American Politics

[QUOTE=Spidy;3043043]Again, [NOPARSE]tell that to China, with a 62% renewables grid. China's grid maybe not be a totally fossil free grid...yet, but just like South Australia that are now at 78% renewables grid, both have efforts and planning in place, that move them in the right direction of the flexible and resilient energy grids of tomorrow.

The U.S. electricity grids (under MAGA) not so much, although going backwards, [/NOPARSE]is a direction!

Nice try, [NOPARSE] but that old U.S. EIA report from 2024, you are trying to pawn-off as recent data/info as the current cheapest sources energy, isn't going to cut-it. But it was a nice try!

Here are 2025 update reports on Solar and Wind, being the cheapest forms of energy:

1) In its 2025 energy outlook, the U.S. EIA found the cost of electricity generated from natural gas was $48.78 to $64.55 per megawatt hour to produce compared with $88.16 for [/NOPARSE]offshore wind, [B]$29.58 for onshore wind and $31.86 for solar.[/B] Aug. 25,2025 [URL]https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/environment/2025/08/25/are-wind-and-solar-responsible-for-higher-electricity-prices[/URL].

2) 91% of New Renewable Projects Now Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels Alternatives, 22 July, 2025 [URL]https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Jul/91-Percent-of-New-Renewable-Projects-Now-Cheaper-Than-Fossil-Fuels-Alternatives[/URL] The IRENA data shows, the cost advantage for new solar and wind is not marginal, but often by a whooping 40-50%.[/QUOTE]Nope, Nuclear is cheapest and cleanest, and will greatly improve in the next decade or so. Solar and Wind is only effective in the right environment and takes up a massive amount of land. They wanted Wind Farms off the coast of New Jersey, Jersey said fuck off, massive waste of space and more expensive than the Nuclear plants we already have. Same thing with those solar roofs. Yea it knocks a few bucks off your bill, but the money you save off electricity will be added on to your insurance bill and it weakens your roof permanently from all the drilling into the rafters. Will be lucky if those roofs last 50 years before need reinforcement braces. And the worse part is it kills the value of your home and destroys resale value. Word is out on the solar scam and people don't want sky high insurance bills just to be green. Fuck Solar.

[QUOTE=Spidy;3043066]Funny Stuff! Thanks for the belly ache, laughs and chuckles, on that great blast from the past 60's TV show, The Beverly Hillbillies, anecdotal reference. I got to admit, the show was a perennial favorite in our household growing up. You should have heard the laughter from my dad, while he'd be watching the show. [NOPARSE]Of course Granny Clampett, was his favorite character.

Yeah, god trip down memory line, albeit rendered through the lens of a 1000 miles of potholes...nevertheless, thank[/NOPARSE]s!

But speaking of knee-slapping, good ol' country blithering senile old grannies, that once TV shows, what the hell kinda year-end speech, to address the nation, what that last night from the MAGA Fuhrer?

I mean, all anyone heard, was BIDEN, BIDEN, BIDEN for 20-minutes! I guess in Trumpland parlance, it must sound an awful lot like, [B]the senile MAGA Fuhrer is suffering from BDS![/B][/QUOTE]Trump is hoping to have us focus on his fantasy that Biden's positive economic and national security results didn't and will not forever blow away his and every other Repub's horrific negative results. He does that as a constant distraction tactic for when, for instance, his latest grand and glorious announcement about drug-makers agreeing to lower their prices hadn't already been negotiated and accomplished for the vast majority of Americans who need those drugs in President Joe Biden's brilliant Inflation Reduction Act set to take effect more fully in 2026:

[B]Negotiated Prices Take Effect for Ten Drugs in 2026.
October 9, 2025[/B]

[URL]https://www.medicarerights.org/medicare-watch/2025/10/09/negotiated-prices-take-effect-for-ten-drugs-in-2026[/URL]

[QUOTE]The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 created a new ability for Medicare to negotiate prices for the most expensive drugs the program covers. The first set of negotiated drug prices will go into effect in 2026 and are estimated to save $1.5 billion in annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries while saving the Medicare program $6 billion per year. The negotiated prices are a minimum of 38% off the 2023 list price.[/QUOTE]LOL. Oh look! Which is also after Trump jumped in with one of his first BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN distraction tactics by eliminating some of the drug price reductions President Joe Biden had already effected on "day one" of his 2nd disastrous presidential term:

[B]Trump Reverses Some Biden Drug Pricing Initiatives, Potentially Impacting Medicare Costs.[/B]

[URL]https://www.ajmc.com/view/trump-reverses-some-biden-drug-pricing-initiatives-potentially-impacting-medicare-costs[/URL]

[QUOTE]President Donald J. Trumps second-term health care agenda is taking shape with a clear focus on undoing several Biden-era policies.1 On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order reversing initiatives aimed at reducing prescription drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, expanding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and increasing protections for Medicaid enrollees.[/QUOTE]Lolol. So Liar Trump gets to. Waddle over to the nearest podium and virtually without one word of pushback and clarification by the lazy typically pro Repub Mainstream Media announce some blithering BS about how he saved America from higher drug prices after he rescinded BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN's accomplishment to dramatically lower drug prices for most American customers for those drugs and then take credit for future drug price reductions already negotiated and put into BIDEN BIDEN BIDEN's Inflation Reduction. Act to take effect in about 3 weeks anyway! Lolol.

Oh, except this time the MSM will stand in stoney silence while total numbskull Trump tells them he reduced drug prices by "400%, 500% and even 600%.

Lolol. Can't beat that. Well, unless you reduce the prices by "700% of course.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043119]Nope, Nuclear is cheapest and cleanest, and will greatly improve in the next decade or so. Solar and Wind is only effective in the right environment and takes up a massive amount of land. They wanted Wind Farms off the coast of New Jersey, Jersey said fuck off, massive waste of space and more expensive than the Nuclear plants we already have.[/QUOTE]Less lip service and [B]more facts, data and information[/B] that actually backups your idiotic nonsense. Can't wait to see the facts and evidence for cheap nuclear power?

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043119]Same thing with those solar roofs. Yea it knocks a few bucks off your bill, but the money you save off electricity will be added on to your insurance bill and it weakens your roof permanently from all the drilling into the rafters. Will be lucky if those roofs last 50 years before need reinforcement braces. And the worse part is it kills the value of your home and destroys resale value. Word is out on the solar scam and people don't want sky high insurance bills just to be green. Fuck Solar.[/QUOTE]Tell that to the 7% of homes in the USA With rooftop solar. [URL]https://seia.org/solar-installations/[/URL] Or the +4-million households in Australia with rooftop solar. [URL]https://www.energy.gov.au/news/australia-hits-rooftop-solar-milestone[/URL]

Like I said above, less lip service and [B]more facts, data and information[/B] that actually backups your idiotic nonsense. It's easy to flap your gums, but provide real facts why don't ya, so readers can sink there teeth into some real factual information and not just baseless opinions.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090]Right, my batteries weigh more than other peoples.[/QUOTE]I donno, you tell me!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090]LOL. We watched different videos. What I saw were guys generating 1,000 watts of power and their one refigerator used 70% of that power at peak sun. So, tell me, Spidy, how are these 80 to 100% of people getting by being off grid and at night? Are they going without AC or refigerators and if so, then what the hell is the point of a RV?

Your 80 to 100% number is pure bullshit. It is more of the same. When your binary brain fails, you just make shit up.[/QUOTE]Dude, [B]don't hate,[/B] just because others can boondock 80-90% of the time (and 100% in some cases) and it works for them. Not everyone does RVing the same way!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090]It is probably worthless in saying what I did because you read what you want. ...

The Winnebago had a 1,000 lbs of OCCC. Now I can carry two people and my AC uit and nothing else. ...

I am in Texas. The AC unit was more important than anything else so I researched more and went with the gas powered Ford chassis. OCCC on the RV I got is 2500 lbs, and I am going to put in my off grid AC unit as carrying capacity is no longer a real concern. ...

... That solar powered RVs make no sense right now is something you just cannot get.[/QUOTE]Dude, [NOPARSE]you've already made up you mind solar and batteries aren't going to work for you,...so don't sweat it.

Like I said, there is no shame, in sticking to fossil [/NOPARSE]fuels!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090]And your point on 2025 is what? [/QUOTE]Duh, can you be anymore dense! The point is, it's Dec 2025 (not July 2024) and the cheapest energy new builds, is solar and wind. Perhaps you're still living in 2024, most of rest of us, are not. Or is the concept of updated data and information, not mean anything to MAGA suckers!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090]Alternative energy was cheaper for one year. Does that mean they will be next year too? So you mean windmills, solar panels, oil, natural gas, natural gas turbines, and uranium are all going to stay fixed in price forever?[/QUOTE]Dunno, maybe? I think maybe they will for near-to-mid term distant future! But, you can always make similar dumbass assumptions again, in a year from now, if you're really that ignorant?

So far, all I hear is more lip service. Why is it MAGA suckers, are all just so good at lip service? But not so much when it comes to proof. Where's your evidence it won't be the cheapest?

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090] You are doing the dumbshit Democratic shuffle, green good, fossil fuel bad. It is much more complicated than that. In fact, I bet you cannot even state my position. You probably think I am 100% totally drill, baby, drill and green energy bad. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043090]And even more. That China has to import coal and oil while the USA does not [/QUOTE]Totally understandable, considering for decades now, most of the world has offloaded manufacturing to China, and made them the manufacturer to the world.

Consider it a necessary part of their manufacturing economy, so that spoiled privileged westerners (like yourself), can still get their cheap $1000 iPhones.

[U]Solar and Wind is Cheaper than Fossil Fuels:[/U]

Based on recent industry reports, solar and wind are not only the cheapest new build energy sources as of today, but also have a strong economic trajectory and look to maintain their cost leadership in the future. [U]Multiple analyses from financial and energy research institutions confirm this outlook.[/U]. [B]91% of New Renewable Projects Now Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels Alternatives,[/B] Jul 2025. [URL]https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Jul/91-Percent-of-New-Renewable-Projects-Now-Cheaper-Than-Fossil-Fuels-Alternatives[/URL].

Less LIP SERVICE and factual information and analysis!

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043119]Nope, Nuclear is cheapest and cleanest...[/QUOTE]Just to be clear, the debate is referring to the cheapest new project energy source builds.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043092]As I just showed in my RV example, the one size fits all electrical model is silly. The government forces utilities to charge on a per kilowatt basis. That makes no sense. If you are solar based, electricty generation is going to cost more at night. With wind, there is less demand at night. A dynamic pricing model would push the consumer to have their own power stations. You charge your power station during the day when solar is cheaper or at night when the decrease in demand would make wind cheaper. There is no incentive for personal power stations when you have fixed per killowatt pricing. There likely would be times and places where it is more cost effective for people to generate their own electricity via solar or wind than rely on their utility. [QUOTE]Sure, if you say so! But why not, if it works for you!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043092]That you are married to your petrostate and electrostate model is more binary thinking, and one that is not cost effective to boot. [be]The state[ / be] does not need to control everything with electricity. [/QUOTE] Clearly you've yet to grasp the concept of [be]Electrostate vs. Petrostate[ / be] That okay too!

[QUOTE=Spidy;3043198]Less lip service and [B]more facts, data and information[/B] that actually backups your idiotic nonsense. Can't wait to see the facts and evidence for cheap nuclear power?

Tell that to the 7% of homes in the USA With rooftop solar. [URL]https://seia.org/solar-installations/[/URL] Or the +4-million households in Australia with rooftop solar. [URL]https://www.energy.gov.au/news/australia-hits-rooftop-solar-milestone[/URL]

Like I said above, less lip service and [B]more facts, data and information[/B] that actually backups your idiotic nonsense. It's easy to flap your gums, but provide real facts why don't ya, so readers can sink there teeth into some real factual information and not just baseless opinions.[/QUOTE][URL]https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/learn/how-much-land-area-is-required-for-a-nuclear-power-plant-compared-to-a-solar-or-wind-farm-of-equivalent-capacity/[/URL]

On average, for every square mile of nuclear energy out put or roughly the size of a standard nuclear plant, THREE HUNDRED SQAURE MILES OF LAND IS NEEDED FOR WIND! 300! I don't need to post links, although I will for you because your too fucking lazy to research shit that you constantly claim to be an expert on, because I live in New Jersey and we just spent years fighting against wind farms off our shores. Jersey shore is essential to the New Jersey economy and they are trying to destroy it by placing senseless costly wind farms on our coastal areas when we can just stick with Nuclear which is cheaper and far cleaner and doesn't take up massive amounts of area.

This renewable energy bullshit is a slimy fucking scam from Liberals to take over the energy sector and then use that as leverage to control the masses. They have already done it with media. As anyone over 10 years old who can read the internet and knows how to use google already knows, the clear answer is Nuclear. There is no debate, it is completely unnecessary for 90% of the renewable energy sources out there.

Fight this green new deal scam bull shit and do what makes logical sense. Nuclear. Shut the fuck up with this electro state bull shit!

Oh, and you never responded on Maduro and Venezuela. Typical.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043119]Nope, Nuclear is cheapest and cleanest, and will greatly improve in the next decade or so. Solar and Wind is only effective in the right environment and takes up a massive amount of land.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that is the part Spidy does not get. Using a power station and portable solar panels will probably pay for themselves in a year or two if you live in Arizona. If you live in the Midwest or East Coast, they are a complete fucking waste of money, and that is where the Dems look so stupid.

It is the same with electric cars. They are great for places with nice climates. When you go below freezing, you run into all kind of problems.

And for them, that is the part that is crazy. Reducing carbon based pollution makes sense. Saying you are going to get rid of in 30 years means you are out of your fucking mind and promoting China as a model on pollution, as Spidy has done, means you need to be put in an institution. These are not rational people; they are acting like they are in a cult.

And when these cult guys run out of facts, they just start making stuff up and engaging in the name calling. Spidy just shows a video where guys are bragging about solar powering a frig for six hours and that people are "boondocking" for days a time unplugged from the grid. How do you unplug from the grid where your fridge works for six hours at a time? His response is, "But yeah, they are doing it. "

Yes, there are now RVs without generators and loaded with batteries, and solar contributes some to their charging but you saw how little solar really does. The reality is that you charge the batteries via the alternator on your engine, more fossil fuels, or plugging into the grid, more fossil fuels. He just wants to believe that you can do a pure solar / electric RV when it does not exist.

I wasn't kidding when I said the only large carbon free vehicle is a nuclear sub, and we have had that technology for decades. What makes nuclear subs special is they do not have to surface for fuel for months, and you can therefore hide them much longer that subs burning fossil fuels. I get the political issues but if not for security issues, nuclear powered engines and RVs would make a helluva lot of sense.

I am just so sick of the whiplash the Dems have had with power generation my whole life. First, it was no nukes, no nukes. All the reactors were going to melt down and contaminate the planet. At the time, the reduction in nukes meant more coal. Then a decade or two later, all carbon based energy production was going to destroy the planet. Thanks to oil companies and shale drilling, much cleaner natural gas was substituted for coal and pollution went way down, but that was not good enough for the Dems. We asked, "Okay, Dems, if carbon based power generation is bad, then are nukes good now?" They would not answer the question. They just pushed for solar and wind.

I guess in Spidy's world he does not get that billionaires fund science projects that justify what they want. So when a guy like Bill Gates who is funding anti-carbon based energy generation flip flops, it is not one guy changing his mind. He is going to pay scientific experts to agree with him. Simplistically, the huge energy producer Texas is a red state. The big tech companies are in California, a blue state. So if you are a Dem, screwing up the profits of energy companies was good politics until now.

Now tech needs energy badly. If Microsoft does not have the power to generate its AI ventures, their stock will be crushed, and Bill Gates will lose billions. That is the obvious reason Bill Gates backed off his carbon based emissions will destroy the planet rhetoric and said "Hey, guys, that book I wrote about burning carbon ending the planet, just kidding!

So now we need huge amounts of electricity for data centers. First, you have to overcome the Spidy types who are going to say, "Well, gee, duh, why can't we use solar and wind?" and educate them on why that will not work. Nautral gas would be great but the supply chain is overloaded which leaves coal and nuclear.

My bet is that if you put 10 smart people in a room and gave them the choice between nuclear and coal, they would all pick nuclear. Thing is we have seen this movie before. Even when carbon based energy was going to wipe out the planet, I think there was only one new nuclear power plant built. Nuclear power is the most regulated industry in the country and the bureaucrats within that system wield the power to stop or slow down any project and there is little doubt in my mind, they will do just that.

So after all the Dems whining about nukes and meltdown, CO2 and global warming then CO2 and climate change, we are going to be left with the most polluting, dirty way to produce energy for the data centers AKA coal, and the one thing you can count on is the Dems will not own that they were wrong.

We just saw it was the mask fiasco with Covid. Fauci made up the maks and social distancing rules. They were not based on any science at all. Here is a headline and article on that very subject, [URL]https://torontosun.com/news/world/dr-anthony-fauci-admits-he-made-up-covids-social-distancing-measures-masking-rules[/URL].

And we just saw a Dem on here saying masks worked. He could read this news story and listen to Fauci's testimony, and my bet is that he still would not change his mind.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043279]Yeah, that is the part Spidy does not get. Using a power station and portable solar panels will probably pay for themselves in a year or two if you live in Arizona. If you live in the Midwest or East Coast, they are a complete fucking waste of money, and that is where the Dems look so stupid.

It is the same with electric cars. They are great for places with nice climates. When you go below freezing, you run into all kind of problems.

And for them, that is the part that is crazy. Reducing carbon based pollution makes sense. Saying you are going to get rid of in 30 years means you are out of your fucking mind and promoting China as a model on pollution, as Spidy has done, means you need to be put in an institution. These are not rational people; they are acting like they are in a cult.

And when these cult guys run out of facts, they just start making stuff up and engaging in the name calling. Spidy just shows a video where guys are bragging about solar powering a frig for six hours and that people are "boondocking" for days a time unplugged from the grid. How do you unplug from the grid where your fridge works for six hours at a time?.[/QUOTE]Change his mind LMFAO its not about that, they know they're wrong they just will never admit it, why? Because once you take your finger out of that dykes shit hole (Madcow) , they will be overwhelmed.

With more requests to admit they're wrong 24/7, why? Because they're always wrong. So their low self esteem MO is to never admit you're wrong.

Move along nothing to see here folks.

I fault you a bit for trying to reason with this fool, your discussions look like you're arguing with some mentally ill homeless bum on the subway.

None of these pathological lying cucksters have ANY credibility on anything here, because even when they're wrong and they know it, they won't admit it.

[URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/gunboat-diplomacy-accelerated-us-reportedly-interdicts-seizes-another-oil-tanker[/URL]

Long Live The Monroe Doctrine.

Allahu Akbar.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3043279]Yeah, that is the part Spidy does not get. Using a power station and portable solar panels will probably pay for themselves in a year or two if you live in Arizona. If you live in the Midwest or East Coast, they are a complete fucking waste of money, and that is where the Dems look so stupid.

It is the same with electric cars. They are great for places with nice climates. When you go below freezing, you run into all kind of problems.

And for them, that is the part that is crazy. Reducing carbon based pollution makes sense. Saying you are going to get rid of in 30 years means you are out of your fucking mind and promoting China as a model on pollution, as Spidy has done, means you need to be put in an institution. These are not rational people; they are acting like they are in a cult.

And when these cult guys run out of facts, they just start making stuff up and engaging in the name calling. Spidy just shows a video where guys are bragging about solar powering a frig for six hours and that people are "boondocking" for days a time unplugged from the grid. How do you unplug from the grid where your fridge works for six hours at a time? His response is, "But yeah, they are doing it. "

Yes, there are now RVs without generators and loaded with batteries, and solar contributes some to their charging but you saw how little solar really does. The reality is that you charge the batteries via the alternator on your engine, more fossil fuels, or plugging into the grid, more fossil fuels. He just wants to believe that you can do a pure solar / electric RV when it does not exist..[/QUOTE]Your post was very well articulated. These are the types of posts I trust because you can tell when reading the writer has study this subject and speaks from experience rather than just finding some left wing article with skewed statistics to prove a point and fulfill a political agenda.

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043240][URL]https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/learn/how-much-land-area-is-required-for-a-nuclear-power-plant-compared-to-a-solar-or-wind-farm-of-equivalent-capacity/[/URL]

On average, for every square mile of nuclear energy out put or roughly the size of a standard nuclear plant, THREE HUNDRED SQAURE MILES OF LAND IS NEEDED FOR WIND! 300! [/QUOTE]Chuckles and more chuckles, as once again you prove, that you are incapable of even understanding the simplicity of question being debated.

What [NOPARSE]a fuckin' joke you are, when provide a very brief blob of article, that briefly talks about land efficiency and "How much land area nuclear vs solar & wind, is required". There is no mention of industry using this as the lowest cost of energy? Just freakin' hilarious, ..."land area"? ..."land [/NOPARSE]area"?

Since when do energy projects that are consider all forms of energy generation, to determine the lowest cost of producing energy, use "land area" as the determining factor?

Get back to me, when you have [U]a real answer[/U] to the debate question proposed? [I][b]What is currently (2025) the lowest cost of energy? [/b][/I].

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043308]Your post was very well articulated. These are the types of posts I trust because you can tell when reading the writer has study this subject and speaks from experience rather than just finding some left wing article with skewed statistics to prove a point and fulfill a political agenda.[/QUOTE]Why am [NOPARSE] I not surprised you understand Elvis 2008's Gish Gallop...Chuckles!...It like you're all speaking another foreign language, all your own. ie. MAGA [/NOPARSE]Speak!

[QUOTE=RamDavidson84;3043240][URL]https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/learn/how-much-land-area-is-required-for-a-nuclear-power-plant-compared-to-a-solar-or-wind-farm-of-equivalent-capacity/[/URL] [/QUOTE]BTW, Why [NOPARSE]doesn't your so called article on "low cost of energy", consider or factor in the the time of build/constru[/NOPARSE]ction?

The last nuclear plants in the USA The Vogtle Unit 4 and Vogtle Unit 3, both took just over 10 years to build. The last one before those nuclear plants, [B]the Watts Bar Unit, took a whopping 43 years to build.[/B] That's [NOPARSE]almost a freakin' half a century of what? Wasted energy? Ineptitude? Cost overruns? Compliance? MAGA like stoppage/sab[/NOPARSE]otage?

On average solar farms in the USA Take 8 to 18 months to build. Wind farms, about 6-months to 3 years, on average depending on scale.