Bush spins the state of the economy

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

And solar...I know it was mentioned, but why aren't there huge arrays of solar panels out in the desert somewhere. I know they are expensive, and obviously don't work at night, but it seems like the sun would be a limitless power source.

A Scientist and Economist on Bill Maher said last night there was enough solar energy in Death Valley to power most of the United States, and there is enough in the Sahara for Africa.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by motivez

I really think there should be a focus to not just make solar farms, but to put the panels on buildings and houses in cities throughout the country..

I am buying a house this summer, and I would love to have those installed.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

Story behind that?

Found this on the "more info" link on the video.

The braking mechanism that limits the speed of the wind turbine broke during a storm in Denmark. This was the outcome. 02/22-2008.

jp.dk - Minister demands explanation for windmill collapse

Bonus info:

-The tower of the mill was 60m high
-Wind speed was probably around 30 m/s
-You can see a truck at the base of the mill, but nobody was hurt. The mill had been evacuated 400m in each direction.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

A Scientist and Economist on Bill Maher said last night there was enough solar energy in Death Valley to power most of the United States, and there is enough in the Sahara for Africa.

If you wanted to power the US with solar power with today's technology it would require more than 200,000 square miles of solar panel. With some of the great new inovations in the works within the next five years that could be cut to somewhere between 80k and 100k square miles. Most best case scenario's based in reality say we'd need about 50k square miles of solar panels based on a doubling in efficiency every 6 years till 2020.

Furthermore ANY solar energy would require supplemental power from traditional sources, something like Nuke Power would be ok, but Natural Gas is the preferred backup fuel to any widescale solar implementation because it is very easy and efficient to bring a nat gas plant online and take it back offline.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If you wanted to power the US with solar power with today's technology it would require more than 200,000 square miles of solar panel. With some of the great new inovations in the works within the next five years that could be cut to somewhere between 80k and 100k square miles. Most best case scenario's based in reality say we'd need about 50k square miles of solar panels based on a doubling in efficiency every 6 years till 2020.

Furthermore ANY solar energy would require supplemental power from traditional sources, something like Nuke Power would be ok, but Natural Gas is the preferred backup fuel to any widescale solar implementation because it is very easy and efficient to bring a nat gas plant online and take it back offline.

The problem IS Today's technology.

We've wasted trillions of dollars on frivilous things, instead of investing in this technology, which has been in the "idea" stage since I was in Elementary school.

[motivez]

Yeah, and these last 8 years have been a complete waste.. They were talking about it on Real Time last week, it's completely ridiculous that we went to the moon in less time than it's taken this administration to build 1 proof of concept coal plant that can capture it's own emissions..

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, and these last 8 years have been a complete waste.. They were talking about it on Real Time last week, it's completely ridiculous that we went to the moon in less time than it's taken this administration to build 1 proof of concept coal plant that can capture it's own emissions..

To me, it's so tragically a waste, that it's criminal.

[Donkey®]

And the dickhead Bush is on tv right now blaming Congress for the economy.

[kombayn]

If you haven't noticed... Bush and his Administration don't take responsibility for anything they've done.

[Phantom]

Economy grows by only 0.6 percent in first quarter

Economy Grows by 0.6 Percent in First Quarter - washingtonpost.com

I guess we could be in a recession now, but we weren't for the first three months of the year.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Economy Grows by 0.6 Percent in First Quarter - washingtonpost.com

I guess we could be in a recession now, but we weren't for the first three months of the year.

Holy fake media recession batman.

That number could go up or down when the final numbers are released in late May. But at this point it definately looks like recession has been avoided, I bet teh nightly news programs are going to still focus on the negative today. It's going to be hilarity.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

The problem IS Today's technology.

We've wasted trillions of dollars on frivilous things, instead of investing in this technology, which has been in the "idea" stage since I was in Elementary school.

Billions have been invested in alternatives, but again the problem is this the amount of energy we're getting out of these alternatives.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Billions have been invested in alternatives, but again the problem is this the amount of energy we're getting out of these alternatives.

Billions have been put into alternatives that have been on the road to no where for quite some time. Ethanol has been a failure, and biofuel is just as bad.

The problem is that the Billions of dollars are not going into research, they are going into subsidies, and it is a drop in the hat to what we wasted the past 5 years.

[kombayn]

They just need to continue promoting the Hybrid cars, they've become extremely popular and it saves oil. Once (hopefully) the War in Iraq is over, the market will start to sell the oil shares which will bring down the barrell of gas to $60 so it's a little over $2.00 which I don't mind paying since it's $4 now (Thank god for my Honda Fit). I'm certain once the War is over, everything will slowly go back to normal.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Economy Grows by 0.6 Percent in First Quarter - washingtonpost.com

I guess we could be in a recession now, but we weren't for the first three months of the year.

While technically not meeting the definition... .6 percent is pretty stagnant. Normally we grow at an annualized rate of about 3% give or take. IT's not good news. Sure it's better than negative numbers, but it's not good news at all. With increasing inflation, gas prices, etc, and close to zero growth... expect people to start talking about the stag-flation boogey man.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Holy fake media recession batman.

That number could go up or down when the final numbers are released in late May. But at this point it definately looks like recession has been avoided, I bet teh nightly news programs are going to still focus on the negative today. It's going to be hilarity.

See I am not sure about that man. I know you're pretty optimistic about this, but my gut tells me that these numbers are inflated by creative measurement techniques.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

See I am not sure about that man. I know you're pretty optimistic about this, but my gut tells me that these numbers are inflated by creative measurement techniques.

Yup.

Economy Grew in Q1 Only If You Believe in Santa Claus: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance=

the .6% growth assumes a 2.6% inflation rate... which we all know is WAY off. Try 4%.. If you use 4% inflation ( which is much more accurate) , GDP growth is infact negative and yes, that means we are in a recession.

Besides the .6% number was preliminary. When the revised number comes out I assure you it will be negative.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Yup.

Economy Grew in Q1 Only If You Believe in Santa Claus: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance=

the .6% growth assumes a 2.6% inflation rate... which we all know is WAY off. Try 4%.. If you use 4% inflation ( which is much more accurate) , GDP growth is infact negative and yes, that means we are in a recession.

Besides the .6% number was preliminary. When the revised number comes out I assure you it will be negative.

dingdingding

The Preliminary estimate is usually pretty accurate, since it uses a good deal of data not available in the Advance report (one month prior), but it will still be adjusted down. But yea, assuming 2.6% inflation is just stupid. That's definitely well below the actual estimate.

And yea, trend GDP growth is around 3%. 0.6% is pretty horrible. We are in recession, one way or another. The newspaper definition of consecutive-quarterly-negative GDP growth is just dumb. An economist's definition would have us already in recession. But, as Lou said, with an accurate inflation measure even that GDP figure goes negative. It's just spinning to have a positive outlook on our current (future is uncertain) conditions.

edit: I love the "only if you believe in santa claus" line