jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (22 posts)

Koch Industries -- get the facts

  1. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Handy dandy reference site for those concerned (like I am) that Koch Industries -- which of course is people, not a corporation (just ask Mitt Romney) -- is being smeared and misunderstood.

    www.kochfacts.com

    I feel so much better getting the truth here.
    I am sure you all will, too.
    smile

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you concerned about Soros?

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why--you all don't care about Stalin!

        1. American View profile image61
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are so concerned about Koch, yet you are fine with Soros who is exactly like the Koch brothers. People in glass houses

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm concerned about Stalin......my grandfather came here to get away from him.  And now I live in the vicinity of Koch....a recipient of Stalin wealth. 

            It's personal.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to be.
        And for anyone else who is,
        here is a resource for Mr. Soros which I have every confidence is as truthful, factual and unbiased as the Koch website in the OP.
        smile

        www.georgesoros.com

  2. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Amazingly absurd that those who call Obama a Marxist worship at the alter of people whose father got rich working for Josef Stalin.

    Amazing.  Rev wright? Bill Ayers?  We're talking Josef Stalin here!

    He has killed the windfarm off the coast of Cape Cod.....Using the gvt....the court system. My tax moneys. To protect his private summer-time view.

    1. American View profile image61
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Too bad he killed your wind farm, then you too would be feeling the global warming that occurs under them up close and personal.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol

      2. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As opposed to the lovely conditions experienced by people living next to oil refineries and mountain-top mining.

        I'll take wind farm any day....in the Shoals, hurting nothing. Except money-bags view.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can take your wind-farms. They'll never provide a significant portion of our energy.

          Nor do they provide jobs. Nuclear provides something like 10 times as many jobs for every dollar spent compared to wind.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Presently.

          2. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            BULL! Nuclear is dangerous.....wind is not. Plenty-o-jobs....plenty of energy.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes Nuclear is dangerous and wind farms are dangerous as well(the installation of them at least), however Wind Farms' technology is nowhere near as powerful as Nuclear energy.

              Wind Farms have a long way to go to put out the energy a Nuclear facility would put out.

            2. American View profile image61
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Someone forgot to mention the static the windmills cause, the earth warming, the turbulence that changes weather patterns.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And let's not forget the horrible, toxic greenhouse gases caused by wind power.
                Oh wait. I must have that mixed up with some other form of power.
                Nevermind.
                smile

          3. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you seriously advocating more nuclear and less renewables?
            Tell me you don't live near Three Mile Island.
            Oh wait, that would explain a lot.
            smile

            Here in sunny, progressive California, we're committed to increasing renewable energy to 1/3 of all energy sold, upped from previous target of 20%.
            Nuclear is currently 15% of in-state production....




            Timeline of California's Renewables Portfolio Standard
            •2002: Senate Bill 1078 establishes the RPS program, requiring 20% of retail sales from renewable energy by 2017.
            •2003: Energy Action Plan I accelerated the 20% deadline to 2010.
            •2005: Energy Action Plan II recommends a further goal of 33% by 2020.
            •2006: Senate Bill 107 codified the accelerated 20% by 2010 deadline into law.
            •2008: Governor Schwarzenegger issues Executive Order S-14-08 requiring 33% renewables by 2020.
            •2009: Governor Schwarzenegger issues Executive Order S-21-09 directing the California Air Resources Board, under its AB 32 authority, to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010, consistent with the 33% renewable energy target established in Executive Order S-14-08.
            •2011: Senate Bill X1-2, signed by Gov. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., codifies 33% by 2020 RPS.

  3. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    It could be free anyway: Tesla had it figured out. But of course, there's no money in free energy. No wars in it either.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In New Orleans, net-zero energy homes go on the market http://ow.ly/b9MOv

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Net-zero houses don't mean free-energy.

        Energy comes from solar or wind, but more energy goes into building the solar panels/wind turbines. Where do we get that electricity?

  4. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Comparing nuclear power and wind power -- yet another ridiculous apples to oranges comparison brought to my thread on Koch Industries by our resident Romney campaign schill.
    If you want to talk about big industry energy Goliath, probably better to pick Natural Gas. They are the ones who really create the jobs.
    Cleaning up after pipe blasts is a big employment opportunity, yessiree!
    http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=844
    lol

    Now let's look at numbers. Because I know you just love numbers:

    % of California Power Mix (2010)

    Natural Gas
    41.%

    Nuclear
    13.9%

    Large Hydro
    10.8%

    Coal
    7.7%

    Oil
    0.0%

    Renewables
    13.7%

    Of the 13.7% Renewables, the breakdown is:
    Wind 4.7%
    Geothermal 4.6%
    Biomass 2.4%
    Small Hydro 1.7%
    Solar .3%

    So when California ramps up from 13.7% of renewables to 33%, basic math tells us some other energy sources will have to be used LESS.
    Can we guess which ones those might be???

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/A … nt_fly.pdf

      100 windmills don't produce as much energy as is needed to build 1 windmill.

      It would take nearly 7,000 turbines to equal one nuclear plant. That's 230 square miles of turbines.

      Wind costs 5 times as much per kwh.

      It's fine for people to be pursuing their own green energy, but at this point, in this economy, it's foolish to be spending so much money on these sources.

 
working