Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
Actually, NY Times, Solar Power is Super INEFFICIENT Compared to Fossil Fuels...
The mirage of climate change has spurred politically correct sock puppets to seek alternatively stupid forms of energy (related Quartz Blames Increase of Philippine Sex Trafficking on Climate Change and ‘Climate Change’ Changes Again: From Global Warming to… Global Cooling?!) Following that edict, The New York Times tried pushing the merits of solar power by using graphs and stuff. Trigger warning for efficiency nerds: brace thyselves, gross inefficiency abounds. Prep thy paper bags for exhalation. Recycle thy canvas tote to choke the climate change apologist nearest you.
The New York Times has a hard on for solar power not because it's "cleaner" but because it provides more jobs than coal. The catch? Solar power produces only .1% of the United State's overall energy output. Nice illusion, but we're not buying it. According to The New York Times:
President Trump has promised to revive the coal industry and double down on fossil fuels, creating “so many energy jobs,” but he has not focused on the increasingly important role of renewable power in America’s energy economy.
When talking about energy, efficiency should play a starring role. So what sounds lofty at first (solar provides more jobs), means the already innefficient energy source requires a lot more manpower. Which will translate into higher costs. Always passed onto the consumer (ahem, YOU!). It's like encouraging the Pony Express to deliver mail instead of email. Because the Pony Express would "employ more people." Except replace ponies with solar-powered Segways. With a COEXIST decal on it. Pray it doesn't rain.
To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.
In other words, "clean energy" which might fry eagles right out of the sky, requires more people to tap the energy. And those people are like all other people. Farting, burping, arriving at offices using a vehicle powered not with precious flower power dreams, but Earth's finest fossil fuels. Oh sorry, I hate to be a ball buster, but your fancy Tesla derives its power from COAL! You dirty, elitist yuppy.
In contrast, it took about the same number of natural gas workers (398,235) last year to produce more than one-third of U.S. electric power, or 37 times more electricity than solar’s minuscule share of 0.90 percent. And with only 160,000 coal workers (less than half the number of workers in either solar or gas), that sector produced nearly one-third (almost as much as gas) of U.S. electricity last year.
Mourn ye now oh squishy-hearted leftists. If you want solar power, contribute to the "overpopulation problem" to fill those jobs. Maybe this year you don't get that abortion. Trade in your canvas tote bag (probably made in a Korean sweatshop), for a diaper bag. Make us some future solar workers for all that clean energy you thump on about. Or accept reality: fossil fuels are more efficient than your precious sun juice.
But who am I kidding? A liberal accepting reality is like feminist accepting traditional beauty standards while hugging a skinny person in a gym.