Dressing up coal

[flubno]

Back in the 1800's a inventor named Tesla came up with a way to give everyone free energy. The Jew Bankers who were financing him hated it because there was no way for them to make money off it. So they pulled his funding and blacked balled him. We have been burning coal and nuke stuff ever sence.

[SmilingJack100]

@flubno First off, tesla didn't come up with free energy, he WAS an electrical engineer but, that's basically the only thing that resembles the truth in what you just said. Everything else was complete garbage, please, run a bath, then hold your head under the water for 10 minutes, you see, a 17th century chemist named Robert Boyle invented a way for people to breath underwater, but the jews are stopping us from doing it, go prove 'em wrong!

[flubno]

@SmilingJack100 Bullshit, electrical engineer ? He was on of the most important inventor of the 1800's. He did invent free energy, that wierd HAARP thing and had a patient on anti gravity. JP Morgan was the on who black balled him.

[SmilingJack100]

@flubno Wow, you're retarded. You don't know that electrical engineers invent things. Not only only is you're point based on fantasy like anti-gravity, but you can't even choose someone who's actualyl jewish, JP Morgan was an Episcopalian, moron.

[flubno]

@SmilingJack100 Electrical engineer as a job hadn't even been invented yet. Tesla beat out Thomas Edison with his inventions. Edison bought his patents because his inventions sucked, after Tesla got black balled. JP Morgan, the American puppet for the Rothschild Banking family. Jews to the 10th power ! Tesla figured out anti gravity along time ago. Alot of his invetions and patents were siezed by the Gov. when he died. His theory on Anti gravity was pretty simple.

[isawanangel2]

i just woke up to this massive longstanding lie, i have the current list of bribes on my channel from open secrets

[mrhulot101]

One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.

In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.

[BeeNitz]

poor people contribute the least to pollution.. its those rich ass holes who can afford to consume as much as they want and drive unnecessarily huge ass cars and have 4 rich ass kids and give them all new cars when they turn 16.. Wealth + Apathy + Ignorance = FUCKED UP and don't tell me the rich are all saving the world with hybrids because they're only a band aid on a bleeding wound which is carbon emissions.. if you REALLY wanted to help, get an old Honda or something and convert to biodiesel

[gerbinator2009]

I have nothing against wind power or "greeness" and if you can provide an example of any company that produces wind power without government subsidies, and actually makes a profit, I will completely reverse my position.

[Pandonodrim]

Provide me with a single oil, gas, or coal company that produces power without government subsidies.

You can't - all energy companies get them - and they get FAR more than renewables do. Why should renewables not be given a level playing field? Why should we subsidize dirty energy and not clean energy?

[BeeNitz]

because corporations are in bed with legislation. duh. it's all corrupt and there's little we can do about it. and the only way for benevolent corporations (if there is such a thing) to get subsidies, etc. is to get in bed just like the dirty ones... lets just hope they don't get some nasty STDs in the process, become corrupt, and have super over paid executives funneling money away from R/D, where we need it... Hope y'all like my rant, 'cause it's the truth.

[Soldat251]

@Pandonodrim You are a fucking idiot. Nuke and wind plants get HUGE subsidies, far larger than fossil fuel plants do,

[Pandonodrim]

@Soldat251 No, you're the fucking idiot. Nukes and fossil fuels get far more than any renewable. I don't think nukes get as much as fossil fuels (mostly because fossil fuels still account for much more energy generation) but they both certainly get way more than renewables do. I'd post links to reports and charts but YouTube doesn't allow links in the comments. Just look it up yourself: "subsidies for energy by type" or something similar should get you all the graphs you need.

[killerbandit]

I see you don't know that the oil companies receive HUGE government subsidies, and the fossil fuel business is a century old. Solar and wind are just getting started.

Think of it this way, you still get to use a lot of your fossil fuels in order to manufacture green energies.... at least to start out with that is.

[gerbinator2009]

The point I am trying to make is this.

If wind power was profitable, businesses would do it without government subsidies.

That is the nature of the free market, if a businessman sees a good idea he thinks: "I could make some money doing that"

So far, the wind power business has been tied to politics and subsidies, so if the market hasn't done it yet on it's own, something tells me wind isn't profitable yet.

[realitas]

Profitability is contextual. Renewable energy will become profitable if harmful alternatives are discouraged. Would waste disposal be profitable if everyone was allowed to dump their rubbish in the local river?

[gerbinator2009]

Pigs will probably fly before I see Rachel do a bit on "Dressing Up Wind power."

Rachel, if you need it, here's some material.

1. Windmills are inefficient

2. Windmills don't make money.

3. Windmills are such a bad deal that the fed. has to pay people incentives to build them.

4. The pollution caused by building a windmill will only be cancelled out by the windmill's "greenness" if it stays running for 114 years.

Maybe MSNBC would report the other side of the issue someday. One can only hope

[IndianVampire]

1.) Windmills are more efficient than the coal-steam energy process

2.) Windmills aren't supposed to make money, they're meant to make energy, but the reason they don't make money is because of your third point.

3.) Incentives have always been necessary to incite drastic change. I'm sure feminism was such a bad deal to men, but we changed that, right? Racism, too.

4.) I have an idea, let's keep those windmills running for 114 years and see what happens. As a bonus, they'll give us electricity.

[ston932]

what ???? i did some research and found out that at our current energy prices a wind turbine will payoff after 0,8 years not 114 ! your off by an factor of 142. after 0,8 years you probably wont have amortized the environmental cost of the windmill but we I don't even want to get into the environmental cost of coal...

[IndianVampire]

I didn't do the research. But thank you. You proved my point. Gerber is wrong. I was arguing that even if it takes a million years, wind is better. Thanks.

[ston932]

it actualy was directed at gerbinator ^^ but yes its beter no mater what

[gerbinator2009]

Here's another OXY moron:

Profitable Windmills

The average windmill takes around a hundred years to generate enough energy to offset the original building costs. That means it will run for 100 years before making a single cent of profit. The reason government has to subsidize wind and solar energy is because it is such a crappy business proposal that no one is willing to lose that much money.

You can demonize coal all you want, but the fact remains:

Coal is actually profitable.

[dankru]

And here's another fact. You cannot eat money. If the planet dies we all die.

[gerbinator2009]

Well no, you can't eat money, but you can buy food with it.

And I agree, if the planet dies, we all die. I just don't think that coal is going to kill the planet.

Coal is made by the planet isn't it?

We've been burning it for hundreds of years and it's getting cleaner and more efficient every day. What makes you think that after hundreds of years of use, it is going to all of the sudden trigger armageddon?

[matt20030]

coal and oil, no difference at all whatso ever they are raw materials needed to produce stuff, and even if coal makes money coal dosnt last forever thanks to humans, it takes millions of years to make yet 100 to depleet, so while you will be pilling all the money on you, the day the coal runs out, u will be wishing u made the investment in wind power, or solar power. If coal is getting cleaner, then solar power is getting more efficient. And very soon before you know it your coal plan isfinished

[gerbinator2009]

I have nothing against wind power except that it is not profitable. YET.

I recognize that coal and oil will run out someday, but they haven't. Once coal and oil get rare, the price will increase. Once the price becomes higher than the price of wind power, it will make economic sense to make the switch. I have nothing against switching, but at the moment, the government is wasting money giving people incentives to switch, when there are still profits to be made from oil and coal.

[matt20030]

the sooner we change the beter. Its just like getting a vacination, you either take it nice and easy and get it over with or wait till the end and get it stabed in you. If we change now we can still use around 30% of coal and 70% alternative ( not nuclear power) power methods, then eventully when we can make these alternatives profitable we can totally stop on coal and fossil duel usage, thats my plan, not wait and see but go now but take it easilly, and voluntarilly, non subsidized.

[SmilingJack100]

@gerbinator2009 The issue is mainly that particulate pollution, acid rain, and climate change will be severe problems way before that happens, they already are serious, but we're not going to be extinctt, but with the abundance of coal, by the time it runs out those problems may, in fact, be that serious.

[IndianVampire]

I have read articles that say Clean coal is 10% cleaner and other articles that said it's 77% cleaner.

And there are such things as natural poisons. Shall we all ingest them and see how much money that makes us? Don't worry, I'm not an idealist. I know why we need money.

[SmilingJack100]

@gerbinator2009 1. Coal is made by the planet, this is irrelavant. 2. We're not saying that it's going to trigger armageddon, we're saying that the combination of deaths through particulate pollution, catastrophic dmage to agriculture and proipety due to global warming, and acid rain destruction of ecosystems WILL be a problem, and, to a great extent, already are. While they've made some progress on cutting down acid rain and particulates zero progress has been made on the climate change front.

[IndianVampire]

Please show me where you got this info.

For all of the claims you've made, too.

As far as I can tell, coal plants are like cars. Cars are on average 30% efficient. The majority of the power is lost to heat and it creates a byproduct that is environmentally detrimental. Wind, however, even if less efficient, produces no by product to create the energy. I actually have seen data saying wind is more efficient than cars, but whatever.

[seymourpackers49]

First -you're wrong. Rich got rich by working hard.

Second - Taking from the rich will get you exactly what it has gotten you in the past - nothing! Only an idiot that does not study history would think it would work.

By the way, Obama and Biden are wealthy. Check into their level of donations to charity compared to other wealthy Americans. I think you will be disappointed by what you find, in fact, I know you will.

[awerner2007]

Paris Hilton didn't get rich by working hard, being intelligent or anything else. SHE WAS BORN INTO IT!

I'm not gonna respond to any of your other points because Im to lazy to look them up in context but they look pretty ignorant.

[killerbandit]

You are under the mistaken assumption that money follows merit.

Once you earn a certain amount of money, accumulation of wealth becomes child's play.

Question - What point of time in the history of America would you consider the most prosperous? Think of it before you follow this next step....

Ready? Check the top marginal tax rate for that time in history. It is there for all to see on Wiki.

[Deadlytrick]

Obama? Why coal? WHY? Don't make me regret!

[iamandrewros]

YAY, OBAMA.

WOMP......

[terminalmf]

Wow, this is totally sick.

[Dutchoven08]

The "Clean Coal" (Orwelian) campaign was one of the most visible sponsors of the Democratic Natl Convention in '08.

While there, I saw the "Clean Coal" (diesel burning) Bus, tons of "Clean Coal Handouts like cardboard hand fans, matches, breath mints and shiny lapel pins.. All handed out by a small army of youthful hotties.

Perhaps they could market the F-22 Raptor or the "Reaper" remote-controlled missile launching jet in the same way. and call them "Peace planes"

Madison Ave- "USA #1"

[WisdomVendor]

wonder if she road a bicycle to work that day

[paulc206]

"road"? And yes, you sounding stupid does make me wonder if your argument is stupid.

[killerbandit]

Possibly, she is an evil liberal lesbian living in New York...

[Dorgatharn]

I love the coal.

[trauts01]

nothin like homophobic closet masturbators living the right wing dream of scientific denial to make one wonder the value of a sixth grade education.

[BellanGracie]

That's gold.

[sonofagunM357]

join reality?

Fuck reality, i have been to reality and i haven't liked it; it kicked me in the nuts and stole my money. Am not going back there again.

[sonofagunM357]

COAL