Al Gore uses 18,400 kWh of electricity per month?

[DasBoot]

You write this:

Yeah, sure he is. He has built a huge house that consumes a huge amount of energy. But that's OK, he is "special" and justified in consuming enormous amounts of energy that contribute more to the global warming problem than the average joe's house

Only a lib could twist it to deduce this:

You don't have a problem with people being rich in America, do you?

Unless that was tongue in cheek.

If you are spearheading ANY type of movement, regardless of it's political/sociological/philosophical message, I don't think anyone can argue that your lifestyle should embrace the ideals of that movement.
If not, than "hypocrite" is quite applicabe.
If you are admonishing everyone else for their wonton use of fossil fuel, yet you choose to drive SUVs and use private jets, well, how intellectually honest are you?

 

[Fremmer]

Not at all. I just have a problem with those who contribute to the purported global warming problem by occupying an enormous house that requires enormous amounts of energy to build, maintain, and heat, who fly around in jets constantly, and who blame everyone else for destroying the environment by....using too many resources and energy.

Yeah, I'm sure he's thrown up some solar panels and has a windmill or two up. It doesn't change the fact that his house consumes tremendous amounts of energy -- while, at the same time, he is telling everyone what a terrible problem we have because we consume too much energy. Stated otherwise, he is a hypocrite.

According to Gore's spokesperson:

Gore, who owns homes in Carthage, Tenn., and in the Washington area, has said he leads a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, Kreider said.

I gotcha. So it is acceptable to emit enormous amounts of carbon emissions if one is wealthy enough to invest money in other "projects to reduce energy consumption." Like movies. And speeches. Glad to know that.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Nobody was laughing at his message, just at him.

Untrue. You may only have been laughing at him, but there are always those weak-minded enough to suddenly disregard his message because of a perceived personal hypocrisy.

Just because the oil companies were conscientious enough to do their own investigation, doesn’t make their message any less valid.

There ! That’s an example of a properly applied “any less valid” comment. See the difference ?

Hmm...a somewhat interesting point. Of course, the way I look at it oil companies doing their own investigation isn't so much "conscientous" as "in their own self-interest," and that self interest could very well color any research that comes out of it. Al Gore has little personal stake in making you believe in climate change; he gets paid if you listen, not so much if you care/believe. Oil companies, on the other hand, desperately need you to not care/believe.

And I'm not necessarily trying to say that the scientists who work for, say, oil companies are wrong because they work for oil companies...just that their evidence is less compelling because of it (due to a percieved self-interest being a good explanation for contrary results) especially in the face of the evidence for human-caused climate change gathered by the bulk of scientists in the field who have less percieved self-interest. I mean, neither side is correct simply because they're scientists anyway. It's about the preponderance of evidence.

But seriously, good point...made me think and was actually worth replying to.

Excellent analogy ! In more ways than one, considering Gore’s gun-banning past.

How does his gun-banning past relate to climate change? It was also a horrible analogy because Gore never really claimed to do anything but fund and advocate for the internet. The only people using the word "invent" were his opponents. But I already covered that at length, and if you don't already get it then you may well not have the capacity to.

Here's an easy one. People are getting downright crazy over this, and I'm sure I'll get flamed too! How about, you guys ready?....drum roll..... He just practices what he preaches. Very simple. If you want people to listen to you start being a role model. He isn't a role model. I dont care what he's doing to fix the problem. The fact is he's DOING it.

I mean, would you let Ted "I wasn't driving drunk that night" kennedy lecture you about honesty? or, better yet, Consuming alcohol in AA responsible manor?

Come on Juan, I know you have a retort. Hit me

I already retorted. He does practice what he preaches. Read any one of my lengthy responses for more info. You don't become worthy of your own response simply because you've parrotted what others have already said.

Care to actually reply to any of the responses I've already made to your comment? Any points to make regarding carbon neutrality, "green" energy credits, carbon credits, the ability to mitigate environmental impacts outside of strict energy conservation, etc? Or was the bulk of what you had to add here "yeah! me too!"

 

[JuanCarlos]

Not at all. I just have a problem with those who contribute to the purported global warming problem by occupying an enormous house that requires enormous amounts of energy to build, maintain, and heat, who fly around in jets constantly, and who blame everyone else for destroying the environment by....using too many resources and energy.

Yeah, I'm sure he's thrown up some solar panels and has a windmill or two up. It doesn't change the fact that his house consumes tremendous amounts of energy -- while, at the same time, he is telling everyone what a terrible problem we have because we consume too much energy. Stated otherwise, he is a hypocrite.

If the bulk of the power for his house comes from renewable/clean resources (which it does), then it's quite possible that the environmental impact of his house is less than yours or mine. And he doesn't simply say we have a problem because we consume too much energy, but rather the bulk of the problem is the kind of energy we are consuming. If I leave a light bulb on all day that is fed by solar power, it's not really "wasting" anything. The sun was shining anyway. If that same light bulb is fed by coal, it's a huge waste...coal that otherwise would not have been burned has to be. If you're going to suggest that he should conserve "green" power so that it can be used by others in place of "dirty" power, I've already answered that...so please reply to my reply, so that I don't need to simply repeat myself.

Also, while he may occupy the house he didn't build it. You already looked foolish when I pointed this out the first time, do we really need to go over it again? So by taking what would otherwise be a large, inefficient house and renovating/retrofitting it to be more efficient, he's also creating a net positive. The house would likely still be there and be occupied either way, no?

As for jets, already answered. If his flying around actually helps reduce emissions by orders of magnitude more than it emits, then it's a net positive (huge one, actually) and the environmental impact of his one specific jet is negligible in comparison.

I gotcha. So it is acceptable to emit enormous amounts of carbon emissions if one is wealthy enough to invest money in other "projects to reduce energy consumption." Like movies. And speeches. Glad to know that

So you really do just have a problem with people being wealthy and enjoying it? The bulk of his electricity comes from non-carbon-producing sources (wind, solar) and what's left comes from relatively clean and renewable sources (such as recaptured methane). Heating his house, assuming it's done with gas, produces some emissions...as does his jet and occasional SUV ride. So to balance this out, he spends large amounts of his own money to offset this.

So he goes to great lengths/expense to reduce his carbon emission, and then to greater expense to offset what emissions he does cause. So while still enjoying his wealth, he attempts to do so in a way that is responsible and with minimal impact to the environment.

Oh, and this is before we get into the general advocacy and trying to get a majority of people to do the same.

And this is not practicing what he preaches? This is being a hypocrite?

 

[invention_45]

As for Al Gore claiming to have "invented" the internet, I'm sure this accusation comes from the same crowd that puts the statements of others in their own words and then jumps up and down in a straw-man flap.

Just like back when the claim was that the Beatles said they were "better" than Christ, resulting in much album burning (I was in Mobile AL at the time, so I saw it), when in fact what they said was that they were "more popular" than Christ. The meaning of what they said was simply that more people knew who they were.

 

[Fremmer]

The bulk of his electricity comes from non-carbon-producing sources (wind, solar) and what's left comes from relatively clean and renewable sources (such as recaptured methane).

I'd like to see a source for that. I don't think that the bulk of his electricity comes from renewable energy sources. But even if it does, the reason that most of us don't use solar/wind/methane gas to power our homes is simple: we can't afford it. It cost too much to add that stuff to a house (at least, for an "average" person).

Not to mention we don't want to contribute to the global warming that is caused by the amount of energy required to manufacture solar panels.

Nah, I smell a rat here. Ol' Al doesn't practice what he preaches.

If his flying around actually helps reduce emissions by orders of magnitude more than it emits, then it's a net positive (huge one, actually) and the environmental impact of his one specific jet is negligible in comparison.

I have no idea what that means. Not surprisingly, since I already look foolish for stating that he occupies his house. Regardless, if he is truly concerned about global warming, he would use video-conferencing or other means of communication instead of destroying our planet by flying around in a terrible, dirty, unclean, fuel-comsuming-gas-emitting jet to make personal appearences for the purpose of lecturing everyone else about how they shouldn't, inter alia, fly around in jets.

 

[cje1980]

Juan Carlos you don't understand economics. It isn't ok to use all the energy you want as long as it is some form of green power. This increases demand for green power and thus sets pricing higher. This makes it harder for average people to acquire green power and keeps the price for conventional power lower. If you're ultimate goal is to encourage others to use forms of green power then its probably not a good idea to use 10-20x more electricity than others. I just drove through California the other day and I don't what is worse, air pollution or visible pollution. There was wind-mills all over the darn place. The problem with wind mills is that they have to be in very visible places such as on open plains or on mountain tops. I'm an avid hiker and mountaineer and I don't want wind mills all over the mountains that I climb. Wind mills also don't support lavish electricity consumption behavior such as Mr. Gore's. The more he uses, the less that is available to others. Now that is basic economics.

 

[NukeCop]

Juan, its not that Im parroting what others have said. It's that I agree with them. Why can't you accept that in order to provide some sort of guidance, you need to be a respectable person. Mr. Gore, sadly enough,for you anyway) is a pi$$ poor role model. He doesn't practice what he preaches at all. What he does indeed do is COMPENSATE. He knows what he's doing is wrong. So he dumps money into the "green" idea.

COMPENSATE:
adjust for; "engineers will work to correct the effects or air resistance"

make amends for; pay compensation for;

"She was compensated for the loss of her arm in the accident"
cover: make up for shortcomings

good qualities; "he is compensating for being a bad father"

right: make reparations or amends for;

Al Gore=:barf:

 

[JuanCarlos]

Juan Carlos you don't understand economics. It isn't ok to use all the energy you want as long as it is some form of green power. This increases demand for green power and thus sets pricing higher. This makes it harder for average people to acquire green power and keeps the price for conventional power lower. If you're ultimate goal is to encourage others to use forms of green power then its probably not a good idea to use 10-20x more electricity than others.

...

Wind mills also don't support lavish electricity consumption behavior such as Mr. Gore's. The more he uses, the less that is available to others. Now that is basic economics.

Wrong, wrong, oh so utterly wrong.

As it is, basic economics suggests that since renewable power sources (wind, solar, etc.) are more expensive to produce than conventional "dirty" power (coal, oil) then the demand will be low and thus less will be produced. Demand for "green" power being low will not mean lowered price, because A) there is a substitute, "dirty" power and B) there is a bare minimum cost to supply.

I mean this is 101 level economics. Did you sleep through that day?

Unless people willingly pay more for "green" power, it will simply not be produced (in other words, more capacity will not be developed). People like Gore stepping up and being willing to pay excessive amounts leads to increased willingness of suppliers to supply, and thus development of capacity. Capacity which will remain after Gore is no longer buying it (due to installation of person supply), thus in the long run lowering the prices for other consumers.

I'd like to see a source for that. I don't think that the bulk of his electricity comes from renewable energy sources. But even if it does, the reason that most of us don't use solar/wind/methane gas to power our homes is simple: we can't afford it. It cost too much to add that stuff to a house (at least, for an "average" person).

Already linked the source. Or are you not actually reading the posts in the thread? It's only two pages long. Go back and find it, I'm not linking it again to positively reinforce your negative behavior.

Gore pays what appears to be roughly 50% more for his power in order to purchase it through the local utility's "green power" program. The bulk of this, from what I understand, is produced by wind and solar with additional power produced by recaptured methane (from a waste treatment plant, IIRC). So renewable, and what little portion isn't carbonless still produces less carbon that burning coal or oil.

As for your last couple sentences...so you just don't agree with people being allowed to enjoy their wealth in America? It appears that he makes a concerted effort to do so in a relatively environmentally responsible way.

Not to mention we don't want to contribute to the global warming that is caused by the amount of energy required to manufacture solar panels.

I saw the smiley, so I know you were at least half-joking. But the way I see it Gore's conspicuous consumption of energy is leading to an increase in capacity of non-dirty energy. This admittedly does often require the use of "dirty" energy to produce (the construction of wind farms, solar panels)...but these will replace dirty capacity and continue to produce without significant further input long after Gore has taken further measures to reduce his consumption. So in the long run, even the moderate run, the emissions caused by the construction of the "green" capacity to feed Gore's insatiable need for power today will be more than offset by the emissions that increased capacity pulls out of the air five years from now.

I have no idea what that means. Not surprisingly, since I already look foolish for stating that he occupies his house. Regardless, if he is truly concerned about global warming, he would use video-conferencing or other means of communication instead of destroying our planet by flying around in a terrible, dirty, unclean, fuel-comsuming-gas-emitting jet to make personal appearences for the purpose of lecturing everyone else about how they shouldn't, inter alia, fly around in jets.

Video conferencing is not as compelling or convincing as actual live speaking engagements. As far as the whole "orders of magnitude" thing, I'll illustrate with numbers that are (admittedly) pulled entirely from my rear end.

Gore's jet emits X amount of carbon flying him to a speaking engagement. His appearance there indirectly reduces carbon emissions by 100X. Already we're looking at a net positive. Say Gore could only cause .1X or .05X to be emitted by flying commercial. Reasonable, I'm thinking, considering that while they carry more people they are also bigger jets and carry more luggage as well...but to be honest I have no idea about fuel consumption of a Gulfstream compared to a 747...regardless of this ratio, my argument will still hold though. Anyway, the extra .9X amount of carbon saved is negligible compared to the 99X already saved. Even more so if he participates in other programs and takes other actions to offset this emission anyway. Hence, enjoying his wealth while trying to do so in an environmentally responsible way.

Is this making sense?

Juan, its not that Im parroting what others have said. It's that I agree with them. Why can't you accept that in order to provide some sort of guidance, you need to be a respectable person. Mr. Gore, sadly enough,for you anyway) is a pi$$ poor role model. He doesn't practice what he preaches at all. What he does indeed do is COMPENSATE. He knows what he's doing is wrong. So he dumps money into the "green" idea.

That's fantastic that you agree with them...but I already knew that. But repeating what they said, and then asking me for a retort when I've already responded to what they said, is somewhat silly, no? Perhaps even a bit stupid?

Putting words in all caps and substituting dollar signs for s's doesn't make your argument any more compelling. Also, I'll see your "compensate" and raise you an "offset:"

off·set (ôf'sĕt', ŏf'-) pronunciation
n.

1. An agent, element, or thing that balances, counteracts, or compensates for something else.

Yeah, "compensate" is in there. So is "counteract" and "balance." The main difference is just which way you're trying to spin it. Also, offsetting these emissions is not an admission that what he is doing is "wrong," per se. It's simply an acknowledgment that his actions create negative externalities that he then takes action to offset.

 

[NukeCop]

Ok a lil OT here, but Juan, really. I use the $'s because I would like to keep the thread open and clean. I do not want them locking it for some inappropriate words. Suggesting I'm stupid? lmao, nice touch, also.

Did you get beat up often in High school?

 

[cje1980]

No I'm not wrong. You are mostly right in that green power is more expensive thus the demand is low. The price mechanism does determine demand in economic theory. The reason the price is high is because there is a limited supply of it and the high price keeps people from buying it all. However when high rollers such as Al Gore consume massive amounts of an already limited supply it increases the price even more. This makes purchasing green power simply not an affordable option. You are wrong in that customer demand has a direct response to price. When more of a supply is demanded the price is raised not lowered. Companies offering services or products set their prices in order to control demand. In other words if you have limited supply of something you have to keep prices high in order to maintain a supply. So maybe if Al Gore bought massive amounts of green power then just stopped using it it could create more affordable green power for the rest of us but that is utopian thinking.

Maybe it would work if Al Gore bought like 50 mansions and used 200,000 kWh of electricity of green power each year per residence and then suddenly started using conventional power. Sure this would create a higher supply and then a massive drop in demand ultimately lowering prices. But you see I was right in saying that by Al Gore's actions he is actually encouraging people to remain using conventional power. Since there is a cheaper alternative people will typically go with the more affordable option. He is merely jacking up the price of green power making conventional power look even better.

Wrong, wrong, oh so utterly wrong.

As it is, basic economics suggests that since renewable power sources (wind, solar, etc.) are more expensive to produce than conventional "dirty" power (coal, oil) then the demand will be low and thus less will be produced. Demand for "green" power being low will not mean lowered price, because A) there is a substitute, "dirty" power and B) there is a bare minimum cost to supply.

I mean this is 101 level economics. Did you sleep through that day?

Unless people willingly pay more for "green" power, it will simply not be produced (in other words, more capacity will not be developed). People like Gore stepping up and being willing to pay excessive amounts leads to increased willingness of suppliers to supply, and thus development of capacity. Capacity which will remain after Gore is no longer buying it (due to installation of person supply), thus in the long run lowering the prices for other consumers.

 

[JuanCarlos]

EDIT: Actually, screw that. I'll just let DasBoot and NukeCop's words speak for themselves...

Did you get beat up often in High school?

WOW!
Subliminally I was thinking that, but didn't realize it till you said something!!!
His own words explain everything:

So yeah, I'm a liberal politically correct idiot

That pretty much sums up ANYTHING coming out of his mouth!

So is this the level of debate and discourse to be expected at TFL? I mean, tossing somebody a jab when they actually say something stupid is one thing....but come on. This is some elementary school crap.

Also, do the mods here ever consider actually banning people like this instead of just locking the thread? Because that just encourages them to crap on them.

No I'm not wrong. You are mostly right in that green power is more expensive thus the demand is low. The price mechanism does determine demand in economic theory. However when high rollers such as Al Gore consume massive amounts of an already limited supply it increases the price even more. This makes purchasing green power simply not an affordable option. You are wrong in that customer demand has a direct response to price. When more of a supply is demanded the price is raised not lowered. Companies offering services or products set their prices in order to control demand. In other words if you have limited supply of something you have to keep prices high in order to maintain a supply. So maybe if Al Gore bought massive amounts of green power then just stopped using it it could create more affordable green power for the rest of us but that is utopian thinking.

The demand caused by "high rollers" has absolutely nothing to do with making green power not affordable for the average Joe. At this point in green power generation, the increased price is due pretty much entirely to the increased cost to supply and the large initial outlay to build capacity.

Put simply, green power producers are not having much trouble meeting the demand for their power, they're having trouble finding people willing to pay more for it in the first place. Basically, because of the availability of substantially cheaper and near-perfect (to most people) substitutes, if you were to draw a supply and demand curve for green power the demand curve might not actually reach the supply curve [EDIT: You do realize this is possible, right? I mean, Veblen goods aside, I cannot produce diamond-encrusted toilet seats at a price people would be willing to buy them for]. The only way any green power is currently produced, basically, is either through government subsidization or individuals personally motivated to pay the extra. It's not about him crowding you out of the green power market, it's the fact that the cost of green power (which, at present, cannot be significantly reduced) prices it out of your range.

So maybe if Al Gore bought massive amounts of green power then just stopped using it it could create more affordable green power for the rest of us but that is utopian thinking.

This is exactly what he's doing. He's buying a lot now, while renovating his home so that he'll need less in the future. In addition, he could quite possible die before whatever extra capacity was built to meet his needs stops producing. So at worst, a tiny positive effect. But a tiny positive is still not negative, no?

 

[DasBoot]

Did you get beat up often in High school?

WOW!
Subliminally I was thinking that, but didn't realize it till you said something!!!
His own words explain everything:

So yeah, I'm a liberal politically correct idiot

That pretty much sums up ANYTHING coming out of his mouth!

 

[SecDef]

Bush lives in the white house, shall we compare his power consumption? When he moves full time back to his ranch, do you really think he uses no electricity?

If the only problem you guys have is that Gore is touting global warming, then so be it.. leave it at that and make scientific arguments. If your entire argument is hypocrisy, then show how what Gore does is NET against what he is saying.

Don't be children, though. At least come up with some creative insults!

 

[DasBoot]

Must be the sensitive type!

 

[SecDef]

I didn't realize that the point of the forum was to throw around insults without even having a point.

In that case, you are doing a fabulous job, keep it up! I'm sure the moderators will give you a gold star!

 

[JuanCarlos]

I didn't realize that the point of the forum was to throw around insults without even having a point.

Seriously. The Laws of Internet Forums(TM) generally suggest that it's okay to insult somebody, but generally only if you're actually contributing to the discussion at the same time and preferably only in a way that relates to their point.

In that case, you are doing a fabulous job, keep it up! I'm sure the moderators will give you a gold star

No, they'll lock the thread and just wait for him to crap on the next one. Then lock that one, too. Seems to be the way it works here more often than not, at least here in L&P in any threads that aren't the basic pro-gun circle-jerks (not that being pro-gun is bad, of course, just that when everybody more or less agrees usually nothing interesting follows). I mean, I'd feel bad about the derail here except that once a couple of these guys show up the thread is as good as dead and any interesting discourse is probably over anyway.

 

[Camp David]

If the only problem you guys have is that Gore is touting global warming, then so be it.. leave it at that and make scientific arguments. If your entire argument is hypocrisy, then show how what Gore does is NET against what he is saying.

Let me reply...

Gore sets himself up by advancing the cause of the global warming theory and telling us citizens to do our part to conserve... in the most blatant act of hypocrisy we find out that this Gore guy uses 10 times more electricity that the average guy in just one of his homes! As an excuse, he postures that he buys something called 'carbon credits' which seem to me to be the height of absurdity... Either conserve or don't conserve... these 'carbon credits' sound like the Church selling indulgences; you know how that worked out? It's hypocrisy, pure and simple... This Gore is not at all interested in conserving electricity or he would have done that already... Worse... today we hear that Gore is installing solar panels on his home and advises others to do the same! You know the cost of solar panels? You know how much energy is used to manufacture solar panels? Gore also postures that he buys something called "green power"! Another wealthy dodge I think!

I know of lots of honest men that reduce their imprint on the earth by using less paper, less electricity, and less fuel. Generally they don't get their name in the paper or anything fancy. Democrat Gore is not a part of this group.

Two months ago I heard that an outfit was going to build a massive wind farm off the Massachusetts coast, which would enable state residents to get cheap electricity and help our environment. Know what happened to this great ecological idea? Shot down by another Democrat, Ted Kennedy.

Don't trust Gore. He is a snake oil salesman using global warming, and the environment, as a stepping stool to his own fame... he has zero interest in helping the earth, except that part of the earth where his money is stored.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Gore sets himself up by advancing the cause of the global warming theory and telling us citizens to do our part to conserve... in the most blatant act of hypocrisy we find out that this Gore guy uses 10 times more electricity that the average guy in just one of his homes!

It's 20 times...at least comparing household to household.

Of course, assuming he can reduce the carbon emissions he causes by spending more money instead is this a bad thing or necessarily hypocritical? He's still working toward the same end goal (combatting global warming) just enjoying his wealth at the same time.

I've asked before, I'll ask again...is it the fact that he's enjoying wealth that(presumably) none of us have that is the issue here?

As an excuse, he postures that he buys something called 'carbon credits' which seem to me to be the height of absurdity... Either conserve or don't conserve... these 'carbon credits' sound like the Church selling indulgences; you know how that worked out? It's hypocrisy, pure and simple...

The wealthier among us live more lavish lifestyles. In many ways, not just in energy consumption. Why should energy consumption be any different? If he has the money to theoretically offset his use, I don't see the issue personally.

This Gore is not at all interested in conserving electricity or he would have done that already... Worse... today we hear that Gore is installing solar panels on his home and advises others to do the same! You know the cost of solar panels? You know how much energy is used to manufacture solar panels? Gore also postures that he buys something called "green power"! Another wealthy dodge I think!

Last I checked the energy we get out of solar panels greatly outweighs the energy put in...let's see what wikipedia has to say:

Greenhouse gases
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions [for photovoltaics] are now in the range of 25-32 g/kWh and this could decrease to 15 g/kWh in the future; though, this is speculative. [14] For comparison, a combined cycle gas-fired power plant emits some 400 g/kWh and a coal-fired power plant with Carbon capture and storage some 200 g/kWh. Nuclear power emits 25 g/kWh on average; only wind power is better with a mere 11 g/kWh.

So almost definitely a net positive over the lifecycle of the cells. Heck, it looks like at that point the carbon emissions from production could be offset in a matter of a few short years. I still like nuclear better, but I think distributed photovoltaics aren't a bad idea for us to move forward with.

Also, what does the cost (in dollars) of solar panels have to do with anything? He's got money, that's long since established. I've still yet to hear a decent argument on why him spending it in this way is bad, or runs counter to his principles.

And "something called" green power? Do you just not know anything about the program, or was it an attempt to make it sound either insignificant or malicious? Either way I think I've replied to this one...it's a program that creates economic incentive for the expansion of alternative energy capacity, and nearly a third of Gore's bill goes to this program.

I know of lots of honest men that reduce their imprint on the earth by using less paper, less electricity, and less fuel. Generally they don't get their name in the paper or anything fancy. Democrat Gore is not a part of this group.

I'd still like to see Gore's usage in comparison to others of similar wealth/stature. I'd wager it's less, and his imprint almost certainly is. Is calling him "Democrat Gore" supposed to carry any weight? I mean, I know this is a firearms forum and Democrats are pretty universally reviled...but I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand. And regardless, it's not like he's even in office anymore so his party affiliation means less than it did then.

At least the last guy bought up his record with regards to firearms...more substantial, at least, though no more relevant.

Two months ago I heard that an outfit was going to build a massive wind farm off the Massachusetts coast, which would enable state residents to get cheap electricity and help our environment. Know what happened to this great ecological idea? Shot down by another Democrat, Ted Kennedy.

And again, I don't much care that Kennedy is a Democrat, I generally dislike him regardless. Our Democrat governor has taken the initiative in getting some wind power capacity installed here (invented wind farms olol!!!1!!1!). So how does that effect things?

 

[invention_45]

This makes purchasing green power simply not an affordable option. You are wrong in that customer demand has a direct response to price. When more of a supply is demanded the price is raised not lowered. Companies offering services or products set their prices in order to control demand

You are confusing a commodity with capital. Oil is a commodity like electricity. When you make the electricity, you use up the oil.

"Green power" is not a commodity. It is capital. It is equipment. Once manufactured and installed, sunlight replaces the oil. The solar panels are simply the conversion device, and replaces the capital now owned by power companies.

So buying the capital equipment to convert the free commodity of sunlight into electricity is like buying electric motors or any other durable good. Bigger demand means bigger production. Bigger production leads to a lucrative market. A lucrative market attracts competitors. Competitors drive down prices. They can do this because a healthy demand funds R&D that leads to lower manufacturing costs and higher efficiency solar cells (better products).

I don't know squat about economics, but I can see THAT.