as the shining example of a country that was able to get off their dependency on oil. That's because they had diverted the majority of their sugar production into the production of ethanol. Now, there is an impending shortage of sugar and the world's economic situation has forced oil to come down in price. In effect, sugar prices are going through the roof and Brazil is stuck with a very expensive option for their country's auto fuel source. Where's all the left-wing news headlines on that one?
(Click Here To See a 'Typical' News Story on Brazil's Ethanol Success from 2006: "Brazil hopes to build on its ethanol success" )
So, why are these two, Obama and Brown, so interested in the not-so-green participation in drilling for oil?
Just recently, the U.S. Export-Import Bank (a separate agency of the United States Government that reports directly to Obama) issued a $10 billion line of credit to the Brazilian national oil company, Petrobas, to facilitate both expanded and new off-shore drilling operations in Brazil (Click to See Full Story).
In the case of the "slithering" Brown, his government negotiated the release of the Pan Am/Lockerbie bomber so that the United Kingdom could get a piece of any new oil production in Libya (Click to See Full: "Secret documents uncover UK's interest in Libyan oil Story").
I guess oil is a "green thing" when it can be extracted by some other country and not done at home. That kind of thinking is often called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard; but, it hardly does anything for the overall improvement of the world's environment.
Both these hypocrites talk the "green" talk but really understand that oil will be needed by us all for a very long time. They both want to make sure their countries have plenty of oil in the future because both these fools know that oil is absolutely essential to the national security of both their nations.
Does anyone think that wheeling and dealing for foreign oil production sounds like Obama is serious about getting America off imported oil?
As I have said before in this blog" 10 years from now we will be even more dependent on foreign oil than we are today. Our production is going down while our demand is rising and will continue to rise. Wind and solar are never going to counteract that reality. The only thing wind or solar will do is eat into our own natural gas and coal production and won't save a drop of imported oil.
Lastly, I find Brazil's need to drill for oil the most interesting of the above deals. Three years ago, as oil prices kept rising, Brazil was being held up as the shining example of a country that was able to get off their dependency on oil. That's because they had diverted the majority of their sugar production into the production of ethanol. Now, there is an impending shortage of sugar and the world's economic situation has forced oil to come down in price. In effect, sugar prices are going through the roof and Brazil is stuck with a very expensive option for their country's auto fuel source. Where's all the left-wing news headlines on that one?
(Click Here To See a 'Typical' News Story on Brazil's Ethanol Success from 2006: "Brazil hopes to build on its ethanol success" )
Saturday, May 16, 2009
A Little Green Ache-ER
Just because I've stopped writing a daily blog doesn't mean that I am not constantly scanning the news headlines for interesting stories that have hidden gems of political nonsense in them. That's what "Cutting Through The Fog" is all about.
One story that caught my attention, yesterday, was a story about a city-built house in Troy Michigan that was supposed to be a shining example of green technology. The writer of the story seems to be focused on the failure of this house to get up and running; now, 7 months after being built (See Full Story). But, to me, that story is a perfect example of the road that Mr. Obama seems to be walking us down with his "green technology" spiel and the billions, if not trillions, of dollars that are being planned to make America green.
The first thing that popped out at me was the "cost" of this little green house in Troy. To me, having a showboat home that is the size of a 20'x40' room and that costs nearly a million dollars to build is not a shining example of anything but sheer economic stupidity and nothing but an embarrassment.
Anywhere in America -- except in the most affluent of neighborhoods -- you can build a house for under $100 per square foot. This Troy house cost about $1125 a square foot and that is at least 11 times more expensive than any average home in this country. In actuality, you could probably build an 800 square foot home in Troy Michigan for less than $60,000 -- a fact that is supported by the house values for all the small square footage homes that are currently for sale in Troy Michigan and as verified by Zillow.com. Therefore, this little green house is easily $840,000 more expensive than it should be.
So? Are we supposed to assume that the $840,000 premium to "go green" on this house will somehow pay for itself over time by avoiding conventional gas and electric energy costs? If so, how many years?
At 30 years, that $840,000 premium is over $2300 a month. At 50 years, $1400 a month. At 100 years, it would average about $700. To put this absurd cost into perspective, I did some checking. An 20'x40' building in Michigan, using conventional electric power and gas heating, would cost about $280 a month to run. That's about 35 cents per-month per-square-foot. At 30 years, the per-square-foot-per-month cost of that green technology house in Troy is about $3.
What is more shocking is the fact that this $840,000 premium for this tiny energy-free house is totally "upfront"; just like all those wind turbines and solar panels that Al Gore and Barack Obama have in store for us. If you put that money in the bank and let it earn a measly 1 percent interest rate per year, that money would generate $700 a month. With that $700 dollars, you could pay for the $280 a month in conventional energy costs and still have $420 left over. And, that's just at checking-account interest rates. Think how much you save by getting bond rates in excess of 4 percent!
Secondly, as I have shown, there's really no return on that investment within a reasonable amount of time. In fact the technology will probably be obsolete before it pays itself off. If not, all the "green" stuff in that house will probably breakdown or wear out and have to be replaced at least one time; further pushing the costs up and making the return on investment a total impossibility.
Lastly, as that news article points out, the technology isn't reliable. Wind and Solar can have serious problems on the power grid because of the inconsistency of their power output. Just take note of this multi-European country power outage that was blamed on German Wind Turbines (See Full Story). While the German-caused wind turbine outage was due to too much outputted power, the more typical problems with wind power generation is the lack of wind. Here's a story that was conveniently ignored by all the liberal, pro-green, mainstream news media in this country: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency".
Make no mistake about it, Obama's plans to go green will be both very expensive and highly unreliable. All Americans will be paying a high premium to fight a global warming emergency that many think may not really exist! That little house in Troy portends our future. Once we have spent our billions or even trillions of dollars to go green, we might just be stuck with an expensive little house that's broken!
One story that caught my attention, yesterday, was a story about a city-built house in Troy Michigan that was supposed to be a shining example of green technology. The writer of the story seems to be focused on the failure of this house to get up and running; now, 7 months after being built (See Full Story). But, to me, that story is a perfect example of the road that Mr. Obama seems to be walking us down with his "green technology" spiel and the billions, if not trillions, of dollars that are being planned to make America green.
The first thing that popped out at me was the "cost" of this little green house in Troy. To me, having a showboat home that is the size of a 20'x40' room and that costs nearly a million dollars to build is not a shining example of anything but sheer economic stupidity and nothing but an embarrassment.
Anywhere in America -- except in the most affluent of neighborhoods -- you can build a house for under $100 per square foot. This Troy house cost about $1125 a square foot and that is at least 11 times more expensive than any average home in this country. In actuality, you could probably build an 800 square foot home in Troy Michigan for less than $60,000 -- a fact that is supported by the house values for all the small square footage homes that are currently for sale in Troy Michigan and as verified by Zillow.com. Therefore, this little green house is easily $840,000 more expensive than it should be.
So? Are we supposed to assume that the $840,000 premium to "go green" on this house will somehow pay for itself over time by avoiding conventional gas and electric energy costs? If so, how many years?
At 30 years, that $840,000 premium is over $2300 a month. At 50 years, $1400 a month. At 100 years, it would average about $700. To put this absurd cost into perspective, I did some checking. An 20'x40' building in Michigan, using conventional electric power and gas heating, would cost about $280 a month to run. That's about 35 cents per-month per-square-foot. At 30 years, the per-square-foot-per-month cost of that green technology house in Troy is about $3.
What is more shocking is the fact that this $840,000 premium for this tiny energy-free house is totally "upfront"; just like all those wind turbines and solar panels that Al Gore and Barack Obama have in store for us. If you put that money in the bank and let it earn a measly 1 percent interest rate per year, that money would generate $700 a month. With that $700 dollars, you could pay for the $280 a month in conventional energy costs and still have $420 left over. And, that's just at checking-account interest rates. Think how much you save by getting bond rates in excess of 4 percent!
Secondly, as I have shown, there's really no return on that investment within a reasonable amount of time. In fact the technology will probably be obsolete before it pays itself off. If not, all the "green" stuff in that house will probably breakdown or wear out and have to be replaced at least one time; further pushing the costs up and making the return on investment a total impossibility.
Lastly, as that news article points out, the technology isn't reliable. Wind and Solar can have serious problems on the power grid because of the inconsistency of their power output. Just take note of this multi-European country power outage that was blamed on German Wind Turbines (See Full Story). While the German-caused wind turbine outage was due to too much outputted power, the more typical problems with wind power generation is the lack of wind. Here's a story that was conveniently ignored by all the liberal, pro-green, mainstream news media in this country: "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency".
Make no mistake about it, Obama's plans to go green will be both very expensive and highly unreliable. All Americans will be paying a high premium to fight a global warming emergency that many think may not really exist! That little house in Troy portends our future. Once we have spent our billions or even trillions of dollars to go green, we might just be stuck with an expensive little house that's broken!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
