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.
I feel so much better getting the truth here.
I am sure you all will, too.
You are so concerned about Koch, yet you are fine with Soros who is exactly like the Koch brothers. People in glass houses
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.
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.
Too bad he killed your wind farm, then you too would be feeling the global warming that occurs under them up close and personal.
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.
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.
BULL! Nuclear is dangerous.....wind is not. Plenty-o-jobs....plenty of energy.
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.
Someone forgot to mention the static the windmills cause, the earth warming, the turbulence that changes weather patterns.
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.
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.
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.
In New Orleans, net-zero energy homes go on the market http://ow.ly/b9MOv
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!
Now let's look at numbers. Because I know you just love numbers:
% of California Power Mix (2010)
Of the 13.7% Renewables, the breakdown is:
Small Hydro 1.7%
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???
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.
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Some positive news amid the negativity.Unless, of course, you are an oil and coal stalwart.What part excites you most?Concerns you?Renewables ramping up. With news of Keystone and tar sands and coal-crazy China,...
by Arthur Russ2 months ago
Why Are so Many Americans in Denial of Human’s Contribution to Climate Change, and the Harm its Doing to the Planet?The evidence is so clear, just to name a few:-• The correlation between the burning of...
by Direxmd8 years ago
Hey guys, I recently published a hub on methane / natural gas energy production & resources and then felt compelled to see what people thought of our current state of energy--so here I am.Are you guys big fans of...
by Shil19785 years ago
Which renewable energy sources offer the most promise?
by John Coviello20 months ago
Are Coal Jobs Worth Saving?I feel for anyone who experiences a devastating job loss. But, given the fact that so many types of jobs, from blacksmiths to elevator operators, have been rendered obsolete by...
by George_Allen6 years ago
What are the benefits of the renewable energy?What are the benefits of the renewable energy?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.