Why we're doomed!

[Taichiliberal]

Poor neocon parrots....when they can't disprove or discredit a topic...they spam the thread with personal attacks and maudlin discussions to that effect...as the chronology of this thread's posts shows.

 

[DamnYankee]

Try telling the WHOLE truth next time, bunky.

Misconceptions
Some critics claim that removing the solar panels was Reagan's first official action when he took office in 1981. The solar panels were not removed until 1986, when the White House roof was being repaired.

Considerations
In the late 1970s, the U.S. faced skyrocketing oil prices. By 1986, when Reagan had the solar panels removed, oil prices had plummeted to near-record lows, making solar energy and conservation low priorities.



Read more: Why did Reagan remove the White House solar panels? * Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1900764#ixzz0ttq52yu7



http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1900764

They had to repair the roof underneath...

 

[DamnYankee]

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. From your source:

The Ridge Law has a provision which specifically exempts “windmills” from the restrictions. This exemption is for windmills, not wind turbines. The exemption is for windmills that generate mechanical energy. Wind industry proponents have tried to weaken this law by stating that the word windmill included wind turbines. In the law it states that each windmill has to be next to a house or structure. Commercial wind turbines are not attached to homes, and they are not slender in nature, they are HUGE.

Once again folks, Southy makes a misleading, generalized statement that cannot be back up by ALL the facts. The little Southern Man dope STILL hasn't learned how to read carefully and comprehensively...his neocon driven mind just stops processing as soon as it perceives a "liberal" error or contradiction. This is why I almost pity Southy as he continually makes an ass of himself....almost.

Why do liberals fight wind turbines?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Try telling the WHOLE truth next time, bunky.

Misconceptions
Some critics claim that removing the solar panels was Reagan's first official action when he took office in 1981. The solar panels were not removed until 1986, when the White House roof was being repaired.

Considerations
In the late 1970s, the U.S. faced skyrocketing oil prices. By 1986, when Reagan had the solar panels removed, oil prices had plummeted to near-record lows, making solar energy and conservation low priorities.



Read more: Why did Reagan remove the White House solar panels? * Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1900764#ixzz0ttq52yu7



http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1900764

They had to repair the roof underneath...

Southy, grow the fuck up!

All you did was just repeat what my original link produced. Now, why didn't Reagan put the panels back? Note that all the information points to the same answer....for the APPEARANCE that all was well and the "energy crisis" was over. Typical Reagan....all ideology and show, but no substance. No wonder he's such a god to you neocon parrots.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. From your source:

The Ridge Law has a provision which specifically exempts “windmills” from the restrictions. This exemption is for windmills, not wind turbines. The exemption is for windmills that generate mechanical energy. Wind industry proponents have tried to weaken this law by stating that the word windmill included wind turbines. In the law it states that each windmill has to be next to a house or structure. Commercial wind turbines are not attached to homes, and they are not slender in nature, they are HUGE.

Once again folks, Southy makes a misleading, generalized statement that cannot be back up by ALL the facts. The little Southern Man dope STILL hasn't learned how to read carefully and comprehensively...his neocon driven mind just stops processing as soon as it perceives a "liberal" error or contradiction. This is why I almost pity Southy as he continually makes an ass of himself....almost.

Why do liberals fight wind turbines?

Grow up, Southy. The answer is right there in the quote from your source...which dumps on your lame attempt to misrepresent what is actually being done. But do continue to bray like a insipidly stubborn Southern Man jackass...just like I know you will.

 

[DamnYankee]

Grow up, Southy. The answer is right there in the quote from your source...which dumps on your lame attempt to misrepresent what is actually being done. But do continue to bray like a insipidly stubborn Southern Man jackass...just like I know you will.

Because they are huge? Lots of things are huge (like governments) and liberals don't fight them. What's the real reason?

 

[DamnYankee]

Southy, grow the fuck up!

All you did was just repeat what my original link produced. Now, why didn't Reagan put the panels back? Note that all the information points to the same answer....for the APPEARANCE that all was well and the "energy crisis" was over. Typical Reagan....all ideology and show, but no substance. No wonder he's such a god to you neocon parrots.

No reason to get upset Libby. He probably didn't put them back because they were damaging the roof and they were typical Cater: all ideology and show, but no substance.

Was Carter a good president, Libby?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Because they are huge? Lots of things are huge (like governments) and liberals don't fight them. What's the real reason?

No, you ignorant lout: READ YOUR OWN SOURCES MORE CAREFULLY. Here, I'll highlight it for you:

The Ridge Law has a provision which specifically exempts “windmills” from the restrictions. This exemption is for windmills, not wind turbines. The exemption is for windmills that generate mechanical energy. Wind industry proponents have tried to weaken this law by stating that the word windmill included wind turbines. In the law it states that each windmill has to be next to a house or structure. Commercial wind turbines are not attached to homes, and they are not slender in nature, they are HUGE.


Get it now, bunky? Or are you too stupid or stubborn to understand what your OWN source material is telling you?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Southy, grow the fuck up!

All you did was just repeat what my original link produced. Now, why didn't Reagan put the panels back? Note that all the information points to the same answer....for the APPEARANCE that all was well and the "energy crisis" was over. Typical Reagan....all ideology and show, but no substance. No wonder he's such a god to you neocon parrots.

No reason to get upset Libby. He probably didn't put them back because they were damaging the roof and they were typical Cater: all ideology and show, but no substance.

Was Carter a good president, Libby?

And there you have it folks.....in typical stubborn neocon parrot fashion, Southern Man tries to substitute his personal supposition and conjecture as FACT.

There is NO documentation to support the Southern Man's speculation...there is SOLID evidence that points to Reagan's ideological idiocy for not simply replacing the solar panels.

Also note that in his childish attempt to mock me, the Southern Man forgo's logic. Carter's solar panels served a physical purpose....producing energy off the grid for the requirements at that area of the White House. A matter of fact and history that gives substance to ideology......unlike Reagan's move.

Once again, the Southern Man's blatherings are undone by a simple look at documented history.

And since the discussion is about energy and resource conservation and utilizaiton, a general discussion about President's is off topic. If the Southern Man wants to continue discussion about past President's energy policies, then I'm all for it.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, you ignorant lout: READ YOUR OWN SOURCES MORE CAREFULLY. Here, I'll highlight it for you:

The Ridge Law has a provision which specifically exempts “windmills” from the restrictions. This exemption is for windmills, not wind turbines. The exemption is for windmills that generate mechanical energy. Wind industry proponents have tried to weaken this law by stating that the word windmill included wind turbines. In the law it states that each windmill has to be next to a house or structure. Commercial wind turbines are not attached to homes, and they are not slender in nature, they are HUGE.


Get it now, bunky? Or are you too stupid or stubborn to understand what your OWN source material is telling you?

We've been over that Libby: the article states that liberals don't like wind turbines because they are HUGE. But as I pointed out, that's not really a reason, since they like HUGE government, HUGE taxes, HUGE unions, etc.

So I'll ask you again, what's the real reason why liberals hate wind turbines?

 

[charver]

So I'll ask you again, what's the real reason why liberals hate wind turbines?

Is it because they are all white and therefore institutionally racist?

 

[DamnYankee]

And there you have it folks.....in typical stubborn neocon parrot fashion, Southern Man tries to substitute his personal supposition and conjecture as FACT.

There is NO documentation to support the Southern Man's speculation...there is SOLID evidence that points to Reagan's ideological idiocy for not simply replacing the solar panels.

Also note that in his childish attempt to mock me, the Southern Man forgo's logic. Carter's solar panels served a physical purpose....producing energy off the grid for the requirements at that area of the White House. A matter of fact and history that gives substance to ideology......unlike Reagan's move.

Once again, the Southern Man's blatherings are undone by a simple look at documented history.

And since the discussion is about energy and resource conservation and utilizaiton, a general discussion about President's is off topic. If the Southern Man wants to continue discussion about past President's energy policies, then I'm all for it.

Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:

In the late 1970's, a Warrenton, Virginia, company called InterTechnology Solar was awarded a $28,000 contract to install 32 solar thermal collectors on the roof of the White House. President Jimmy Carter inaugurated the solar hot water system with great fanfare on June 20, 1979.

According to George Szego, 84, the former president of InterTechnology, the White House solar equipment performed very well. "The collectors were cranking out hot water a mile a minute," Szego recently told EDU. In 1986, all of the solar collectors were removed to repair a roof leak. At the time, a White House spokesman told reporters, "Putting them back up would be very unwise based on cost." Szego blames President Reagan for the decision not to reinstall the panels. "Regan felt that the equipment was just a joke, and he had it taken down," Szego recalls.

For the next five years, the 32 solar collectors languished in a government warehouse in Franconia, Virginia. In 1991, Peter Marbach, the director of development at Unity College in Maine, filed paperwork with the General Services Administration (GSA) in hopes of acquiring the unused solar equipment. After the college submitted a $500 fee, the GSA agreed to donate the solar panels to the school. Marbach then removed most of the seats from an old school bus belonging to the college and drove down to Virginia to pick up the panels.

In the fall of 1991, sixteen of the solar collectors were installed on the roof of the Unity College dining hall. After reliably providing a portion of the cafeteria's hot water for 12 years, the solar collectors were recently taken out of service. "the heat exchanger corroded, and glycol leaked into the 200-gallon storage tank," says Mick Womersley, Unity College's interim provost. "We decided it wasn't worth replacing the tank. If I were going to put $20,000 into anything, before I put 12 inches of cellulose insulation in the attic above my office. Right now there's only 6 inches of insulation there."

http://www.unity.edu/News/energy1906.asp

You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.

 

[WinterBorn]

Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:
http://www.unity.edu/News/energy1906.asp

You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.

Reagan's reason?

They paid $28k to have the system installed. It provided hot water for 7 years at the White House, and then for another 12 years at Unity College in Maine.

The fact that Reagan did not have them put back up sounds like it was a cosmetics issue rather than one of a lack of functionality.


It is a widely accepted idea that solar technology is still a developing area. Having the gov't put some dollars in as a customer instead of just throwing cash at research sounds much more conservative to me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And there you have it folks.....in typical stubborn neocon parrot fashion, Southern Man tries to substitute his personal supposition and conjecture as FACT.

There is NO documentation to support the Southern Man's speculation...there is SOLID evidence that points to Reagan's ideological idiocy for not simply replacing the solar panels.

Also note that in his childish attempt to mock me, the Southern Man forgo's logic. Carter's solar panels served a physical purpose....producing energy off the grid for the requirements at that area of the White House. A matter of fact and history that gives substance to ideology......unlike Reagan's move.

Once again, the Southern Man's blatherings are undone by a simple look at documented history.

And since the discussion is about energy and resource conservation and utilizaiton, a general discussion about President's is off topic. If the Southern Man wants to continue discussion about past President's energy policies, then I'm all for it.

Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:

Quote:
In the late 1970's, a Warrenton, Virginia, company called InterTechnology Solar was awarded a $28,000 contract to install 32 solar thermal collectors on the roof of the White House. President Jimmy Carter inaugurated the solar hot water system with great fanfare on June 20, 1979.

According to George Szego, 84, the former president of InterTechnology, the White House solar equipment performed very well. "The collectors were cranking out hot water a mile a minute," Szego recently told EDU. In 1986, all of the solar collectors were removed to repair a roof leak. At the time, a White House spokesman told reporters, "Putting them back up would be very unwise based on cost." Szego blames President Reagan for the decision not to reinstall the panels. "Regan felt that the equipment was just a joke, and he had it taken down," Szego recalls.

For the next five years, the 32 solar collectors languished in a government warehouse in Franconia, Virginia. In 1991, Peter Marbach, the director of development at Unity College in Maine, filed paperwork with the General Services Administration (GSA) in hopes of acquiring the unused solar equipment. After the college submitted a $500 fee, the GSA agreed to donate the solar panels to the school. Marbach then removed most of the seats from an old school bus belonging to the college and drove down to Virginia to pick up the panels.

In the fall of 1991, sixteen of the solar collectors were installed on the roof of the Unity College dining hall. After reliably providing a portion of the cafeteria's hot water for 12 years, the solar collectors were recently taken out of service. "the heat exchanger corroded, and glycol leaked into the 200-gallon storage tank," says Mick Womersley, Unity College's interim provost. "We decided it wasn't worth replacing the tank. If I were going to put $20,000 into anything, before I put 12 inches of cellulose insulation in the attic above my office. Right now there's only 6 inches of insulation there."

http://www.unity.edu/News/energy1906.asp

You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.


And here's the Southern Man neocon shuffle, folks. Let me just take apart his bullshit quickly:

1) Southy places a quote the OPINION an unnamed White House as his "FACT" while IGNORING the assesment of the man with the technical know-how responsible for installing the equipment. In the real world, the contractor is usually the person who people seek information from when discussing the technology that the contractor installed.

2) Southy juxtaposes information from two different time periods to form his supposition as to why the solar panels should not have been reinstalled due to cost.....that the equipment lay was left stagnant for over 5 years and only half of them were re-used escapes Southy's "reasoning" as to why certain parts would suffer corrosion.

3) That the college's bad planning (better insulation as opposed to new heating system, no decent assessement of the equipment or the cost of maintenance) is totally ignored by Southy.

4) Southy has YET to produce any documented information as to the official reason why Reagan didn't authorize the panels to be put back after the roof repairs.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Southern Man
So I'll ask you again, what's the real reason why liberals hate wind turbines?

Is it because they are all white and therefore institutionally racist?

So your just a Charver clown with nothing of substance to add to the discussion...how sad.

 

[DamnYankee]

Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:



You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.


And here's the Southern Man neocon shuffle, folks. Let me just take apart his bullshit quickly:

1) Southy places a quote the OPINION an unnamed White House as his "FACT" while IGNORING the assesment of the man with the technical know-how responsible for installing the equipment. In the real world, the contractor is usually the person who people seek information from when discussing the technology that the contractor installed.

2) Southy juxtaposes information from two different time periods to form his supposition as to why the solar panels should not have been reinstalled due to cost.....that the equipment lay was left stagnant for over 5 years and only half of them were re-used escapes Southy's "reasoning" as to why certain parts would suffer corrosion.

3) That the college's bad planning (better insulation as opposed to new heating system, no decent assessement of the equipment or the cost of maintenance) is totally ignored by Southy.

4) Southy has YET to produce any documented information as to the official reason why Reagan didn't authorize the panels to be put back after the roof repairs.

Wow Libby I destroyed your argument so you plagiarize it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:



You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.


And here's the Southern Man neocon shuffle, folks. Let me just take apart his bullshit quickly:

1) Southy places a quote the OPINION an unnamed White House as his "FACT" while IGNORING the assesment of the man with the technical know-how responsible for installing the equipment. In the real world, the contractor is usually the person who people seek information from when discussing the technology that the contractor installed.

2) Southy juxtaposes information from two different time periods to form his supposition as to why the solar panels should not have been reinstalled due to cost.....that the equipment lay was left stagnant for over 5 years and only half of them were re-used escapes Southy's "reasoning" as to why certain parts would suffer corrosion.

3) That the college's bad planning (better insulation as opposed to new heating system, no decent assessement of the equipment or the cost of maintenance) is totally ignored by Southy.

4) Southy has YET to produce any documented information as to the official reason why Reagan didn't authorize the panels to be put back after the roof repairs.

Wow Libby I destroyed your argument so you plagiarize it.

Jeez you are INCREDIBLY dense, Southy. Here, I've highlighted my response above so you can attempt to comprehend it. If you can't, get an adult to explain it to you. Then maybe you can get said adult to show you in the dictionary the definition of the word "plagiarize" so you can apply it properly in the future.

 

[DamnYankee]

Jeez you are INCREDIBLY dense, Southy. Here, I've highlighted my response above so you can attempt to comprehend it. If you can't, get an adult to explain it to you. Then maybe you can get said adult to show you in the dictionary the definition of the word "plagiarize" so you can apply it properly in the future.

Libby you plagiarized me again. Look at what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually Libby, it is you who are trying to pass off opinion as fact. Here are the historical facts:



You are taking George Szego's opinion about Regan's decision (who built the system) and claiming it to be fact. But the White House spokesman stated that the decision was based on cost, and the high cost is verified by the second owner of the system, Mick Womersley, who was faced with a $20,000 repair bill that could not be justified, since adding insulation in a building would have saved more than the panels saved.

So again, we have Carter's "fanfare" vs. Regan's reason.

Of the quoted text above, the bold is originally yours and the italic portion is originally mine. You are claiming the text was "Originally Posted by Taichiliberal" which is a lie, and plagiarism.

You need to man-up, fix it, and apologize. Then we can discuss how I destroyed your argument, apparently so badly that you fucked up typing.

I'm going to guess that you aren't man enough to admit this simple mistake.

 

[charver]

So your just a Charver clown with nothing of substance to add to the discussion...how sad.

If my two (now three) posts in this seven-page thread have somehow derailed your erudite, unimpeachable and incontrovertible arguments concerning whatever it was you were going on about, then i humbly beg from you a thousand pardons.

Fingers crossed i haven't jeopardised your Pulitzer Prize.

Good Day.

 

[cancel2 2022]

you are quite comical... you point to NASCAR as an abuser, but like WB stated, you ignore the major violators.... all because it suits your little rant.

1) You want to drastically reduce oil consumption... get the idiots in Congress to force the use of Nat Gas vehicles. 70% of our oil consumption is due to transportation. Rather than banning a tiny little group for a miniscule amount of consumption relative to the whole... suggest REAL alternatives and REAL solutions.

2) Solar... you rant about the 'proper use of solar': here is a hint. Until it is economically viable... it is NOT a solution. It is becoming more economically viable now that oil has maintained closer to fair value around the $75-80 brl. It is something we should focus on expanding, but it most certainly has NOT been something we could have been doing for years and years.

3) Water: see WB's comments. In addition, I would add that we should stop all the moronic attempts to use crops as biofuel. You want to save water: stop that waste and get the focus onto algae based biofuels. That method consumes 1% of the water that crop based biofuels do. It also leaves NO waste as the biproduct of the process produces a high carb food source that can be used for livestock (which further reduces the grain consumption). Add in the fact that the algae systems can be put on ANY type of land and this is a no brainer. But wait, there's more.... the algae also acts as a scrub and can be used to help draw pollutants out of the air.

Guess who is big into algae based biofuels?

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ariel-schwartz/sustainability/bp-joins-exxon-algae-fuel-lovefest