Hillary Clinton – the Jetset Climate Warrior

Green Pass

Nobody seems to mind, if a “Green” clocks up a lot of air miles.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

{video follows] Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton has raised consternation, after being filmed boarding a private charter jet, within hours of announcing a major Green policy initiative.

According to the Daily Telegraph;

Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign’s push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.

The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary’s ride was made in France.

The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.

And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.

On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it ‘one of the most urgent threats of our time.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176630/Video-shows-Hillary-Clinton-boarding-private-jet-just-hours-launching-global-warming-push-s-using-FRENCH-aircraft-burns-347-gallons-fuel-hour.html

And here is the video:

We at WUWT applaud politicians like Hillary Clinton, who lead by their example. In fairness, should be noted that the fuel used by Hillary’s private jet flight is only a shadow of the fuel the current President of the United States has burned, flying the petroleum guzzling Air Force One to attend important global warming engagements. Of course, these days, even owning an entire airline does not disqualify someone from being a planet saving eco-warrior.

Advertisements

130 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton – the Jetset Climate Warrior

  1. “That’s Creepy Weird” – Hillary Clinton Gives Climate Policy Speech In Empty Room With No Audience…

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/27/thats-creepy-weird-hillary-clinton-gives-climate-policy-speech-in-empty-room-with-no-audience/

    Here’s the AP report:

    (Via AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton is detailing new energy proposals in Iowa to address climate change. She calls global warming one of the “most urgent threats of our time.”

    But she’s still not taking a position on the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

    The Democratic presidential contender is proposing that every home in the United States be powered by renewable sources by 2027. Her plan calls for installation of 500 million solar panels over four years.

    Clinton laid out clean-energy ideas during a tour of a regional bus station in Des Moines, Iowa, on Monday.

    When asked about the Keystone XL oil pipeline opposed by environmental activists, she would not comment except to say she wants a State Department review of the project to run its course. (link)

    But what the media didn’t report, is the room for her speech was devoid of actual supporters, or the public, or, well, people.

    It was a campaign policy speech given to a room filled with nothing but bicycles.

    Weird.

    bike 1

    bike 2

    • In her defense, it’s an on-location recording studio. The bikes are props. She’s talking to the cameras. Let’s criticize her for things that she IS doing. Making up mokery like this just weakens the real points.

      • “an on-location recording studio” ??
        That makes it seem a little worse. So she had to fly to Iowa to find a recording studio for just a by-line location? They don’t have any studios in New York??

      • For what, access to Iraqi gasoline? That went really well, didn’t it?

        That wasn’t the objective, the political left’s howls to the contrary notwithstanding. The objective was to end a slo-mo genocide, remove the monster responsible (the sons were even worse, creepy worse) and establish a reasonable facsimile of democracy, insofar as possible, in the heart of the fertile crescent. Priceless. This has somehow held, so far, in spite of stunning subsequent mismanagement.

        Iraq is free to sell their oil to whomever they please. We came to liberate, not to conquer. We did and we didn’t. Makes me proud just thinking about it. Europe couldn’t even conceive such behavior was possible on the part of a superpower, because that’s how they utterly failed to behaved every dang time one of them had the power. But we are better than they are. Morally superior.

      • We had access to Iraq’s oil. There was no need to go to war to get what we already had.
        The claim that this was a war over oil is just another of then nonsensical absurdities that the left specializes in.

    • The Democratic presidential contender is proposing that every home in the United States be powered by renewable sources by 2027. Her plan calls for installation of 500 million solar panels over four years.

      Compared to the cost of the war in Iraq, this is chickenfeed. Suppose the panels cost $100 each — not a crazy estimate for “a panel” — and the amortized cost of the secondary electronics and installation is another $100. That’s 200 x 500 = 100,000 million dollars or 100 billion dollars — $25 billion a year. Iraq cost between $500 billion and a trillion, depending on how and who does the counting (and was hundreds of billions up front) for no benefit at all, really, only a long-standing economic burden we are still paying. For what, access to Iraqi gasoline? That went really well, didn’t it?

      Those 500 million solar panels generate (order of) 100 W each, with luck and a tail wind and clear sunny skies, for MAYBE 6 hours a day. Let’s be enormously generous and say 100 W and work out the duty cycle later. That 500×100 = 50 GW. That looks promising — it isn’t a TINY number, for sure. In our continuing sunny optimism, let’s assume a duty cycle of 6 hours/day at all 100 W, or 6×50 = 300 GW-hours per day. Electricity costs maybe $0.10 per kilowatt hour, so the cost/value of the electricity generated is ballpark of $30 million dollars a day, or around $0.10 per citizen. If we borrowed the money for this at current mortgage-like rates, using an online mortgage calculator at 30 year amortization, servicing the debt would cost $472,814,732/month. $30 million a day is $900 million a month, so this is at least as good an investment as buying a house. Indeed, one could pay it off at 4% interest rates in around 12 years.

      This is assuming that there is no drop in price in solar cells with that kind of demand, which is not reasonable. If they are acquired with genuine competition and not a protected supplier, and if it is even possible to ramp up production to 500 million units in only four years (not at all obvious) this kind of guaranteed demand should provide all sorts of economies of scale and drop prices by as much as 1/2 across the board.

      So I know people on list will hate it that I say this, but I think this is peachy keen great idea, in all respects but the “four years”. I don’t think it is possible to do it in four years no matter how much we try. World installed production in 2013 was less than 40 GW, and I doubt it is more than barely equal to 50 GW right now, and all of the largest producers in China for obvious reasons (not the least of which is our refusal to give solar panel manufacturers the kind of break they’d need to compete, or for us to develop e.g. Thorium so that we could co-mine the rare earths needed as a side effect).

      Still, I can’t see anything particularly terrible with this idea completely independent of what you think of CO_2. Doing it everywhere is likely dumb — it makes a lot more sense to concentrate it where the duty cycle is likely to be longer and the ROI greater. Doing at such high rates of demand that it sends the price of panels skyrocketing is equally dumb. But 12 year amortization — or less in volume with economies of scale — is not crazy no matter how you slice or dice it. There are far more fruitless ways to spend our collective money than for us to invest it in something that is clearly very competitive with current electricity at unsubsidized rates.

      If she combined it with a clear call to develop thorium as a power metal, and to open Monazite sand thorium mines that would give us both the metal itself and the Lanthanum etc that comes with it, I’d be so happy I might even vote for her, especially if the Republicans actually do self-destruct with its second reality show host candidate in a decade (Sarah Palin being the other). Although moving to New Zealand with my hands over my ears, babbling, remains an attractive alternative…

      rgb

      • “rgbatduke” Your numbers are far too generous. You must include much more than just PV solar cell panels. And please note with the losses associated with injection of distributed AC power on the synchronous power grid, 1/2 billion solar panels will supply less than 2.25% of U.S. baseload power generation needs yet cost over $175 billion with all supportive hardware including mounting, wiring, and low voltage DC to high voltage AC invertors; batteries not included. Please see my on-line article titled “The Green Mirage” and be sure to follow the link “Going Solar” in the Key Concepts box which addresses your calculations. At: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/

      • rgbatduke commented: “…. I think this is peachy keen great idea..”

        What a load of cr*p. Your back of the napkin attempt to show how this can all work is reminiscent of the usual environmental shoot-ready-aim claptrap that ends up with disastrous consequences and makes a few elite rich.

      • “markl & rgbatduke” Please see my on-line article titled “The Green Mirage.” Note the Key Concepts at the top. Follow the link titled “Going Solar” in the Key Concepts box. That is a detailed analysis of the physics, math and system engineering required to determine a grid wide solar only system for baseload power in the U.S based on today’s generation capacity. See: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/

      • Bah, it wasn’t just about the oil, panels are boutique preciosities, but yeah, could be Thorium.
        ============

      • Heh, the Huntress wasn’t one to blame all of climate change on man. How about you?
        ===============

      • Instead of complaining about the cost of the war ask instead why we have to spend it again?
        =============

      • How about panel lifespan? Cheap panels cloud up at about 5 years. Efficiency plummets like the Chinese stock market thereafter. So we will have the same cronies cashing in on yet another scam. Solar does have a few small niches as does other renewables but there are safety issues for fire personnel and grid issues with super-sizing some of these technologies.

        I have worked for years in the civil/electrical engineering sector, renewables and the fire service. At times hired by insurance companies to assist adjusters.

        Bad idea.

      • PV panel live expectances are in the 25 year range with power half lives defined as a function of the PV cell structure and substrate. Lithium ion batteries when used for storage have a life expectancy of 8 to 10 years.

      • Yes, and dirty power renewables always require additional fossil -fueled power to stabilize the grid. Seems like a net loss to me. The logic seems to be: Install more solar to produce dirty power- Install more fossil -fueled power generation to stabilize the grid. And as usual, offer the solar power so that those who install it receive a rebate, feed-in fee, or whatever you wish to call it. Then drastically raise electricity rates to reward those relative rich who receive subsidies, and thereby punish the poor by raising their electricity rates. And the end result is an increase in fossil fuel use and an economic punishing of the poor. Brilliant scheme to some I guess.

      • “rgbatduke” – Where are you planning to put 500 million solar panels – in your backyard and how many other backyards? How much land will be taken up, how many birds will be fried in capturing the solar power, who will be cleaning the panels? A “peachy keen great idea”???? Seriously – what are you smoking.? Its times like this and statements like this that shows how clueless this “green” concept is. Until you can show some actual insight into this area I would suggest you keep comments like this to yourself. On the other hand it provides some entertainment to those who have the ability to think critically.

      • RGB

        “Black also asks the question: “Can the UK run on 100% renewables with no baseload power. Maybe it could…” “

        http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/7/26/what-am-i-bid.html#comments

        And (pre coal) truth in this comment therein


        “Can the UK run on 100% renewables with no baseload power. Maybe it could…”

        Of course it can. It used to for many millennia.

        Would I want to live in a 100% renewable UK? Sure not.

        Jul 26, 2015 at 8:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol “

      • “I thought the power inverters alone are between 5 & 10 grand, each.”
        And then there are the deep cycle batteries. Let’s say a total of 6k in addition to rgb’s cost. There are about 125,000,000 households in the US. So now we are looking at close to a trillion dollars. But, hey, it cost more than that to save the US from the 2008 banking debacle, just money after all and to Hades with the resulting inflation from money print.

      • Intresting post , Dr. Brown ! Awfully expensive “chicken feed ” but I really like your last paragraph ….Perhaps your aim is so high things go over our heads…(8>))

      • 27 solar panels, one particularly foul winters day in Melbourne, 327 watts. Good luck heating your house, cooking your meals and keeping the lights on with that. Mind you it does have its good points, clear summers day I exported 37 kilowatts at 80 cents a pop. Great rort suckers.

      • rgb, you have got to be kidding. You forgot two very important costs that are recurring as long as the panels remain in place: 1) Removing/lowering the value of productive land, either as wildlife buffers, residential/business developments, or agriculture uses both under and near the panels. 2) Panel replacement, especially in high Sun areas, which also tend to be dusty and windy, scratching the surface requiring more frequent replacement than is already determined to be significantly less than a decade.

        Sorry. Your post appears to have missed the target.

      • We killed 10’s of thousands of terrorists, and until Obama abandoned the fight, we had Iran in a box.
        That’s hardly nothing.
        Regardless, those solar panels actually cause more harm than good, even if they were free, they wouldn’t be worth it.

      • The power inverters are between $5k and $10K. The batteries are at least that much, then you will have to pay several thousand dollars for an electrician to install it all plus the switches necessary to keep from electrocuting power line workers when the electicity goes off during the day. Plus the equipment needed to isolate both the panels and the batteries in case your house catches fire. Don’t want to electrocute too many firemen.

      • MarkW says: “The power inverters are between $5k and $10K.”

        Nope

        http://tandem-solar-systems.com/buy-solar-products/sma-sb5000tl-us-22/?gclid=CKDrl6Lv_sYCFc6PHwodaMYNew#tab-additional1

        MarkW says: “The batteries are at least that much, ”

        Nope, you don’t need batteries when you install a grid-tie inverter.
        ..
        MarkW says: “plus the switches necessary to keep from electrocuting power line workers when the electicity goes off during the day”

        Nope, grid-tie inverters automatically stop working when incoming power shuts down.

      • A 100-Watt panel will not deliver 6 hours peak-output/day – like a windmill – but 3 hours (1100 h/y) in moderate climate. In western Europe you can count yourself lucky then; in Switzerland less than 1000 peak-hours/y are normal until now (= 2 h 45 min full output per day). After a winter with solar-energy heating you are dead anyway.

      • Tomer, long time old pal.
        How is the fusion reactor project going?
        I am certain that your criticism of solar is still tied to your insistence that only fusion can ever meet our power needs.
        You may not remember me…last time we spoke was on a friends FB page last year, and you became very angry when I calculated how much land would be needed to generate all the electricity our country use every year.
        I am curious how is the research going…I still feel that fusion will be great…if it can be made to work.
        I have felt this way for several decades now.

      • “Menicholas” I have no idea who you are but see “The Green Mirage” on-line for calculations on needed surface area for solar collection of U.S. baseload power. Note the links to “Going Solar” in the “Key Concepts” box for a detailed description of how the numbers are calculated. If you have any questions about this work you can email me at tt@usclcorp.com or call at 916-482-2020. It would be helpful if you would identify yourself since you implied you know me. “The Green Mirage” is at: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/

      • The last time I bought 500 million units of anything, I did not have to pay the retail one-at-a-time price.
        But that was me, and I am real pain in the ass when I want to buy something you are selling.
        Flat screen TVs went down in price by a factor of ten by the time a few million units had been manufactured.
        Quantity reduces costs, it does not raise it.
        This idea may not have matured just yet, but it is getting closer.
        Making roofs out of solar modules seems likely to be more than feasible at present, and future improvements in efficiency and price will only make it more so.
        I was taken a bit off guard when I heard last year that solar panels have no off switch, and pose a hazard for fire fighters getting zapped, but this is readily solvable. A reusable cover that fire trucks carry with them that can be applied to mask the panels will solve this problem, as would some built in circuitry that breaks the circuit at key points to drop voltage below hazard levels would do the job.
        The best strategy, IMO, is keep an open mind, let people work on stuff they believe in, and we will see how it all shakes out.
        Just do not pick winners based on some model or theory…let the market forces dictate what energy mix the future holds.
        My guess is that solar will be very cost effective in a greater range of (but not all) circumstances going forward, and will continue to improve.

      • Rob,
        As an electrical engineer I am qualified in this area.

        You can’t compare solar power to grid reliability power, when an engineer looks at a power source it must be converted to a form that meets certain reliability criteria. Coal power is sufficiently redundant that it has 24x7x52 reliability at the designed output. To make solar that redundant you need to account for the part-time nature of it by adding batteries ( solar tends to generate power at the exact time you DON’T need it) and you must account for the minimum generation over a sensible petiod – usually 5 days, but you can scale to a day ( but the minimum generation is lower ). To create a baseload reliable power supply you will need something of the order of 25 – 30 times the nameplate capacity of the panel.

        To put it another way, if I wanted a kilowatt 24 x 7, then I’d need thirty kilowatts of panels and 24 kWh (2000 AH at 12V) of storage, because I need to store enough energy over the five hours to last a full 24 hours and on cloudy days solar produces only 20% of capacity. Including batteries and installation costs are therefore of the order of 50 times your estimate or somewhwre north of $5 Trillion. Then of course in the typical operating lifetime of a coal plant you will need to replace that solar plant 3 times – so over 60 years thats going to cost somewhere North of $15 trillion. So, how much do I need to spend to get that reliable 50 GW from a Nuke or Coal plant? I can say it’ll be a lot less than 15 trillion and it will take up a whole lot less space than the area of Hawaii.

        I have done the sums on this before so I can give you a rule of thumb – reliable 24 x 7 solar has an energy density of about 5 Watts per square meter so 50 GW of reliable solar needs 1e10 square meters of land tiled with solar panels. Thats 10000 square km or the area of Hawaii tiled with solar panels and batteries. I wonder how much it costs to buy Hawaii?

    • At least this way she doesn’t have to worry about anybody asking her embarrassing questions.

      • Back room Hillary presents her climate policies in a bike shop storage room, with no people present?
        Did she then jump on a bike or the big tour bus? Not elitist Hillary – She’s just another hypocritical FRENCH Jet Liberal who runs her mouth on the environment, but can’t walk the walk.

  2. She could win major “green” awards just by travelling via balloon… there’s obviously more than enough hot air coming from her campaign to have an entire FLEET of baloons!!

  3. With the losses associated with injection of distributed AC power on the synchronous power grid, 1/2 billion solar panels will supply less than 2.25% of U.S. baseload power generation needs yet cost over $175 billion with all supportive hardware including mounting, wiring, and low voltage DC to high voltage AC invertors; batteries not included. To learn more see my on-line publication “The Green Mirage” at: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/

  4. hey cut H a break, the Donald has a 757, which probably burns 1500 gal/hr. Then again, it probably takes that much the power the blow dryer to get the hair right.

      • It amuses the heck out of me that Trump thinks the scam was cooked up by the Chinese.

        I’ve said for years that I don’t know if Maurice Strong is in China rightly advising them or being advised of his rights.

        I also noted at the release of their Tibeten Tree Ring study that it was untouched by the hands of man.

        I’ve long suspect that the Chinese have figured out that global warming would be good for the Middle Kingdom, which in fact it is for the whole world overall.

        At any rate, cui bono? If not from the mild warming, if not from the miraculous greening, then at least for the splendiferous scamming.

        This is a point of view not hard to understand from the sort of Master of the Kasbah such as he is.
        ======

      • Yes, it is only the hypocrites that are tarred by this brush.
        Donald was not the one grandstanding for green energy.

  5. “The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.”
    I’m sorry, that piddly little toy plane does not qualify as “Trump-esque” in size. Does it have gold plated fixes? I think not!

    • At least he earned his money. Hillary and Bill require extremely large charitable contributions because they left the White House broke…/s

      • Oh come on, I suppose the H and B charity was inspired by the Eva Peron Foundation, all contributions strictly voluntary, no favors in return expected. The only little item is the Eva f did distribute sewing machines, cooking pots to the poor. I am not sure what the HBF does?

      • Trump earned most of his money via quasi ethical business relationships with various governments.

      • Key word there is earned.
        Bill and Hill earned theirs by pure cronyism. Donald used a more watered down version of cronyism.

  6. Yet she is still running a distant second in the Hypocrisy Derby to Fat Albert. Indeed, possibly well back in the pack, with so many contenders in the race.

  7. With someone protecting her with that huge umbrella, it looks like she can’t even take a few drops of rain.

  8. Anyone with an ounce of brain matter should understand that GHG emission reduction demands from the Liberal Elites only applies to the peasants. They understand their bequeathed children and grandchildren will needs those fossil fuels for their toys in 60 years.

    • Years ago someone put it bit more eloquently….”From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Hmm, where did that quote come from again?

      • Chapter 2 of the “Acts of the Apostles” (as in part of the New Testament as opposed to the SF book by that name).

      • Erik Magnuson
        July 28, 2015 at 10:01 pm

        Chapter 2 of the “Acts of the Apostles” (as in part of the New Testament as opposed to the SF book by that name).

        I suggest you look at that again.
        No one gave to the Government. They gave to the Apostles to give to those in need.
        It was completely voluntary. They wanted to help each other because they loved each other. No one forced them or told them they had to do it.

        PS In case you’re thinking of Acts 5 and Ananias and Sapphira, they sold something and gave some of the money but acted as if they gave it all. (Maybe they wanted to look good or gain prestige. That I don’t know.)
        Peter made it clear that to keep it or sell it was there choice. To give some or all or none of the money was their choice.
        Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Act 5:4 KJV)
        To pretend they gave it all was the wrong choice. They weren’t motivated by the love of God.

  9. Not Hill-o-beans only clueless act of the past 7 days. Late last week she made a speech claiming that her economic policies would undo the damage of the last 20 years, and return us to the prosperity seen during her husband’s administration. Funny thing is that if you go back 20 years that puts us right in the 3rd year of Bill’s 1st term. OK, how do you reconcile the time-line there.

  10. Do as I say, not as I do, in other words, hypocrisy! This is the “champagne socialist” elite at their very worst. It is a less extreme form of North Korea or the 1970’s USSR governments elite who ride around in big limousines, fly in helicopters and private jets. The peasants are kept in their “rightful”, forelock tugging place with no hope of aspiration because all senior posts in government are given to family members of existing grandees who are all “Yes” people. Those who disagree with the “consensus” have their wretched lives made even more wretched (or in North Korea, ended by firing squad).
    I am afraid that this is all too typical of the cult of AGW and we should expect nothing more. If anyone reading this thinks I am going OTT, there have been calls to make climate change d@nlal a capital offence, some lunatic suggested we “realists” should be forcibly tattooed.

  11. Do as I say,
    Not do as I do,
    Hillary Clinton one of many
    With a private aircrew,
    Who demonstrate their hypocrisy
    On the world stage;
    Practice what you preach
    Not a political adage!

  12. Just looking at the photo that’s similar to the older Falcon 50, and the real cost is about 6K per hour from the time the flight crew arrives, until the time they go home, plus variable costs, (fuel, fees). So by the time you leave Westchester County Airport, fly to Iowa, then back to New Hampshire, then back to Westchester you’re probably looking north of 100K … wow, that sure makes those 500K speeches look reasonable.

  13. Someone should give her a large mortar and pestle. She will know how to fly around in them.

  14. Most on the left are willing to give their elites a pass for being hypocrites. It’s almost as if they hunger for their own royal family to worship.

    It looks like Hillary needs to raise her speaking fees. $500,000 for a speech only allows her to rent that private jet for 3.5 days. However, if she wins, she will get unlimited use of Air Force One for free. She’ll be able to fly anywhere she wants, any time she wants, and her supporters won’t complain a bit because she is royalty to them, just like the Obamas and the Gores.

    • No one can stand to hear her talk. She is almost completely and utterly without an ounce of political charm or charisma.
      Her chances are near zero.
      You heard it here first…
      Bookmark this, and congratulate me later!

  15. Hillary needs a fast jet to stay miles ahead of the truth…….and to strafe climate science fact checks as directed by GreenPeace ground controllers.

  16. “We at WUWT applaud politicians like Hillary Clinton, who lead by their example.”

    As a tactic I’m starting to call this hypocritical behavior evidence that the “hypocrite” knows that CO2-Climate Change is Falsified..heh

  17. “Let them ride bicycles!!” Her High Herness, Hillary.Empress Elect of the United States of Hernia

  18. Green activists aren’t interested in changing their behavior.
    The are interested in coercively forcing you to change yours.

    • Reminds me of those who have one of those “Coexist” bumper stickers on their care. What most of them really mean is “You have to coexist with me. I don’t have to coexist with you.”

      PS Ryan S, they don’t just want to change our behavior. They change what we think. That some have values they don’t agree with is unthinkable.)

  19. Sillary is only ensuring her loss of those voters with enough common sense to see through obamascience and it’s political underpinnings.

  20. She’s still going to be the first Lady president of the USA.
    And her daughter will probably be the second.

    It’s the dynastic right to rule that you have over there.

    • Sorry M, gotta disagree in the strongest possible terms with you on this one…she does not have a snowballs chance on the senate floor of winning.
      For one thing, a party almost never wins three elections in a row.
      And by the time another year has gone by, there will be very few independent voters going with a D.
      And the independents are the ones in the middle who decide the elections.
      Lefties vote left, or stay home.
      Conservatives and those on the right wing vote right, or stay home.
      Neither has anywhere near a majority. Never have had.
      And there are more and more people who are not affiliating themselves with a political party.
      The wild card is a possible third party spoiler…but I do not think Trump would let himself become a Ross Perot-type stooge that hands the election to the one he was the most opposed to.
      I think there is a small chance that the Dems will lose so badly it may be the end of the Party.

  21. “Clinton pledged Monday that if she wins the presidency, she will make sure America has 500 million solar panels installed within 4 years……”

    500 million in 4 years? That will take some doing Hillary……

    If there is something wrong with my math here, anyone out there is free to correct me.
    Assuming 1 solar panel is produced every second X 60 seconds in a minute X 60 minutes in an hour X 24 hours in a day X 365 days in a year X 4 years = 126,144,000 panels. Considerably short of 500 million. That includes running the factories weekends and holidays—24 hours a day.

    Now, I don’t know how many solar panels are on U.S. roofs already or how many solar panels the world’s solar panel manufacturers can make in a day, but somehow I just don’t think this is going to be possible. And the average panel cost…..what, $2000? Where is that $252 billion+ going to come from Hillary?

    And she jets off somewhere in a private jet that probably puts out more CO2 in one flight than I put out in in 10 years. It’s called hypocrisy, and politicians are experts at it.

    Hilarious Hillary….makes me laugh every time.

      • Tomer:

        Thanks. As I understand it, the federal government’s EIA says that solar only provides about 0.4% of our electricity needs even though the solar panel has been around for 60 years now (invented in 1954). With that said, I have little doubt that your numbers are correct.

        Your piece is a powerful argument against those who believe in and are still pushing solar energy. Unfortunately, considering the way that they probably think, the facts in your piece are likely to just go in one ear and out the other.

        Thanks again.

      • Hi Tom,
        You might want to fix a typo: The number is 37.5 watts, averaged over 365 days, 24 days a year,..

    • Tomer:

      I know about your piece, thanks. I read it the last time you posted a link to it at this website. If you crunched your numbers correctly (and I can only assume that you did), then the idea of solar energy being a meaningful replacement for our fossil fuel and nuclear plants truly is a BIG joke.

      It’s really sad that the truth about this just isn’t finding its way to the American people.

      • Thank you. I assume you saw the two links at the top under key concepts and specifically “Going Solar.” That provides the background on the basic numbers. Our work…Barrie Lawson in the UK and me…has been reviewed by many Ph.D. scientists in different fields and a large number of grad students. The numbers are solid.

  22. It’s the fees. If global warming is killing the planet why are Hillary and Al charging hundreds of thousands of dollars in speakers fees to tell us this?

  23. YAWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Oh look , a leftist hypocrite. Gee, never seen one of those before.

    The two most fundamental tenets of being a Lefitist:
    1: Everything is about politics and the advancement of Leftist ideology.
    2: You must be a 100% stark raving mad, full metal jacket hypocrite to achieve # 1.

    Also, Leftists have no shame so it is pointless to try to shame them when they are caught being # 2

  24. A 757 with 250 seats burns around 5 gal/hour/seat on an 8-hour flight.

    A Harley gets about 35-40 mpg. A pickup truck gets about 18. A pickup truck carrying 5 people and 4 Harleys on a trailer still gets about 18 with the AC on. Numbers without a context don’t always support a conclusion.

    Regardless of niggling details, Hillary is an idiot who sees modern government as a top-down system of people management best left to elitists like herself who listen more to think tanks than the people she would like to lord over. She is hardly alone in this.

  25. “Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton has raised consternation, after being filmed boarding a private charter jet, within hours of announcing a major Green policy initiative.”
    ————
    hillary’s response: “What difference does it make?”

  26. In the words of Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds:

    “I’ll believe there is a climate crisis when the people who are telling me about the climate crisis act like there is a climate crisis”.

    That, and “I don’t want to hear another goddamn thing about my carbon footprint…”

    Which seems a bit more apt.

  27. I spent almost 30 years as a pilot flying people around in so-called “private jets.” (The ones I flew belonged to corporations.) I can attest that those aircraft are, in fact, a very efficient way to move people under many conditions, especially to and from places that are not served by the airlines.

    What I can’t stand is the idea that only people like Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and their ilk should be able to travel that way; all the rest of us should be content to drive our Nissan Leafs and SmartCars (or peddle our bikes) everywhere we go – while our “betters” look down on us from their Falcons and Gulfstreams. Gross hypocrisy.

  28. Al Gore and Hillary are effective only if they can reach the most voters possible in a given time frame and it is critical to the single-party system that they be effective. Therefor it is easily justifiable for both to use un-green transportation if the result is to reach as many sheep as possible for the purpose of convincing them to scale back their lives per Agenda 21 because their time is not as important (nor is their very existence) as Al and Hill’s. Or to put it more plainly, the policies of the greens cannot be adhered to by the greens if they are to be effective. Even more plain – time is short but there’s no end to the green-backs in the federal coffers. Greens who are sensitive to the needs of Gaia know and accept this as their grenade to fall on for the good of… well, something not involving future generations.

  29. Over $200 billion dollars has been syphoned away in the AGW-climate change scare by the AGW-climate change driven “Big Green Energy Scheme” (scam) and the Clintons and their “foundation” have been in the middle of it. The AGW-climate change “religion” is not based on solid transparent publicly discussed science. The IPCC models have been proved inaccurate time and time again. The preponderance of honest scientists now question the political motives of those pushing the (bogus?) AGW. The AGW scare resulted from the UN “Reo Accords” and morphed into “Agenda 21” and its related “Sustainability Movement” and has been promulgated by Al Gore, Tom Steyer, George Soros, John Podesta and the like; follow the money. To a large extent this is about bringing down America as the last remaining super power. The way to bring a country to its knees is to deprive its citizens virtually unlimited inexpensive energy and then implement energy controls. The UN’s goal is population reduction Malthusian style and they want to destroy global capitalism. See our website “The Green Corruption Files” to learn more at: http://fuelrfuture.com/the-green-corruption-files-archive/

  30. I see someone above thought that Mrs. Clinton’s idea might be peachy keen. Hmmmm.

    First, we know that whatever she says it will cost is a low estimate and the real cost will vastly exceed the estimate. It is the law of government projects.

    Second, the stealing of the money from the taxed for “their benefit” is aggression of the first rank. Morally repugnant.

    Third, The materials to make the panels may use up some rare metals. See the report from Yale …. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_technologies/2711/

    Forth. If the plan were solid, the market would provide the panels and people would buy them. There was no large government intervention needed to get people to buy smart phones.

    Fifth. Why the G.D. Hell would we make 1/2 Billion solar panels at enormous cost, inefficiency, graft, greed, corruption, and inevitable long delays when we could build thorium power plants? The US government prevents any real move on the safe, efficient, practical front but making getting approval a generation long process.

    Just announce that any government agency that stood in the way of cheap and safe thorium plants would be disbanded and poof the market would give you a “clean and green” answer to the power problem. (or just burn coal for the next few centuries while we think it over — coal is a known commodity)

    ~Mark

    • And water ( something we really cannot do without ) will be regulated in our area, I wonder if the Clinton’s and their ilk have water meters?

  31. The best thing about Hillary is that she does Leona Helmsley better than the original: Opulent lifestyle, obscene consumption, $100k+ speaking fees, only private jet travel, lies, deceptions, etc……. and she gets a pass on it all from the MSM! Adapting that famous Leona quote: “We don’t worry about carbon. Only the little people have to worry about carbon”. What a slime she is.

  32. Getting people to install solar panels is a great way to build a political constituency for renewable energy. Has worked well in Europe.

    Iowa, with both of its senators on-board the green energy bandwagon is one of the best places to campaign for renewables.

    Also panders to the “corn” gasoline crowd.

    • See “The Green Mirage” on-line for calculations on needed surface area for solar collection of baseload power. Note the links to “Going Solar” in the “Key Concepts” box for a detailed description of how the numbers are calculated. If you have any questions about this work you can email me at tt@usclcorp.com or call at 916-482-2020. Solar is totally inappropriate for baseload power and only works for homes when heavily subsidized by the government and the rate base. “The Green Mirage” is at: http://fuelrfuture.com/review-of-forbes-on-line-magazine-article-solar-energy-revolution-a-massive-opportunity/

      • Thanks for the article. You convinced after reading the “Key Facts” Then reading the majority of the artcle I just stopped, but one question, was it Elon Musk that started Tesla ( and did he not start PayPal ( Google was Zuckerberg. or am I mistaken?).

      • Elon Musk was one of the original 3 PayPal founders. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin; later joined and run by Eric Schmidt. Facebook was founded by Mark Zuckerberg.

    • @ John, that is a great question that I always ask from people that are “greens/ warmists etc., I never get an answer other then oh but we can re-use them (solar panels), my next question how are you going to and what type of energy are you going to use to do that?
      Silence.

  33. Hillary loves government power. Any justification for more government power is fully embraced. What none of these fascists believe in is the free market. The free market would probably result is much more efficient production and utilization of energy resources. There is no evidence that all the government meddling and regulation for the last 40 years has done anything to change the climate or conserve energy. What would be a major change for the better is to start shutting down the bloated government piece by piece.

  34. I’ve got an even better idea; 500 million hamster farms with billions of hamster wheels hooked up to produce electricity. Hey, it’s “green” energy innit?
    Seriously, though, Hillary’s ideas are not just crazy; they are batshit crazy.

Comments are closed.