Solar Follies

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few years about “alternative” energy, which, in most cases means wind and solar as alternatives to coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The problems with wind and solar are well known to anyone with thirty minutes to spare to do a modicum of research. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are too intellectually lazy to become informed and have outsourced their thinking to radical, agenda driven environmentalists and their enablers in media, academia, and politics. They have substituted saving the earth platitudes for real world analysis of even the basics of our available energy sources.
Below is a simple analysis of solar energy that I hope even the most stubborn and ignorant Liberal can understand. I will follow up this post with one on wind energy.
According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than what is actually recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
The largest nuclear power plant in the is the Palo Verde plant near Phoenix, AZ.
Although the entire Palo Verde facility occupies 4,000 acres, the reactor buildings, cooling towers, cooling ponds, and support facilities only cover approximately 500 acres. Palo Verde produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors that run 24/7 and only shut down for maintenance and periodic refueling.Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% efficiency (remember, this is a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require a little less than the same 4,000 acres, ~3,300. This sounds like a great deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology.” So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered by solar arrays, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel and vehicle traffic, and support facilities. So lets conservatively say that to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. That’s a lot of acreage for a plant that would only be able to produce electricity for 8-10 hours on a good sunny summer day. What then to do at night when the sun isn’t shining or in the winter months where the available hours falls significantly? What are the options for areas of the country that don’t have the available number of sunny days Albuquerque has? What options are available for the vast majority of the country that doesn't have land for solar farms? What are the environmental impacts to wildlife and plant species of tens of thousands of acres being hidden from the sun under vast arrays of solar panels? Due to the area required, the inefficiency, and limited availability of solar energy, solar energy can never be more than a supplement to more traditional and reliable sources of energy.

The Most Dangerous Game - Millennium Edition

It has been widely acknowledged that Europe currently faces a potentially dark future. This is seen as a result of uncontrolled Muslim immigration aided and abetted by politicians blinded by multi-cultural Utopian visions or driven by lust for power. That Islam is a danger to Europe is widely acknowledged by many average European citizens. Because of oppressive laws designed to prevent anyone from being offended, they fear speaking out against the government sanctioned colonization of their countries. This inability to speak freely makes it difficult to form an opposition movement to push for reforms to insane immigration laws that are threatening the culture and very existence of many European nations.

The few, but growing in number, opposition groups that have been formed are routinely pilloried by Leftists throughout European media, government, and academia as racist, xenophobic, extreme right wing, etc. and have even come under physical attack from some of the more extreme "anti-hate" groups that make up the Left. This difficulty in organizing is caused in part by the average European citizen’s understandable resistance to public demonizing. It has led to various anti-jihad blogs examining alternative means of combating Islamization. One method will be discussed here. However, several facts need to be addressed before laying the groundwork for such a discussion.

As we have witnessed, Muslims are prone to extreme reaction from the slightest perceived insult. Whether this outrage is a normal response in the Muslim world or one that has been manufactured over time by the more radical elements of Islamic culture as a tool to be used against enemies remains unknown. What is known is that Islamic clerics often fan the flames and passions of Muslims to make political points, win concessions, create an environment of fear or as a warning of what is possible. Islamic clerics have an extraordinary level of influence on the average Muslim and it is common for them to direct suicide bombings or attacks against enemies both religious and secular. Europe has many hundreds of radical clerics on watch lists and keeps close tabs on them and their activities.

Islam is patient. We in the West have come to expect immediate gratification and find it difficult, as a culture, to make long term plans. This should be obvious enough to preclude further discussion. Islam, however, regards itself as a collective body with collective goals rather than as individuals with personal aims and desires. This cultural difference allows them to see a future where Islam is the dominant religion and political system and work toward that end even though they as individuals won't be present to see the goal achieved. Thus Islam has set its sights on the West. They know it will take decades or perhaps longer to achieve but they remain confident of success. We in the West don't pay much attention to the slow laying of foundations for our conquest. We are becoming like the proverbial frog in the pot of water that gets boiled as the temperature is slowly raised.

With knowledge of their intent along with the Muslim propensity for mindless outrage and violence, they and their plan can be defeated.

Defeating the Muslims will require making them burst into destructive demonstrations of violence and anger. If they are provoked frequently, Muslims will expose their own anger and violence, thus giving the West a better chance to acknowledge the danger in our midst.

How then to provoke them? Referring back to the power held by clerics and the influence they wield it becomes clear that provoking Muslims into action will require elimination of their leadership. This isn't something that we can rely on our governments to accomplish and thus will have to be carried out by patriots or mercenaries.

By what mechanism can this goal be accomplished? It is proposed here that a bounty be established for named Muslim leaders and that such a bounty be paid to whoever carries out the task of cutting off a given head of the Muslim hydra.

A list of targets will be posted and given an initial ranking. There will be several types of players: 'backers' who only contribute to the bounty, 'gamblers' who bet on the odds of a target's elimination, and 'operators'; those that elect to carry out a mission and collect the bounty. The rules of the hunt are still under development and open to suggestions from readers.

Disclaimer: This is purely hypothetical and the author in no way condones the murder of even the most heinous individuals no matter how much they may deserve to be removed from this existence.

Environmentalist Cowards and Hypocrites

Last March I wrote an article titled Environmentalist Cowards where I highlighted the fact that the Sierra Club fears being labeled "racists" far more than they care about our environment. As stories about the impact to the environment caused by increasing demands of a growing population continue to be reported (Lake Mead dry by 2021, Population Pressures Western Water, Drought Jeopardizing Endangered Wildlife, and many others) and the Sierra Club et al continue to remain silent I felt it was necessary to once again contact the Sierra Club and ask them to reconsider their cowardly, politically correct position on immigration. Here is the response I received:

"Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue. The Sierra Club's membership voted on April 25, 1998 to remain committed to environmental rights and protection for all within our borders, without discrimination based on immigration status. With this vote, our members have shown they understand that restricting immigration into the U.S. will not solve the planet's environmental problems. There is broad agreement within the Sierra Club to address the global environmental dilemmas exacerbated by population growth by supporting voluntary family planning programs and access to basic rights for women and girls around the world."
Sincerely,
Ann Pinkerton
Sierra Club Member Services
85 Second St, 2nd Fl
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 977-5653 (M-F, 9-5 PST)

So rather than taking obvious steps to preserve the environment in the US by opposing illegal and even legal immigration, and the concomitant environmental impact an increased population causes, they take a ridiculous and useless global position on "family planning", i.e. abortion and the pill. This smug, high minded position is nothing more than cover for their cowardice in the face of the forces of political correctness.
So as illegals litter our deserts with tons of garbage, drive the need for a physical barrier to keep them out (opposed by the environmentalists), and consume limited, precious resources the environmentalists do nothing.

And far from broad agreement this actually nearly caused a schism within the SC because some more conservative members and animal rights activists DID in fact want immigration control to be part of the SC position. They however lost to the PC wing of the organization who feared losing some of their more progressive members. So, the environment took a backseat to politics.

The environmentalists never miss an opportunity to warn us of the dangers of global warming but they remain silent on what would be one of the easiest ways to stop the increase of, or even reduce our emissions: population stability. If they truly cared about global warming then why don't they address the population connection? What is the point of pushing us to reduce our "carbon footprints" if we increase the number of footprints year after year? Our population now stands around the 300 Million mark and is projected to increase to 1 Billion by the end of this century if current immigration trends continue. To keep the same carbon footprint we'd all have to cut our energy consumption by 2/3. How would that impact your life?

I've written to several other large and powerful environmental organizations and will report on their positions when they respond. I suspect that they will have positions similar to the Sierra Club in their morally ambiguous, cowardly, and utter uselessness.

Islam is a Prison

Afghanistan's Islamic Council warned president Karzai Friday about allowing missionaries into the country. I'd like to know why? What is it that these "clerics" are afraid if? Could it be that fear is the only thing they have with which to rule their flocks? Do they fear that if the message of the missionaries were heard that Muslims would convert to Christianity by the thousands? They don't demonstrate much 'faith' in their religion if they are afraid of a little competition. Rather, it shows a tremendous lack of confidence in the message of their prophet and the truth of their religion. These clerics live in fear that what they believe may in fact be false, it is, and that if Afghanis (and Muslims in most Islamic countries) were given a chance to hear an alternative message, one of peace, that they would convert and the clerics would lose their power. Their power is really an arrogance, a greed, a hunger. It is the power a rapist feels over his victim, an executioner over a condemned prisoner, a drill seargent over a recruit. It is not a power based on respect or persuasion or faith and that is why Islam is a prison, its believers condemned, its future angry and bleak.

Minnestota and our Infrastructure

The Dems are at it already. In this Politico article Sen. Harry Reid blames the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Bush's neglect of the nation's infrastructure due to the war in Iraq. Is there anything Bush isn't responsible for?
And no doubt the Dems will soon be calling for higher taxes to fix the nation's infrastructure "crisis". Perhaps they'll even throw in a good old fashioned "let's do it for the children" to boot!
I called for higher taxes on gas way back in April in which I advocated a higher tax to fund, among other things, taking care of our nation's infrastructure. Since ALL Americans benefit from bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, etc. a gas tax is the fairest way to ensure we ALL pay. And a gas tax is inherently fair because it's a consumption tax. If you don't want to pay it, don't drive! Or at least not to excess.
I'm sure also that the enviro-whackos will be blaming the bridge collapse on SUVs by the end of Aug claiming that their higher weight and the large number of Americans "abusing" our roads and bridges with SUVs has finally resulted in a catastrophe.
Now is the time for a higher gas tax. Do our politicians have the courage to make the case to the public that we are all in this together. We all benefit, we should all pay.

Chuck and Larry - Propaganda for the Gay Lobby

Friday was my anniversary so after dinner my wife and I went to see Chuck and Larry because it looked funny and I like Adam Sandler. I enjoyed the first half of the movie but somewhere around the middle it took definite propagandist turn. It went from delivering a message of indifferent tolerance to out right support and advocacy for the gay lobby. In the film the few opponents of homosexual behavior were shown to be over zealous, religious bigots shouting about gays 'burning in Hell". There was no honest debate, no respect for real differences of opinion, opponents were simply mean spirited and bigoted. I stopped enjoying the film at this point as the propaganda was just too over the top and obvious but I stuck it out to see how it would end.
As a Conservative I am opposed to gay 'marriage' but have no problem with civil unions that provide the same legal rights regarding survivorship, benefits, etc. I'm opposed to gay adoption. I will never accept a gay lifestyle as just another alternative and will never allow my children to be taught that it is just one of many choices. But I am comfortable working with gays, my former director was, and am generally a live and let live type of person as I believe most Americans are. But the gay lobby simply insists on striving for full acceptance by everyone and full recognition of their relationships as equal to traditional relationships and that turns people like me off. Yet rather than accept this differing point of view they, like all Liberals, resort to name calling to hurt their perceived enemies.
Chuck and Larry should come with a warning label.

Amnesty - 12-20 million or many many more?

Nearly everywhere I go these days I see Hispanics. This is a dramatic change from just a few years ago when I saw almost none so I assume the majority are illegals. One fact that I've not yet seen pointed out is that the vast majority of illegals are men. So just what does this fact mean for the influx of new immigrants if the illegals are given amnesty? Assuming the lower number of 12 million is correct and that just 60% of that figure are men, I'm being conservative with my figures, that means that 7.2 million illegals are men. Now assume that 50% of that number are married and would be able to bring over their spouses. That puts the number at 12 million illegals + 3.6 million spouses, or 15.6 million new immigrants. Now let's assume that 50% of these couples have only one child, again being conservative. That's 1.8 million children. Add that to the 15.6 million and the total rises to 17.4 million new immigrants. If we use the higher figure of 20 million illegals as a base and run the same numbers the total possible influx increases to 20+6 million spouses+3 million children or 29 million new immigrants. My numbers are purposely conservative and the totals in both scenarios is likely to be higher.
So what is the REAL number of expected new "Americans"?

Amid all the posturing and name calling on both sides in this debate I've not heard some very important questions get answered:

1. Who's going to pay for the health care of these new immigrants? Their employers don't. The immigrants themselves likely won't. Will this lead to a bigger push for nationalized medicine funded by a stagnant middle class?
2. Most of these people are poor. Will their children qualify for free school lunches?
3. Will WIC be available to them?
4. Will these low earning illegals be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit in which we the taxpayers give them billions of dollars a year and for which the new citizens pay nothing?
5. We are importing poverty on an unimagined scale. What will this do to the "War on Poverty"?
6. Do we abandon all attempts to measure and improve poverty since this massive influx will distort the statistics heavily to the negative?
7. Who will pay for the new schools required to educate them? MeCHA, LULAC, MALDEF? Taxpayers!

We the People are subsidizing businesses now and will be forever if we let this bill pass. Taxpayers will pay for the savings and profits of employers that use illegal labor. There is no such thing as a free lunch.