TCS Daily

How Green Is Your Church?

By Roy Spencer - August 16, 2006 12:00 AM

In the first chapter of the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve are commanded to "tend and keep" the Garden of Eden, as well as to "fill the Earth", and "subdue" and "have dominion" over the creation. It is clear that mankind is given a dominant role in the biblical creation, with God's permission to use the Earth's natural resources to serve our needs.

Yet, we now know that it is possible to damage the creation in ways that makes portions of it unfit for further use for many years. Some chemicals we have developed are very hazardous to humans. For instance, the generation and safe storage of nuclear waste from power plants remain challenges. The Earth is marvelously resilient, constantly cleansing our air and water, yet we know from experience that there are limits to this resiliency.

The tension over what constitutes environmental "stewardship" has led to a wide range of opinions within the Christian church on the subject. Some churches have been actively involved in the environmental movement since the 1970's. The concern has been expressed in ways as small as recycling waste, to what can only be called "Earth worship", elevating the value of the creation to a position above that of mankind.

The past several months have had considerable activity in the Christian church on the subject of climate change. On February 1st of this year, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) announced that they would not adopt a position statement on global warming that they had been considering since 2004. The NAE, which claims to represent 30 million church members, noted that there is considerable disagreement within the church regarding the causes and severity of, as well as the responses to, the global warming threat. The NAE decision greatly disappointed environmentalists.

Then, later in the month, 86 evangelical leaders calling themselves the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) issued a statement at a press conference that called for action to fight global warming. The ECI claimed that the threat from global warming was greatest for the world's poor, and so Christians must be involved in the issue.

The diverse approaches represented by the positions of the NAE and ECI illustrate the wide range of views within the church on the subject of global warming.

Meanwhile, a new group calling itself the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) has joined the fray by calling for prudence in how the global warming threat is approached. The ISA, in which I participate, tries to point out that the biggest threat to the poor is, not surprisingly, poverty.

Inexpensive forms of energy are required for the poor of the world to have just the basic necessities of life (clean water, refrigerated food, etc.). The ISA believes that approaches to fighting global warming that end up making energy more expensive will actually hurt the poor before the poor ever become aware of climate change. We adhere to the "Cornwall Declaration", which folds in the economic realities that must be considered before one can truly 'help the poor' without doing more harm than good.

Indeed, the developed world has made itself relatively immune from most of nature's threats through advanced technologies in home construction, heating and cooling, refrigeration, medicines, transportation, agriculture, and a wide variety of modern amenities that we take for granted.

Would you rather live where the women spend most of their day walking great distances to carry water, firewood, and dung home so that food can be prepared in a smoke-filled hut, where everyone then breathes in a variety of life-threatening contaminants? This is how much of the undeveloped world lives.

Now, as a result of the recent heat wave in the eastern U.S., Pat Robertson has joined those who consider manmade global warming to be a serious problem, even though the country has experienced higher temperatures in the 1920's and 1930's. It seems to be human nature for people that experience some perceived weather change over their lifetime to think that the change is not only real, but is part of a long-term trend. Even James Hansen has admitted that the global warming signal is still not big enough to reliably discern in the presence of natural climate variability.

All Christians are united in the belief that the poor should be helped. But in today's world, with a global economy, what constitutes 'help' can be muddy. Sending millions of dollars in aid to an African country where most of the funds are siphoned off to help keep a tyrant in power is one illustration of the complexities involved in simple applications of Christian charity. Farm subsidies in the United States have the unintended consequence of making the price of produce in poor countries uncompetitive, perpetuating poverty in those countries.

Bjorn Lomborg, a self-proclaimed environmentalist, assembled a panel of experts in economics who were charged with determining -- given a fixed amount of money to be dedicated to improving the human conditions -- what actions give the biggest returns for the least money. The result was the "Copenhagen Consensus", with over a dozen policy approaches prioritized in terms of bang-for-the-buck. Fighting climate change was at the bottom of the list. Fighting malaria, AIDS, provision of clean water and other sanitation measures were a few that were at or near the top of the list.

As has often been the case where economics and policy intersect, good intentions are not enough. The lesson for the church is, while it is one thing to agree to "help the world's poor", it is another thing entirely to determine how to best spend limited financial resources. Unless we examine the consequences of our charitable efforts, it is entirely possible to inadvertently make matters worse, rather than better.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.



Green Hybrid Power
PG&E Announces Plans for New Solar Generation Plants
BCN, August 15, 2006

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. have announced plans to employ a hybrid solar-gas technology to add significantly to its supplies of solar power by 2010.

According to PG&E, an agreement was reached with Luz II, LLC, on the purchase of at least 500 megawatts of solar energy produced through Luz's proprietary technology, said to be both more efficient in converting sunlight to electricity and less expensive to build and operate.

...According to Wan, already about 30% of PG&E's power comes from hydroelectric and renewable sources such as wind, biomass and geothermal energy. More than 50% of the company's power comes from zero-carbon emission sources, he said.

...PG&E reported that the company already has more than 12,000 customers providing solar power generating about 88 megawatts of electricity, more than 60% of distributed solar energy generated in all of California.

OK, this time we've really solved it - - - - -
Gawd bless PG&E & Rh. Of course all these magical wonders are accomplished without coercion, the force of government, or subsidies extorted from us the rest of us poor saps.

Put Money where your mouth is
Because those who demand the world change to combat global warming are socialists who want more control of government and want more government power, this idea will never happen:
personally subsidize energy efficient technology.
Solar panels can power a house, but the breakeven time is 10-20 years. Hybrid cars are significantly higher cost than pure gas models.
Why don't they create a non-profit group that would help 'green' technology affordable to the masses?

They won't even find a way to replace those petroleum made plastic "sippy cup" tops they use once and toss after they head down to starbucks to get free wi-fi.

If you have enough know how to form and operate a business and enough tech savvy to identify and distribute green alternatives-well, by that time reality will have slapped you upside the head enough to disabuse you of leftist fantasies.

More importantly
PG&E is looking to build or buy shares in new nuclear power plants out of state. That will make a far larger contribution to California's power supply than any resources wasted on renewables.

Two technical points
1. Subsidizing energy efficient technology is highly regressive tax policy.
2. Solar panels cannot power a house. There's not enough surface area.

Then become a subsistence-level-living
survivalist and leave the civilization that allowed you to get on the Internet and type your cynical (and factually flawed) reply to the world behind.

Corporate astroturf?
Just go to their web site & you will see that this church organization has done nothing but global warming denial. This makes it look more like corporate astroturf than a grass roots group of humble Christians trying to do charity.

Some will accuse me of being closed minded in jumping to this hypothesis (you know who you are). WOuldn't it be fun to lace the disses with traces of evidence -- something other than GW denial, funding sources -- that prove me wrong.

1. I am suggesting that those demanding government action, put their money on the line and subsidize green technology.

2. Depends on where you live and how many batteries you have.

Tucson Electric Power encouraged homeowners to buy a subsidized 1KW solar panel. No batteries and excess power would be fed back into the grid. But the time to payoff the investment was several years. And, the solar panels were defective (I think they were BP.)

Why not lease the panels to homeowners, or TEP could lease the roofs of homeowners?

On demand hot water is being pushed. It will cost over $2000 to install beacause the gas lines need to be increased in size. I won't save that much money in 5 years to pay it off and I won't be able to take it with me when I move.

Bottom line there are many solutions to saving energy, but it is not worth the consumer's investment.

Calculators and the limits of solar power.
Anybody else here own a solar-powered calculator?

They don't have much computing power do they?

If you really need to do some serious computing, you need either a computer or one of the TI-8X series or up, all of which run on batteries.

Solar power is nice, in theory. However, not only does solar power require solar cells (which contain a lot of toxic chemicals and are difficult to dispose of) but it requires a lot of space in a very sunny spot. It might work for some parts of the Southwest, the Middle East and Africa, but it will result in a lot of disposal problems and requires so much up-front investment that it is not economically feasible.

Hydroelectric plants seem great, but they require not only a river nearby, but they kill a ton of fish and are opposed by many environmentalists.

Geothermal has never been made to work in any economically feasible setup.

If you want to generate a lot of energy for a lot of energy for a lot of people without a massive cost per kilowatt-hour, you need either a nuclear or petrochemical (coal, oil, natural gas) plant. Renewable energy is a nice idea, but it will not be feasible without major technological advances. Nuclear, coal or gas are the only real otions. (I have not provided citations because everything I have mentioned is common knowledge. If you want proof for a given point, please mention it.)

Worse yet
Solar power is not a net energy source. It costs more energy to make the solar cell than it will produce during its lifetime.

Why is denying something that doesn't exist, a bad thing?
OK, you're closed minded.

But we already knew that.

nuclear waste
The problems with nuclear waste are 100% political.
1) It should be recycled, not stored. That would get rid of almost all of the longest lived elements.
2) The rest can be stored for a few decades to a few hundred years.

A dogma of the Church of Scientism.
Nobody can dispute the high church of know-it-all-ism, afterall they clothe themselves in scientistic words that give authenticity to their simple-minded conclusions.

ahh, for the 1970's when "global cooling" was the alarm of the day...

I would like to read that source...
Could you post it, ColinH?

Anything that builds my anti-Environmentalist knowledge base if of great interest to me. I am sure others would appreciate it as well.

Not quite 100%, but well over 50%
I would say that some technical challenges remain, but I agree that the problem of nuclear waste disposal is largely political.

If we really want to get rid of the waste in a way where we're guaranteed not to hear from it again, we should vitrify it, load it into old torpedo casings, and drop it into an oceanic subduction zone. The torpedo will hit bottom with enough momentum to penetrate deep into the bottom muck -- which is a wonderful chemical sponge, as reliable as anything I can think of for immobilizing any waste that leaks. Geological processes will then carry the waste deep into the earth.

But, of course, this scheme is so good that it rules out the possibility of our less risk-averse descendants recovering the waste for recycling. Yucca Mountain doesn't have that disadvantage.

Polishing brass on the Titanic
Western Christianity has been hijacked by a new sect - Dispensationalism - invented by John Nelson Darby in the middle 1800's. Dispensationalism teaches that in the very near future God is going to bail out the "real" Christians (The Rapture) and then trash the entire earth. Under this theology there is no logical reason to make the earth a better place to live or even to keep it friendly to human life. The only important "good work" is to "get people saved." Bad news pleases Dispensationalists because the worse things get, the sooner Jesus will return and bail them out. The rest of us are going to Hell, anyway.

I know many Christians, yet I have never met a single one who believes that the Rapture is imminent.
I have never ever met a Christian who believes that we have no need to keep the earth liveable.

Do you have any other fantasies that you want to entertain us with?

Give me a few days
and I'll dig it up and post it next time I see a post of yours. Read it a few years ago and will take a bit to find again.

Overstatement by me
Solar is slightly positive, not negative. The best thing I've got right now is this paper below by UIC.
Scroll down for the table Life Cycle Energy Ratios for Various Technologies. Two comments about it, first solar is positive but only weakly so. Second, the sources quoted are highly favorable to solar. It's a question of benchmarking; the further north you go, the lower the solar flux (spherical geometry of the earth), and without reading the specific papers, I don't know what they used as input assumptions about solar flux.

3 Points
First: Life is it's own reward, so if one dies not holding a claim to eternal life, he's suffered no loss other than of the life he was bound to lose anyway. Since this is so, the church does the poor a great disservice by focusing on doling out the things this life offers instead of convincing the poor to seize their claim to eternal life. For there’s where the real value lies and not in the material things the poor haven’t got.

Recognizing this threat to his ministry after feeding the five thousand, Jesus remarked in John 6:26-27: "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate of the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."

Second: Knowing for certain only what we've perceived ourselves, and not knowing for certain what the future holds, we people are shortsighted, impatient and egocentric, believing every sun in the universe rises and sets on us. Worse, we're also arrogant, attributing to ourselves individually and collectively great capacities that defy all reason and evidence. This is why many people believe that man is the sole cause of the planet's recent warming and only man can apply the cure. But both beliefs are paradigm examples of the arrogant, shortsighted and impatient nonsense we people are willing to sign on to just because it's been authored in our name.

Now hear this: We can't control the weather just as we can't control or even predict the outcomes that physical systems we can't measure and fully understand produce. Global warming and weather are simple examples of such physical systems.

What’s more, elevating science or scientists as objects worthy of faith in the absence of supporting evidence is no less perilous than joining the Raileans for a KoolAid social. Remember it was science that enabled the discovery of the internal combustion engine and the nuclear power plant, as well as most of the weapons with which we kill each other in great numbers and impressive efficiency. So is it really true that science is our last and best hope for a benevolent future given its leading role in producing our perilous present?

Third: If science can’t save us, then neither can scientists nor smart people. Since this group actually includes a few politicians, then politics and government can’t save us, either. So take your Copenhagen Consensus, your Cornwall Declaration, and all your other big plans to put humanity and the planet Earth to rights, and stick ‘em where the sun don’t shine. In other words, I refuse to elevate politics and government as objects worthy of faith in the face of the irrefutable evidence establishing that so doing is folly.

If you can’t put your faith in God, then continue putting your faith in science and the state, for you’ve already got the world such beliefs have earned you.

Maybe not...
This study seems to make a LOT of unavoidable assumptions . They have to make a lot of assumptions about the distance that fuels must travel, efficiency of genration, plant design, and whatnot. This will, of course, reduce the accuracy.

The fact that solar scores so close to even tells me that it might as well be negative, especially given the uselessness of solar up north.

A Flexible Future
Solar industry chases a cheaper kilowatt
CNET, March 9, 2006

KONARKA, which recently raised an additional $20 million in venture funding, is pursuing organic photovoltaics, where solar cells are made from plastics. Although still in development, this process of "printing" organic solar cells results in flexible strips which can be used for a wide range of applications, from solar-powered cell phones to portable Army structures covered in photovoltaic material, according to the company.

"If you want to dramatically lower the price of PV, it's not about scavenging the last piece of silicon. It's about changing the manufacturing process," Konarka CEO Howard Berke said at the Piper Jaffray conference earlier this month.


Solarcoating Machinery Receives Orders for Plant and Coater, August 16, 2006

Solarcoating Machinery GmbH (SCM) received its first order on a 25 megawatt (MW) full-scale factory for dye sensitive solar cells (DSSC) including the production of 25 MW of flexible modules per year from G24innovations ltd. from England. The 25 MW solution is based on a KONARKA license.

The PLANT WILL BE IN OPERATION IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2007 and will scale up to 200 MW over time. G24innovations also placed an order with SCM for a 5 MW "click & coat" pilotcoater for DSSC, which is considered a breakthrough in lowering the costs of R&D in flexible solar and shortening development times by Thomas Kolbusch, the managing director of SCM.

No Subject
Your circle of friends and resourses must be very limited.

One word: Nanosolar
With hefty funding, solar start-up takes on big guns
CNET, June 21, 2006

Nanosolar is only a few years old, but it has laid plans to take on multinational corporations, such as BP and Sharp, in the solar industry. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company on Wednesday announced that it now has the funding to get started on volume production of its photovoltaic technology. It plans to build a manufacturing facility in California that will eventually produce 430 megawatts of solar cells per year, making the company one of the largest solar producers in the world in the span of a few years. Nanosolar will also build a plant in Germany for taking the solar cells and fitting them into solar panels.

Cost is the company's primary weapon, said CEO Martin Roscheisen. Rather than producing solar cells made out of rigid silicon, the company has come up with a way to embed CIGS (copper-indium-gallium-selenium) into thin polymer films. Ultimately, a solar panel from Nanosolar will cost about one-fifth to one-tenth the cost of a standard silicon solar panel, and expanding factory capacity will be easier, according to the company.

...Backing this rapid expansion is a wide array of investors who have committed an eye-popping $100 million to the company. Investors include Mohr, Davidow Ventures, Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the venture vehicle of eBay's Jeff Skoll and OnPoint, the venture arm of the U.S. Army. Roughly $75 million of the total is in equity, while the remaining $25 million consists of subsidies and other types of funding.

...The company has also begun to line up supply agreements with customers, said Straser. In the past year, Nanosolar has begun to hire manufacturing executives -- such as Werner Dumanski, who worked in the hard drive divisions of IBM and Hitachi -- to help it make the transition from science experiment to industrial manufacturer.

Decreasing Costs, Increasing Efficiency
See my post; One word: Nanosolar

"Ultimately, a solar panel from Nanosolar will cost about one-fifth to one-tenth the cost of a standard silicon solar panel"

All too true
What is important here is probably the relative differences between things. In particular, it's probably best to use the numbers from the same author for each of the technologies where their numbers appear to share similarities with other studies. For example, in the solar section, the values given by Gagnon appear to be completely out in left field compared with everything else. This suggests something odd about the methodology.

As you quite rightly point out, the values for solar are so small in terms of energy ratios, that the values may very well be negative in some locations, depending upon distance from equator, prevailing overcast conditions, etc. The values for coal will vary wildly depending upon whether the power plant is a mine-mouth operation or the coal must be transported considerable distances to it.

Finally, the UIC did not do a study, it simply compiled the results of available studies. But it does show a general pattern, once the obvious maverick results are set aside. What we can conclude from this is that the specific rates of return are highly situational, but in general, the renewable sources of solar and wind have the lowest energy ratios of all those included here.

Not terribly surprising, is it?

Of course, we can ask, what's the point in investing in an energy system that must spend most of its energy simply manufacturing itself? Funny, but the ENGOs usually evade this question.

if it works, great
However, I have seen a great many prospectuses that promise the moon, yet end up delivering nothing.

If it truely as cost effective as the article claims it will be, then it solar will have no trouble competing on it's own, without any need of govt subsidies or mandates.

on the contrary, I've met and talked to 10's of thosands of Christians.
I suspect your circle of friends consists of a few worn out tracts.

With respect to Nanosolar
First what they've done is perfected (apparently) deploying solar cells in films rather than wafers. Key to success here will be abrasion resistance over time. Even slight surface scratching loses most of the generation potential through diffraction/reflection.

Second, there's a slight technical error, or rather overstatement in their press release. Solar maximum conversion is 11 per cent, because that's the proportion of photons energetic enough to free an electron in the wafer. Other materials improve that slightly but only by using much rarer and more expensive materials, which is a key reason why silicon wafers remain the least uneconomic solar generation technology.

As to the 1/10th cost, I'll believe it when I see it.

Stanberry's CIGS
Large-Scale, Cheap Solar Electricity
Technology Review, June 23, 2006

Nanosolar's technology involves a thin film of COPPER, INDIUM, GALLIUM, & SELENIUM (CIGS) that absorbs sunlight and converts it into electricity. The basic technology has been around for decades, but it has proven difficult to produce it reliably and cheaply. Nanosolar has developed a way to make these cells using a printing technology similar to the kind used to print newspapers, RATHER THAN EXPENSIVE VACUUM-BASED METHODS.


Solar cell developers look beyond silicon
EE Times, February 20, 2006

HELIOVOLT Corp. (Austin, Texas) has developed a process based on rapid thermal annealing and anodic bonding that allows high-performance copper-indium-gallium-selinide (CIGS) films to be deposited on just about any substrate. Founder and photovoltaic pioneer Billy Stanbery claims the process can dramatically shorten manufacturing time and reduce the thermal budget by a factor of 10 to 100.

The breakthrough came out of X-ray diffraction studies of CIGS films under different annealing schedules. Stanbery, who began his photovoltaic research at Boeing in 1978, was trying to understand why those films had such a high efficiency in generating electrons from incident light. What he found--dense, nanostructured domains that act as p-n junctions -- is now known THE STANBERRY MODEL and has shifted the photovoltaic community away from silicon.

25 MW Full-Scale Factory
For more information, see my post 'A Flexible Future':

Solarcoating Machinery Receives Orders for Plant and Coater, August 16, 2006

Solarcoating Machinery GmbH (SCM) received its first order on a 25 megawatt (MW) full-scale factory for dye sensitive solar cells (DSSC) including the production of 25 MW of flexible modules per year from G24innovations ltd. from England. The 25 MW solution is based on a KONARKA license.

The PLANT WILL BE IN OPERATION IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2007 and will scale up to 200 MW over time. G24innovations also placed an order with SCM for a 5 MW "click & coat" pilotcoater for DSSC, which is considered a breakthrough in lowering the costs of R&D in flexible solar and shortening development times by Thomas Kolbusch, the managing director of SCM.

If this were true
If this were true, we would be doing it. Is Mark saying there is a politician who would rather argue with Nevada over Yucca mountain than perform relatively cheap cleanup of nuclear waste?

It's starting to happen
That's what the Global Nuclear Energy Program is about.

many a slip betwixt cup and lip
doing something in a lab is a lot different from doing it at mass production volumes.
Let me know when these guys are shipping 10,000 units a day.

so they've ordered the first factory
that's nice.
Still doesn't prove that their claims will bear out in mass production.

Like I said, I hope it proceeds, but I've seen so many wild claims fail over the years that I'll wait until they actually start producing production quantities before celebrating.

Add Honda
Honda Motor Enters Solar Cell Market
Nikkei Electronics Asia, April 2006

...Instead of the Si solar cells in common use today, the firm has chosen solar cells using Cu-In-Ga-Se (CIGS) compound thinfilms. A new plant with an annual production capacity of 27.5MW will be constructed at the company's Kumamoto Plant, beginning production in 2007

President Fukui explained that part of the reason for the decision to enter the solar cell industry was because "Automobiles will not survive the way things are going today." The firm apparently hopes to use its entry into the solar cell business to erase the negative image of automobiles as products that consume energy in vast quantities while emitting CO2.

Honda Motor has already productized cogeneration systems, but these too emit CO2 in operation. Solar cells, of course, do not emit any CO2 when used. In addition, CIGS solar cells only require about half as much energy to manufacture as conventional Si solar cells, allowing Honda Motor to stress how they are easy on the environment from the manufacturing stage. In the future, the company hopes to manufacture hydrogen by electrolysis of water using power generated by solar cells.

And South Africa
South African solar research eclipses rest of the world
The Weekend Argus, February 11, 2006

A team of scientists led by University of Johannesburg (formerly Rand Afrikaans University) scientist Professor Vivian Alberts achieved the breakthrough after 10 years of research. The South African technology has now been patented across the world.

One of the world leaders in solar energy, German company IFE Solar Systems, has invested more than R500-million in the South African invention and is set to manufacture 500,000 of the panels before the end of the year at a new plant in Germany.

Production will start next month and the factory will run 24 hours a day, producing more than 1,000 panels a day to meet expected demand.

...The South African solar panels consist of a thin layer of a unique metal alloy that converts light into energy. The photo-responsive alloy can operate on virtually all flexible surfaces, which means it could in future find a host of other applications.

Alberts said the new panels are approximately five microns thick (a human hair is 20 microns thick) while the older silicon panels are 350 microns thick. the cost of the South African technology is a fraction of the less effective silicone solar panels...

No Problem With Delivering That At All, Liberal G.
"[R]esultant headlines are another sad commentary on how cursory reporting on global warming has become, and how little attention is paid to the facts as they stand. [A. L. Westerling (Scripps Institute of Oceanography)says,] “Whether the changes observed in western hydro-climate and wildfire are the result of greenhouse gas-induced global warming or only an unusual natural fluctuation, is presently unclear.”

"Why so unclear? In large part, because the science isn’t straightforward, and three decades is a very short period of climate time.

"Rather than limiting the perspective to a mere 34 years, how about looking at the last 1200? Two years ago, Edward Cook and several colleagues reconstructed the West’s drought history back to 800 A.D. They wrote that “Compared to earlier megadroughts that are reconstructed to have occurred around AD 936, 1034, 1150, and 1253, however, the current drought does not stand out as an extreme event, because it has not yet lasted nearly as long.”"

Thief in the night
Not even Jesus knows when He will return.

Yes, there are plenty of Hal Lindsay disciples,
but, to say that the Dispensationalists are now the majority of Western Xians is simply a foolish and wrong statement.

Apocalyptic Eschatology has, from the very beginning, dueled with Sapiential Eschatology within Xianity. In many Xians, these two eschatologies are densely intertwined.

When all is said and done, there is an abundance of sapiential Xians who see their faith as being a commandment to further social justice and human decency in the world.

Rev. Hagee & Christians United for Israel
Evangelicals: The end (Armageddon) is near!
by Alexandra Alter
McClatchy-Tribune, August 12, 2006

...The Rev. John Hagee, pastor of a mega-church in San Antonio and founder of CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL, organized the convention in hopes of launching a pro-Israel political network in 50 states.

Hagee has issued dire predictions about instability in the region leading to apocalypse. In his 2006 book Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, Hagee warns: "The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. THE WAR OF EZEKIEL 38-39 could begin before this book gets published."

Ezekiel 38:1-8
(The King James Version)

And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land
of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,
and prophesy against him, And say, Thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the
chief prince of Meshech and Tubal: And I will turn
thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will
bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and
horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of
armour, even a great company with bucklers and
shields, all of them handling swords: Persia,
Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with
shield and helmet: Gomer, and all his bands; the
house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all
his bands: and many people with thee.

Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou,
and all thy company that are assembled unto thee,
and be thou a guard unto them. them. After many
days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years
thou shalt come into the land that is brought back
from the sword, and is gathered out of many people,
against the mountains of Israel, which have been
always waste: but it is brought forth out of the
nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt
be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all
thy bands, and many people with thee...


Let's see, Libya was recently taken off the 'Terrorist State' list, Ethopia is a non-player, and Persia (Iraq) is a mess of our own making. And scholars still have no clue as to who or what Gog, Magog, Gomer, Meshech, et. al. represent.

When did Iraq become Persian?
Last I heard they are Arab.

And Iraq is not a mess we made. It was doing fine all by itself.

reality slaps LG upside the head
The same nutcases who don't want use to drill ANWR are totally against nuclear power.

Solving the nuke waste problem is a big step towards allowing the US to start building nukes again.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing has been a viable technology since the 70's, if not before. Other countries are presently doing it. (France for one)

There is only one reason the US does not reprocess. The political will to fight the greenies does not exist.

539 B.C. to be Precise
Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, adding it to the Persian empire.

Iraq waw a mess before our invasion, but it was not an Islamo-Fascist threat -- Saddam had no intention of letting his fiefdom become a clerically-ruled state.

The rise of Christian political power…
in recent years has created a situation where they are starting to make serious inroads into creating policy in many areas. The environmental movement is one of them. Funny that the Christians are therefore in bed with the pro-abortion, anti-creation people that most abhor Christians.

Politics does indeed make for interesting bedfellows.

100 Electric Roadsters in 3 Weeks
First batch of Tesla Motors electric cars sold out
Engadget, August 16 2006

It wasn't too long ago that Tesla Motors had its (admittedly glamorous) unveiling of the forthcoming Tesla Roadster -- you know, the 130-miles per hour battery powered whip that rolls 250 miles on a single charge.

...Less than a month after this extra-green automobile hit the pre-order market, all 100 that were offered up are now claimed. Just doing simple calculations, we're seeing a company that went from next to nil in terms of sales to $10 million in capital quicker than a shipment of crude oil could hit the American shores.

Martin Eberhard, the CEO of Tesla Motors, reported that "all 100 are gone," which means those hundred highfaluting individuals that have paid the $100,000 deposit have guaranteed themselves one of the first Roadsters off the production line in 2007. While the buyers may end up paying more than the deposit price when taking delivery, it's fairly unlikely they'll see any partial refunds if the MSRP somehow clocks in under 100 grand (considering the apparent popularity), and we've heard that both of Google's co-founders, as well as eBay's Jeff Skoll, have thrown down for the seemingly coveted ride...

Why are they not donating them?
Those evil capitalists!

They should be donating them to those too poor to pay for that high priced gasoline and have to drive to San Jose to work for minimum wage.

Evil, just EVIL!

I said the provlem was solved - - - -
According to Rh, the problem has been entirely solved by the free market. So, he, and we, can all move on to other subjects, which will no doubt also succumb to free market solutions. The greenie weenies can have the next decade off to confect a new crisis.

call me when they sell 100,000
Given the number of rich people who crave a chance to demonstrate how much they care about the world, while not doing anything that affects their lifestyle, it's not surprising that they can sell 100 of these toys.

TCS Daily Archives