American Elephants


Obama Declares a “War on Energy,” The People Lose. by The Elephant's Child

Germany is getting out of the solar business entirely. As a northern country, Germans have always had a romantic attachment to the sun, but it is just not working out. They were a major pioneer in solar energy. In mid-June, Siemens announced it was winding down its solar division with a plan to shut it down completely by next spring. Siemens bought the Israeli company Solel in the belief that market growth would be rapid. They lost around one billion euros. Bosch announced their withdrawal from the solar cell and solar module market in March. Private investors absorbed the greatest losses on the stock exchange.  Germany’s Solar World and Q-Cells with other solar companies lost tens of billions in capital investment.

The United Kingdom’s new analysis of government and industry figures revealed that every UK wind industry job is effectively subsidized to the tune of £100,000 per year. In some cases it goes up to £1.3 million per job. In Scotland with its 230 onshore windfarms, the figure is £154,000 per job.

With the discovery of the world’s biggest shale deposit in Britain in the Bowland shale basin with an estimated 2,281 tcf, just 10% of Bowland Shale would equal 130 billion cubic feet — or about 50 years of total UK consumption. And there are other shale deposits.

The energy situation is constantly changing with new discoveries and governments are having a hard time keeping up. Obama has declared a “War on Coal,”  but U.S. experts say it would take decades to develop enough capacity from other fuel sources to supplant coal. Brett Harvey, chief executive of Consul Energy Inc., which produces both coal and natural gas, said he doesn’t think Mr. Obama’s climate proposal aligns with “energy realities.” Oddly enough,  America is exporting wood pellets to Europe. And if Texas were a country, it would be one of the 15 largest oil producers in the world. Output has doubled in less than 3 years.

Obama’s biggest energy nightmare is, of course,  the Keystone XL pipeline. Unions badly want the pipeline built, for it means lots of high paying jobs, and Obama’s environmental backers want the pipeline halted permanently — just because. Obama wants to take back the House in the 2014 elections, and everything is directed to those ends, so he will attempt to stall, suggesting to each group that they will get their way “after the election.” The American people may need jobs, but that need is trumped every time by campaign money. Obama’s guiding rule is the permanent campaign. If he cannot win back the House in 2014, he will not get the legacy he wants. But his climate program does not align with energy realities, nor with climate realities.

Carbon dioxide is a natural fertilizer, it makes plants grow and is greening the planet. Plants need less water with the increase in carbon dioxide. This means more food for the world. Obama’s War on Energy will continue. He remains convinced that he must save the planet from dreaded “carbon pollution,” whatever that is. Climate reality isn’t in it,

About these ads

22 Comments so far
Leave a comment

And if you look around even casually, you’ll see the PR portion of the Obama plan in action. At current projections, if the Obama energy plan follows through, there is a possibility that the U.S. will not be able to meet domestic energy needs in the next 2-3 years. the result is the strong possibility of rolling blackouts and brownouts during peak need periods. The Obama administration (along with climate change faithful such as Mother Jones magazine), however, pronounce these possible problems as the result of global warming, not the disasterous Obama energy policy. The solution? Why, more of the Obama administration energy policy, of course! Don’t develop existing energy resources, fight global warming by killing off the ability to use those resources!

Comment by Lon Mead

Germany is getting out of the solar business entirely.

What a misleading statement! Germany is not tearing up its existing solar panels, most of which are installed on roofs.

Much more accurate would be to say that major German producers of solar cells and modules are getting out of the business. Why? Only partly because of slowing growth in (policy-led) demand in Germany. The big problem is the huge glut in the market created by China, which a few years ago decided to throw huge amounts of subsidies at its own solar cell and module manufacturers in order to dominate world trade in these high-tech goods. The EU recently imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on Chinese-made solar cells, and is also investigating dumping by Chinese manufacturers of solar glass (the cover placed over arrays of solar cells).

German producers of machines to manufacture solar cells, and producers of top-quality polysilicon — the basis for crystaline PV cells — are still in business, ironically exporting to China. And, of course, there are still many small companies in Germany in the downstream sector, helping buyers of solar panels to install them, and maintaining associated meters and other infrastructure.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Sometimes, Subsidy, I think you like to start arguing simply for the sake of arguing. There was nothing in the post to say that anyone was “tearing up its existing solar panels”. It was simply a statement that maufacturers were going to stop making them. The German government is also no longer subsidizing the contruction or installation of those panels (the is still the tax credit received for havin gone).

I know you’re a fan of solar, and there’s nothing wrong with that… if the conditions are right for them. But a lot of policy regarding solar (and wind) has been a “one size fits all” attempt, which simply doesn’t work.

Comment by Lon Mead

I wonder what he thinks “carbon pollution” is? Does he know that we are carbon based life forms? I assume that at some level he knows that he does not know enough for the job he holds, and that is why he has hired all those czars. We’re told he likes to deal with the daily problems with a short form giving 2 or 3 choices from which he can pick his desired policy. We’re told he only has a tiny group of trusted advisers on the one hand, and on the other that he has everybody in the administration directly under his thumb. Then again, Valerie Jarrett is the one that he runs everything by, for she is his most trusted adviser and he does nothing without her approval. It’s a mystery! A strange way to run a government. I can’t wait for the books to come out by the participants.

Comment by The Elephant's Child

@Lon Mead:

Let me repeat the statement:

Germany is getting out of the solar business entirely.

Note the key word, “entirely.” EC likes to use absolute terms, which undermines the veracity of her claims.

Getting out of the solar business entirely implies: no longer producing any power from solar panels, and closing all businesses that produce or service solar facilities. The statement would have been true if it had said, instead, “German manufacturers of solar cells and modules are getting out of the business.” But that’s a lot less of a dramatic statement, eh?

the is still the tax credit received for havin gone

??

a lot of policy regarding solar (and wind) has been a “one size fits all” attempt, which simply doesn’t work

Haven’t I more or less agreed with that in other posts?

Comment by Subsidy Eye

It’s what’s being called “nit-picky”, Subs, and it tends to undermine the seriousness of your arguments. I understood what was meant from the first time I read it.

“…the is still the tax credit received for havin gone”

For some reason, my monitor keeps goofing up when I’m responding here. It should read: They still receive the tax credit for having and using them.

Comment by Lon Mead

Lon, I disagree. On numerous posts, EC invokes hyperbole whenever talking about renewable energy. Asserting that “Germany is getting out of the solar business entirely” is just another example among many. As you may have seen, she argues that all power generation from renewable energy would cease if all government support for it would be withdrawn. I have argued that that would not be the case.

Whether one is a fan of renewable energy or not, an informed discussion on the future of energy policy needs to be based on facts, not biases.

Thanks for the clarification of your sentence. You say, “They still receive the tax credit for having and using them.” Really? To my knowledge, the German government does not provide a tax credit. Rather, it requires that utilities priority dispatch solar plants and pay them a generous feed-in-tariff (financed by electricity customers, not taxpayers). But I suppose you would consider pointing out that distinction as “nitpicking”.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Like I said, I think you just start to argue for the sake of arguing. Does your”informed discussion” mean that those of us who disagree with you on the utility of solar panel use can’t use sources or language you disagree with? You’ve been posting here long enough to know both what EC thinks about the subject and how it’s written about here.

“Rather, it requires that utilities priority dispatch solar plants and pay them a generous feed-in-tariff (financed by electricity customers, not taxpayers).”

Whatever that means in English, yes, homeowners who have solar panels installed and are connected to the power grid receive a tax rebate from the government to offset the cost of maintaining the solar panel. It is part of the arrangement E-ON has with the German government regarding the use of solar.

Comment by Lon Mead

The Statement about Germany came from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I receive an email from them daily, read it in my email, and don’t always save all the pieces. To quote exactly: “Germany will stop subsidising solar energy by 2018 at the latest, its environment minister said Monday after last year initiating a scaling-back of generous state support for the faltering industry.” If they stop subsidising solar energy that says to me that they are getting out of the business entirely. I don’t assume that they are going around to collect each homeowner’s solar panels, or they would have said so. They also add :”Berlin has so far invested 216 billion euros ($278 billion) in renewables and the biggest chunk went to solar, the technology which does least to ensure the power supply” said the head of industrial group Siemans. …Germany has seen a wave of solar company insolvencies and the number of people employed in the industry fell to 87,000 in 2012 from 110,900 a year earlier, while sales plummeted by 11.9 billion euros, according to government figures.” I also made the assumption that Chancellor Merkel’s environment minister speaks for her.

I gather I typed an unintelligible sentence, but I can’t find it. I do that sometimes, usually because I removed a typo, and didn’t fix the whole thing.

I am fascinated with Europe’s response to global warming alarmism. They were all frightened by the prospects of the IPCC forecasts, and responded differently. Germany was frightened by Chernobyl and ended their nuclear efforts. France depends on nuclear, but has banned fracking by law. Britain, by law, has to shut down all their standard coal-fired plants and thought wind would solve their energy problems, which it won’t, but nevermind, they have the world’s biggest shale deposit, as well as a number of others as yet unexplored. The public is delighted, but they have to do some major legislative adjustment. Europe was terrified that they were going to be at the mercy of Russia for energy, a position Putin was reveling in, and Shale and fracking are messing up his plans. The EU government, unaccountable, makes its own laws to complicate everything. And then there’s us, with a war on carbon.

Comment by The Elephant's Child

@Lon Mead

Like I said, I think you just start to argue for the sake of arguing.

Well, I guess you are entitled to your opinion. But if you were paying attention, I have been taking issue only on strings discussing energy policy, particularly where I feel that EC’s statements are exaggerated or inaccurate.

Does your”informed discussion” mean that those of us who disagree with you on the utility of solar panel use can’t use sources or language you disagree with?

From where does that come? And who was discussing the utility or disutility of solar panel use? I was discussing policies.

Whatever that means in English …

What part of my English don’t you understand? I was using standard terms used when discussing energy policy. Priority dispatch means, essentially, that electric utilities are required to give priority to electricity generated from renewable-energy sources when scheduling the plants that they will dispatch to meet the load at any given moment. A feed-in-tariff is either a guaranteed price paid to a genererator of electricity or a fixed premium on top of the market price.

… yes, homeowners who have solar panels installed and are connected to the power grid receive a tax rebate from the government to offset the cost of maintaining the solar panel.

You keep treating this distinction as if it doesn’t matter, but to my knowledge, the German government does not givetax credits “for having and using them” (your 3rd comment) or tax rebates “to offset the cost of maintaining the solar panel” (your 4th comment). Rather, as I have tried to underscore, they receive a feed-in tariff, which is financed by electricity rate-payers, not taxpayers. See:

http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/renewableenergy/

Why is this distinction important to make? Because, in the USA, policies like the Production Tax Credit are invisible to electricity rate payers. The subsidized electricity is a gift from taxpayers to electricity consumers. People or companies that use more electricity generate more revenues from the government, which means higher taxes. And taxpayers in places with relatively low electricity demand end up cross-subsidizing electricity consumers in places with a lot of wind- or solar-generated energy. That is a pretty poorly targeted policy.

By contrast, in Germany (and in most European countries), the subsidies for wind and solar power are financed by the electricity consumers themselves. Those who consume more electricity pay more. They are also, thanks to an explicit surcharge on their bills to pay for the feed-in tariffs, made acutely aware of the extra cost of paying for all that wind- and solar-generated electricity:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23127175

http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20121015-pi-en?open&ccm=900010020010

No wonder there have been complaints about the high cost of solar power in Germany lately!

Comment by Subsidy Eye

@ Elephant’s Child

Thank you for a link to the original news item. It is an interesting article, but in some places mixes apples and oranges. The problems for the electricity grid caused by the wide fluctuations in electricity supply from installed solar panels are unrelated to the reduced sales that German solar cell and module producers have been suffering, which has to do primarily with stiff (subsidized) competition from Chinese producers. Yet the article sometimes conflates the two.

No matter. What this article says is that the Government plans to set an upper limit on how much solar capacity can be connected to the country’s electrical grid, and that it will stop requiring feed-in-tariffs b e paid for new installations. That will certainly put a damper on domestic sales of solar PV panels. However, a stop in solar PV growth is decidedly not the same as “getting out of the business entirely.” The solar panels already installed will still have long-term contracts to sell electricity to the grid (under a priority dispatch policy — oops, there’s that term again!), and there will still be service companies around to maintain and inspect the solar plants. As well, companies that export stuff other than cells and modules (solar glass, inverters, machine tools for cell manufacturers) will likely still be around.

Why are you insisting on equating a big change in policy with “getting out of the [solar] business entirely”, rather than saying that the government is putting a break on solar power’s historically rapid growth in the country?

My guess is that a more subtle message isn’t dramatic enough for your purposes. If that is the case, you hardly can turn around and blame the mainstream media for sensationalist headlines.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Probably, SE, because the “big change in policy” IS getting out of the solar industry, and the major manufacturers of solar in Germany are ending their involvement as well.

I understand, it’s that word “entirely” that bothers you. You think it makes everything that was written null and void because this subsidiary parts manufacturer will still be around, and that component supplier is still in business, and the other service contractor is still making calls. But my guess is that you got to the word “entirely” and quit reading the rest of the paragraph.

You talk about EC inappropriately using superlatives? Let’s see here:

“As you may have seen, she argues that all power generation from renewable energy would cease if all government support for it would be withdrawn”.

I actually have not ever seen her make that argument, or even that claim. What I have understood as her argument is that the industry bubble surrounding renewables would collapse if government subsidies were withdrawn, NOT that all power generation would cease (I happen to share this view, if you haven’t figured that out yet). EC seems to be a firm believer that solar and wind both have a place in the market, and that propping them up with government subsidies does nothing to help them in the long run.

Now, having caught you making a superlative (and in my opinion, incorrect) statement about EC, should I then ignore the valid and substantive comments that you make? By your reasoning, I should. But I don’t, because you’ve had intelligent things to say (I’ve even used a couple of your ideas when talking to people on this and other topics). You just seem to be a little rabid on this subject (which is okay… everyone has a subject like that; mine is on the obvious superiority of Warner Bros. cartoons). It would be nice if you could read through posts like this without perceiving it to be an attack, and then attacking in return. EC has her opinions, and it’s her blog. Let her write it the way she wants to.

Comment by Lon Mead

@Lon Mead,

I had assumed that you had been following the related string, on wind power.

http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-litter-the-united-states/

That is not the first time EC has claimed that withdrawing subsidies would end all power generation by wind- and solar-power entirely. I argue, not from a standpoint of advocacy, but of knowledge of how electric power systems work, that it won’t.

You may have a special understanding of what you think EC means. I am going by what she is writing. And she is not being as specific as saying that investment in new plans would dwindle. On that I would agree, and have said so.

And I wish that you would read my posts without assuming that I am some sort of rabid defender of renewable energy.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

To quote from EC’s comment on 14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES:

“if federal subsidies are withdrawn, wind farms everywhere shut down. That has been the experience all over the world.”

I would call that exaggeration. So, no, you haven’t “caught me out”.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Yes, SE, I followed the related string on wind power, and I think you weren’t fully understanding what was being said there either. The reason I assume you are some sort of “rabid defender of renewable energy” (actually, it’s solar that I think you’re rabid about, not renewables as a whole) is because you act like one (like you, I’m going by what you are writing).

And as I said, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen EC make the claim that “withdrawing subsidies would end all power generation by wind- and solar-power entirely”.

My “special understanding” of what EC means comes from reading what she writes, not reading things into what she writes.

Comment by Lon Mead

“if federal subsidies are withdrawn, wind farms everywhere shut down. That has been the experience all over the world.”

I would call that exaggeration. So, no, you haven’t “caught me out”.

I would call it a simple truth. Wind farms HAVE been shutting down when subsidies are withdrawn, and it HAS been the experience around the world.

Comment by Lon Mead

@Lon Mead:

as I said, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen EC make the claim that “withdrawing subsidies would end all power generation by wind- and solar-power entirely”.

Above I provided a quote from EC relating to wind which is pretty absolute. She has also said some strong absolute claims about solar power on other strings. But maybe we should ask her to clarify what her position on this question is.

it’s solar that I think you’re rabid about, not renewables as a whole) is because you act like one

Wow. You must have a low threshold for rabidness. Do you bash over the head every dog you meet who growls at you? I simply point out that there places where solar panels may make sense (like Hawaii), and you pigeonhole me as a rabid green.

Otherwise, I have said nothing in defense of current policies, only tried to ensure that they are accurately described, and that the consequences of those policies are well understood.

That you two are pushing back so hard on my arguing that the picture is not black and white suggests to me that there is some agenda going on here that is beyond merely establishing where the truth lies.

I would call it a simple truth. Wind farms HAVE been shutting down when subsidies are withdrawn, and it HAS been the experience around the world.

Again, some evidence would be helpful here.

There is a big difference between some farms shutting down (recall that many of the ugliest, worst sited and least efficient ones that were mentioned in EC’s article on the other string were built in California in the 1980s: they are well past their use-by date) and all wind farms shutting down. That some, especially older farms, have shut down (and some would shut down if all subsidies were to be removed) is not a fact that can be automatically extrapolated to the rest of the industry, especially where newer, bigger and more reliable wind turbines have been installed, which account for the bulk of power currently being produced from the wind.

The viability of any wind-power project, once it is up and running, depends on a lot of factors, factors which vary from site to site and utility to utility. In Germany, which EC has been writing about, the grid is not well-equipped to handle such large shares of intermittent power. In Denmark, which is part of the Nordel grid, which has lots of flexible hydro-power plants, the grid can easily handle power from its turbines.

Nonetheless, the variable cost of producing power from wind turbines is not zero. They still have to be monitored and controlled, the blades have to be cleaned from time to time, the whole unit has to be inspected periodically, and lubricated. Any operation that requires gaining access to the blades can be expensive. Hence there are economies of scale.

The variable cost of producing power from solar panels is also not zero, but the costs of cleaning and inspection are a lot less.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

This time with proper formatting:

as I said, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen EC make the claim that “withdrawing subsidies would end all power generation by wind- and solar-power entirely”.

Above I provided a quote from EC relating to wind which is pretty absolute. She has also said some strong absolute claims about solar power on other strings. But maybe we should ask her to clarify what her position on this question is.

it’s solar that I think you’re rabid about, not renewables as a whole) is because you act like one

Wow. You must have a low threshold for rabidness. Do you bash over the head every dog you meet who growls at you? I simply point out that there places where solar panels may make sense (like Hawaii), and you pigeonhole me as a rabid green.

Otherwise, I have said nothing in defense of current policies, only tried to ensure that they are accurately described, and that the consequences of those policies are well understood.

That you two are pushing back so hard on my arguing that the picture is not black and white suggests to me that there is some agenda going on here that is beyond merely establishing where the truth lies.

I would call it a simple truth. Wind farms HAVE been shutting down when subsidies are withdrawn, and it HAS been the experience around the world.

Again, some evidence would be helpful here.

There is a big difference between some farms shutting down (recall that many of the ugliest, worst sited and least efficient ones that were mentioned in EC’s article on the other string were built in California in the 1980s: they are well past their use-by date) and all wind farms shutting down. That some, especially older farms, have shut down (and some would shut down if all subsidies were to be removed) is not a fact that can be automatically extrapolated to the rest of the industry, especially where newer, bigger and more reliable wind turbines have been installed, which account for the bulk of power currently being produced from the wind.

The viability of any wind-power project, once it is up and running, depends on a lot of factors, factors which vary from site to site and utility to utility. In Germany, which EC has been writing about, the grid is not well-equipped to handle such large shares of intermittent power. In Denmark, which is part of the Nordel grid, which has lots of flexible hydro-power plants, the grid can easily handle power from its turbines.

Nonetheless, the variable cost of producing power from wind turbines is not zero. They still have to be monitored and controlled, the blades have to be cleaned from time to time, the whole unit has to be inspected periodically, and lubricated. Any operation that requires gaining access to the blades can be expensive. Hence there are economies of scale.

The variable cost of producing power from solar panels is also not zero, but the costs of cleaning and inspection are a lot less.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Ah, no, SE, I don’t bash the head of every dog that growls at me, and I’m not pigeon-holing you as a rabid green.

“…I simply point out that there places where solar panels may make sense…”

That’s not what you were doing. You were, according to my reading, trying to belittle EC’s comments on the subject simply because she does not use language that is as precise as you prefer. And you do it over and over and over. And in the course of your commentary you repeatedly insist that EC is making claims that are not there.

The removal of subsidies will cause wind farms to close. Not all of them, but a lot of them, simply because the revenue produced from the turbines is not enough to sustain the costs of maintaining them. I have never made a blanket statement that all turbines were bad or that should all be shut down, and I have never read anything on this site that makes that kind of statement either. The prevailing opinion (which you said you agreed with) is that it is wrong to try to force renewables into a position they are not capable of handling (out-and-out replacement of traditional energy sources), and the political decisions that are being made to force that very thing are also wrong.

There is a place for wind and solar, but at the current level of technology, they can only augment an existing supply, not supplant it.

The picture may not be black and white, but some elements of it are.

Comment by Lon Mead

@Lon Mead,

You write:

I have never made a blanket statement that all turbines were bad or that should all be shut down …

And I never said that you did. (Unless “Lon Mead” is another pen name for the Elephant’s Child.)

and I have never read anything on this site that makes that kind of statement either.

Not sure what you mean by “this site”, but this is what EC wrote on the other posting in response to one comment: “if federal subsidies are withdrawn, wind farms everywhere shut down. That has been the experience all over the world.”

You were, according to my reading, trying to belittle EC’s comments on the subject simply because she does not use language that is as precise as you prefer.

I sense a double-standard here. EC is frequently knocking other people (Obama, other Democrats) for being imprecise, as well she should. Yet when it comes to RE, her headline or opening statements are often exaggerations. My calling her on them is not, in my opinion, out of place. If she wants to make some bold claims, she should be prepared for commentators to question those claims.

Otherwise, I find nothing in the following that you wrote that I disagree with:

The prevailing opinion (which you said you agreed with) is that it is wrong to try to force renewables into a position they are not capable of handling (out-and-out replacement of traditional energy sources), and the political decisions that are being made to force that very thing are also wrong. There is a place for wind and solar, but at the current level of technology, they can only augment an existing supply, not supplant it. The picture may not be black and white, but some elements of it are.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

Once again, with proper formatting:

@Lon Mead,

You write:

I have never made a blanket statement that all turbines were bad or that should all be shut down …

And I never said that you did. (Unless “Lon Mead” is another pen name for the Elephant’s Child.)

and I have never read anything on this site that makes that kind of statement either.

Not sure what you mean by “this site”, but this is what EC wrote on the other posting in response to one comment: “if federal subsidies are withdrawn, wind farms everywhere shut down. That has been the experience all over the world.”

You were, according to my reading, trying to belittle EC’s comments on the subject simply because she does not use language that is as precise as you prefer.

I sense a double-standard here. EC is frequently knocking other people (Obama, other Democrats) for being imprecise, as well she should. Yet when it comes to RE, her headline or opening statements are often exaggerations. My calling her on them is not, in my opinion, out of place. If she wants to make some bold claims, she should be prepared for commentators to question those claims.

Otherwise, I find nothing in the following that you wrote that I disagree with:

The prevailing opinion (which you said you agreed with) is that it is wrong to try to force renewables into a position they are not capable of handling (out-and-out replacement of traditional energy sources), and the political decisions that are being made to force that very thing are also wrong. There is a place for wind and solar, but at the current level of technology, they can only augment an existing supply, not supplant it. The picture may not be black and white, but some elements of it are.

Comment by Subsidy Eye

SE, you say that you have knowledge of how energy systems work. I have no reason to doubt you. And I can understand that if you know how something works, certain jargon means particular things (the way you write, I would guess that you have an engineering background (?)). I also, from reading this blog, can come to the conclusion that EC does not share your particular level of knowledge on this subject. There is a difference between being imprecise and being deliberately obtuse (and in the case of the Obama administration, evasive and flat-out dishonest), the latter of which is what you seem to want to accuse EC of being.

The truth of the matter is that energy policy in this administration is bad bordering on disastrous. Even without a full understanding of how energy systems operate, one can still object to bad policy, and one can still find ample evidence to support the idea that what this administration wants to do is the wrong approach.

I’ve seen you any number of times respond to comments without making it seem like you are dealing with a conspiracy theorist… only on the subject of renewables. You have good, solid, usable knowledge to offer, but you diminish it every time you start a comment with an accusation like “What a misleading statement!”. Her first line may have been general and too broad for your taste, but it was hardly misleading.

Comment by Lon Mead




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,432 other followers

%d bloggers like this: