|
|
|
|
#1
11-09-2007, 01:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. [/ QUOTE ] Government will fight distributed solar tooth and nail because it would largely decentralize electric power generation and threaten the electric power cartel. 
|
|
#2
11-09-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. [/ QUOTE ] Government will fight distributed solar tooth and nail because it would largely decentralize electric power generation and threaten the electric power cartel. [/ QUOTE ] A good thing the government is there to keep us from ravaging the environment, isn't it?
|
|
#3
11-09-2007, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. I mean, right now renewable energy is just a waste for 99% because it just isn't cost competitive. [/ QUOTE ] The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office!
|
|
#4
11-09-2007, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. I mean, right now renewable energy is just a waste for 99% because it just isn't cost competitive. [/ QUOTE ] The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office! [/ QUOTE ] Sure, by banning hemp, they made all kings of things price competitive with hemp products.
|
|
#5
11-09-2007, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office! [/ QUOTE ] the point is that in 1940, atomic bombs were about a decade or two away given advancing technology. today, given nanotechnoly and it's advancement, solar power that is *cheaper* than fossil fuels is between 10 and 30 years depending on who you ask. I posted a link to one guy in this thread. see the parallel?
|
|
#6
11-09-2007, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. And the fools in congress want MORE corporate welfare to expand this crappy spurce of energy. Ethanol can not stand up on its on two legs in the free market. In a free market, comparing ethanol to gas would be like comparing Rosie O'Donnel to Michael Jordan in his prime in a game of basketball. But give Rosie stilts, allow her to goal tend, and attack a 200lb ball and chain of each of Jordan's legs.....and then MAGICLY....Rosie can beat Micahel Jordan in basketball. The democrats in the congress and senate have been doing everything in their power to sabotage the American oil industry. The technology for renewable resources is not ready for prime time. It is time to removes the ball and chains from American oil and let them drill for oil.... The democrats vote EXACTLY like an agent from foreign country whose mission was to pass laws to sabotage the American oil industry.... EXACTLY....so are these Dems traitors? Probably not....just stupid...
|
|
#7
11-09-2007, 12:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid...
|
|
#8
11-09-2007, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated [/ QUOTE ] I did and this is what I found in the first linky: Was this: Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. maize-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per litre, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[6] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun. U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import Brazilian ethanol because of strict U.S. trade barriers (tariffs) corresponding to a levy of a 54-cent per gallon. These are promoted by the powerful American sugar lobby, which does not want a competitor to high-fructose corn syrup, and domestic sugar interests. Any chance of a transfer of wealth to U.S. farmers and U.S. sugar growers with a protective tariff that amounts to a subsidy more or less? [ QUOTE ] Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole [/ QUOTE ] Ah the oil robber baron argument. Except that the U.S. public owns oil companys more or less. Edit: For new members of this forum, EliotR likes to parrott the liberal, Democratic party talking points as in his oil company rant. When I say the public owns oil companys I mean that the shares are owned by instutions like mutual funds, pension accounts, etc. Stuff people put there money in for retirement and such. Here's an article that appeared in the NYTimes about who owns oil companies: What Is an Oil Company, Anyway? Are we angry, then, at the owners of the oil companies? Maybe, but then it's self-hatred. Roughly 41 percent of Exxon Mobil stock is owned by retirement funds, private, public (federal, state and local) and individual retirement accounts. In other words, by us. It is demonstrable that many retirement funds hold a great deal of oil stocks, including Exxon Mobil. Of the other owners, the largest holdings by far are at mutual funds and exchange-traded funds — generally vehicles for middle-class investors and retirees. No individuals own more than 1 percent of the stock, and the largest single personal holding, representing far less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the company, is owned by Lee R. Raymond, the retired chief executive, who took the company through some very rough sailing to arrive at its present, fairly secure position. ONE of the largest holders is the College Retirement Equities Fund, for higher-education teachers and others. Are we angry at them? If teachers get a bigger retirement because oil company profits are up, are we sad?
|
|
#9
11-09-2007, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid... [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, easy there. You can review all my posts and find that I almost never agree with Felix, but I think he's right about this. Tell me why, if ethanol or ANY other renewable energy source is ready to take on oil, it has to be massively subsidized WHILE taxing oil? There is huge money to be made for anybody who can come up with a competitive energy source. They don't need our tax money. They just need ideas, innovation, and working capital - which private companies and venture capital groups have in spades. The truth is, there are no alternative sources RIGHT NOW, and subsidizing things will only slow down our efforts to find/produce reliable alternatives. If ethanol can eventually compete with crude oil, then great! But let's not sink BILLIONS into something to make it look like it's our energy savior when really it's not. I don't think anybody here would be adverse to having their own solar units replacing their power meter, but let's not pretend that heavy government subsidies to sub-standard oil alternatives are a great idea.
|
|
#10
11-09-2007, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. [/ QUOTE ] The Brazillian ethanol program required MASSIVE SUBSIDIES to get on their own two feet. I'm not sure if the Brazillian govt still has to subsidize their ethanol industry. The USA can not follow the Brazillian ethanol model because the USA does not have enough land suitable for growing sugar cane. Corn based ethanol is extremely inefficent. Sugar cane based ethanol is much better. Like I said, corn-based ethanol is crap... And realize that I forget more knowledge than you will every learn in a lifetime...
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
