Franken doesn’t win on anything, i’m sick of seeing his ads on TV and the guy is a joke, I’m wasn’t born in Minnesota and do not consider myself a “Minnesotan” however i have lived here for about 10 years or so… I remember the joke and the stain that Jesse Ventura brought to MN and the good people of MN do not need that again..(to be the butt of jokes constantly again, no need for that and Franken is totally outclassed by Coleman on every level)

Not sure why i want to stick for “Minnesotans” I do my share to make fun them(the “accents” and such and i root against the Vikings and Twins ALL the time)

:D

Happy Hoosier at heart, living in MN!

According to a 2006 presentation by pro-wind GE to the House Energy & Commerce Committee, the following is the pre-incentive cost of electricity by source per US cents/kWh:

Gas 7.0
Coal 4.5
Nuclear 4.0
Wind 7.0
Biomass 10.0
Solar 36.0

http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/05182006hearing1903/Abate.pdf

I’m for the kitchen sink as long as we know the cost of the source. I’m not switching from a $50 gas tank to a $300 battery bank.

craig on August 18, 2008 at 4:36 PM

I’m not taking issue with the accuracy of craig’s reporting, but the figures for “wind” and “solar” appear to be wildly optimistic (a polite word for “fraudulent”)!!!

I have studied the economics of wind some, and the figure given above excludes all of the amortized capital costs of building transmission and energy management infrastructure which is necessary to support wind farms, and also excludes the continuing operating and maintenance costs associated with these facilities.. With these cost in place, the real figure for wind is at least 21-28 cents/KWH.

Similarly, the figures for solar have also dishonestly excluded transmission and energy management costs. I suspect they have also excluded solar cell maintenance and replacement costs: all current solar cells actually degrade over time when you expose them to sunlight, so you need to track the degradation and replace cells which no longer function at an acceptable level. With these costs considered, I think you’d be hard pressed to produce large scale solar power within the next decade for less than $1.00 -$3.00 per KWH.

All of the analyses I’ve seen to date also exclude the cost of idling the large tracts of land necessary to support wind or solar, and I’ve never seen provision for natural catastrophes which will predictably destroy anything which occupies large tracts of land over a long period of time (such as tornados, hurricanes, hail storms, floods, etc.).

Until we get an honest, GAAP accounting for these projects which account for all the costs – the same kind of accounting we’d get for a new coal-fired plant – I’ll never believe that wind or solar power anything but a pipeline from taxpayers pockets to the pockets of “alternative energy” hucksters (and I don’t expect to believe it then)!!!

The most outrageous part of the “alternative energy” scam is that the hucksters want taxpayers to subsidize production!! In my opinion, the government should be involved in funding R&D only…and then only if private investors are furnishing most of the money!!! If the “alternative” is truly viable after suitable R&D, it will not need any operating subsidy!!! Operating subsidies just serve to make people think that bad alternatives are good…and they divert money away from better ideas which should be developed.

terryannonline on August 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Whatever, thanks for the good laugh.

I liked Coleman’s honest answer better, but it was not really satisfying.

Any answer that does not specifically put nuclear energy at the top of the priority list is inferior, IMO. Numero Uno. Even above drilling here and now. We got to start building nuke plants NOW!

Ed said: “In terms of presentation, Franken clearly exceeds Coleman.”

A slick presentation of BONEHEAD ideas by a BONEHEAD is still just BONEHEAD ideas. Just more BLAH, BLAH of the far left that think we the people are too stupid to know when they are spewing B.S.. Anyone who makes an effort to do a little research knows this is just B.S….

Coleman has got his facts right. It was straight and to the point. What more do you need from him…

Ed said: “In terms of presentation, Franken clearly exceeds Coleman.”

You should realize Franken has been on TV forever, since 1975 at least, as a performer and writer, that is his milieu, he has it mastered. Also I didn’t think Coleman’s presentation was bad at all. He didn’t seem that rushed. He was to the point. His reply was substantive, the “kitchen sink” approach. Sure, people may warm up better to Franken’s presentation, it brought together over 30 years of TV experience. He’s a pro. I was impressed Franken could actually talk for 3 minutes without coming off as a smart ass even once. Imagine the self-control required for that.

Gas 7.0
Coal 4.5
Nuclear 4.0
Wind 7.0
Biomass 10.0
Solar 36.0

http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/05182006hearing1903/Abate.pdf

I’m for the kitchen sink as long as we know the cost of the source. I’m not switching from a $50 gas tank to a $300 battery bank.

Franken is very good at reading from the Democrat playbook.

rbj on August 18, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Exactly. He prefaced his presentation with “this is my plan.” Sorry Al, that is Stretch Pelosi’s plan. She must have let you borrow it for a while. Good to see you can think for yourself. /s

You seem to feel you need to say nice things about these liberals constantly now. Let me clue you in; it doesn’t matter how pleasant they are when putting you on tv, they don’t like you.

Ed is just stating the obvious. Franken’s presentation is ten times better. Should we so despise people we disagree with that we can’t even given credit when they show some good abilities?

In terms of presentation, Franken clearly exceeds Coleman.

Ed, you need a handler to sit with you in the green rooms of cable shows. You seem to feel you need to say nice things about these liberals constantly now. Let me clue you in; it doesn’t matter how pleasant they are when putting you on tv, they don’t like you. They think very bad things about you and would translate those bad thoughts to actions in a second if they could. Thier policies will hurt you and your children and seriously change your way of life and they lie to your fellow Americans about those policies. They hate our representative form of government, our economic system and our history.

Chimpy on August 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

The Ikan PT1000 Teleprompter is just $700.

Just saying.

My favorite topic: AL FRANKEN

A little OT.

You got to get that teleprompter or script in front of you. You constantly kept moving your eyes to the left and back to the camera. Kind of “shifty eyed”. I’ll send the bill shortly for this media consultation. ;-)

Has anyone done more with less than Al Franken? I have to admit, for a guy who is ugly, stupid, witless and utterly worthless, he does manage to involve himself in a lot of things.

He must be such a persistant little pain in the ass that people finally give up and let him do what he wants. Kind of like a tsetse fly.

Here’s a tip for the doddering idiots running practically every GOP campaign; and the best part is that I’m going to give it to you for free.

You can immediately “warm up” your candidate by tightening your shot. Look at how Franken fills the screen. The top of his head is at the top of the frame.

Now look at how much space there is between the top of Coleman’s head and the top of the frame. Looks weird, right? You can’t just lower the camera because then we’re looking at his crotch. So, zoom in. Tighten that shot.

The Franken people have it right. Al looks like he’s sitting across the table from you at the local eatery. It’s warm. It’s friendly. He’s your buddy who you often disagree with but he’s going to try again anyway because you’re pals.

Norm looks like he’s your boss or some CEO, sitting at the end of a long conference room table. It’s small, impersonal and, frankly, it’s off-putting.

Tighten that shot. Bring us in.

So, that’s my tip. No charge, GOP. Consider it my contribution.

Again, imagine if we had both the better message and could compete on “image”. We’d be cleaning the floor with every last one of these jackasses.

franken got and digested the dnc talking points, all right.
not one original thought.

whereas, coleman, laid it out succinctly with new content (advanced battery dev.).

norm’s respond seems helpful and thoughtful and personal.
franken, not so much.

Nice of Coleman to point out that the French rely a lot on nukes.