Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The problem is we simple don't do a good job of enforcing our trade agreements. China sinks billions into research, loans, and subsidies putting competing US manufacturers at a disadvantages. In addition, they manipulated the currency in order to keep their prices down and fragrantly violated US copyrights producing illegal copies of everything from DVD's to trucks.Propping them up with government funds is exactly what the other countries are doing...which is why we are LOSING the solar panel battle to China and Germany.
Germany: A shining Example of Solar Success
No doubt conservatives were against the horseless carriage.
Hmmm...correct me if I'm wrong on this Junky but I don't recall the US government bankrolling Henry Ford. Gee, how DID we ever develop the automobile without government stimulus money?
We should just give up on all alternative energy sources, keep giving all the tax breaks to the oil companies, let them use up a finite energy source, and only when we are completely out of oil should we worry about alternative energy.
Why are republicans pushing so hard for high speed transportation of oil but not people? Do you know how much gas we will save if we build high speed railways across America like China is doing in China? Imagine the jobs that will be created?
Nah. Drill baby drill.
Solar not a good investment?? Although solar produces less than 1% of the world's electric power, it is growing at a rate of 35% annually. The long term projected growth is between 20% and 30%.True, short term but the engineering behind solar is not that complex today. Let their governments spend their taxpayer $$ funding the companies and then we can weed out the worst. The product will come here.
Take a look at the government funded crap the Chinks put out. Their military equipment is beyond crap. Their copy cat fighters hardly fly.
Government subsidies do not account for the bad. Investment $$$ from private sources follows the good.
The solar panel battle is not in the funding, it is in the delivery system of the product. As long as some Chink somewhere will build it for cheaper the jobs and the industry will never be here regardless of who subsidizes it.
That's the point...they AREN'T making them cheaper than we can...they are subsidizing the crap out of them. According to the study I referenced before, WE make them cheaper but their government is subsidizing the hell out of them.
So if you know that and I know that why does this administration keep propping up an industry that is doomed?? Is there something going to magically happen that will change things. If I were going to invest in something I'd take a hard look at what the competition is doing first.
Doesn't sound like good a business investment to me. You'd think this Administration would see that as well. However, it's not really about developing green energy, it's about trading money. They give taxpayer money to the business, they in turn contribute handily to the campaign then file bankruptcy and liquidate, they aren't even trying to reorganize. Sounds a little like money laundering to me.
We should just give up on all alternative energy sources, keep giving all the tax breaks to the oil companies, let them use up a finite energy source, and only when we are completely out of oil should we worry about alternative energy.
Why are republicans pushing so hard for high speed transportation of oil but not people? Do you know how much gas we will save if we build high speed railways across America like China is doing in China? Imagine the jobs that will be created?
Nah. Drill baby drill.
Turn off MSNBC and listen to basic logic.
China can build high speed railways without any extra costs or delays becuase they simply say "lets build it here" and it is done. No concern about taking someones land; no concern anout ecological side affects; no concern about national m parks, monuments, sanctuaries...They just say "build it here" and they start construction the next day.
We will need to deal with years of litigation; years of EPA studies; years of eminant domain cases....and in the end? It wont be built but millions of dollars spent.
Jeez....you know...it is not difficult to come up with a good idea.....anyone can just spew things like "high spoed rails" during a campaign speech.
The difficult part is implementing it.
And even if it were built? Who would run it? The government? How is Amtrak doing? The post office?
We should just give up on all alternative energy sources, keep giving all the tax breaks to the oil companies, let them use up a finite energy source, and only when we are completely out of oil should we worry about alternative energy.
Why are republicans pushing so hard for high speed transportation of oil but not people? Do you know how much gas we will save if we build high speed railways across America like China is doing in China? Imagine the jobs that will be created?
Nah. Drill baby drill.
Turn off MSNBC and listen to basic logic.
China can build high speed railways without any extra costs or delays becuase they simply say "lets build it here" and it is done. No concern about taking someones land; no concern anout ecological side affects; no concern about national m parks, monuments, sanctuaries...They just say "build it here" and they start construction the next day.
We will need to deal with years of litigation; years of EPA studies; years of eminant domain cases....and in the end? It wont be built but millions of dollars spent.
Jeez....you know...it is not difficult to come up with a good idea.....anyone can just spew things like "high spoed rails" during a campaign speech.
The difficult part is implementing it.
And even if it were built? Who would run it? The government? How is Amtrak doing? The post office?
We should just give up on all alternative energy sources, keep giving all the tax breaks to the oil companies, let them use up a finite energy source, and only when we are completely out of oil should we worry about alternative energy.
Why are republicans pushing so hard for high speed transportation of oil but not people? Do you know how much gas we will save if we build high speed railways across America like China is doing in China? Imagine the jobs that will be created?
Nah. Drill baby drill.
Turn off MSNBC and listen to basic logic.
China can build high speed railways without any extra costs or delays becuase they simply say "lets build it here" and it is done. No concern about taking someones land; no concern anout ecological side affects; no concern about national m parks, monuments, sanctuaries...They just say "build it here" and they start construction the next day.
We will need to deal with years of litigation; years of EPA studies; years of eminant domain cases....and in the end? It wont be built but millions of dollars spent.
Jeez....you know...it is not difficult to come up with a good idea.....anyone can just spew things like "high spoed rails" during a campaign speech.
The difficult part is implementing it.
And even if it were built? Who would run it? The government? How is Amtrak doing? The post office?
You volunteering your "back yard" for this project?
heck we use enema domain now to take private land for corporate use. Or are you saying the govt should build, run and own the HS rail?
FL voted in HS rails in on a ballot measure. Jeb Bush killed it.
I won't waste my time debating global warming. It's been accepted by every major scientific organization on the planet. No one but a fool or a conspiracy theorist would deny it.IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.
2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.
Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.
3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.
Point one is unsupported by empirical data.
Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.
Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.
If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.
The internal combustion engine is extremely inefficient. When the fuel is burned, 80% of the energy is wasted producing heat not motion. It seems economically efficient only because we have built a huge infrastructure of exploration, production, refining, and transporting in order to delivery the fuel to an engine that wastes 80% of the energy. Alternative energy sources are expensive only because we have not invested in the infrastructure to support them.
The federal government has leased 40 million acres for oil production yet 3/4 of this land produces no oil and most of it has not even been explored. Oil companies want to drill wherever there is oil regardless of the environmental impact.
Engine Efficiency
Most oil leases on public lands go unused - US news - Environment - msnbc.com
Solar not a good investment?? Although solar produces less than 1% of the world's electric power, it is growing at a rate of 35% annually. The long term projected growth is between 20% and 30%.That's the point...they AREN'T making them cheaper than we can...they are subsidizing the crap out of them. According to the study I referenced before, WE make them cheaper but their government is subsidizing the hell out of them.
So if you know that and I know that why does this administration keep propping up an industry that is doomed?? Is there something going to magically happen that will change things. If I were going to invest in something I'd take a hard look at what the competition is doing first.
Doesn't sound like good a business investment to me. You'd think this Administration would see that as well. However, it's not really about developing green energy, it's about trading money. They give taxpayer money to the business, they in turn contribute handily to the campaign then file bankruptcy and liquidate, they aren't even trying to reorganize. Sounds a little like money laundering to me.
Governments around the world, not just the US are pushing the conversion to solar energy because it has the potential of making every nation energy independent even if it does not replace oil as the primary energy source. Energy independence eliminates a major underlining cause of political and military conflict.
Solar Stocks on Fire as Chinese Investments Grow - Yahoo! Finance
Propping them up with government funds is exactly what the other countries are doing...which is why we are LOSING the solar panel battle to China and Germany.
True, short term but the engineering behind solar is not that complex today. Let their governments spend their taxpayer $$ funding the companies and then we can weed out the worst. The product will come here.
Take a look at the government funded crap the Chinks put out. Their military equipment is beyond crap. Their copy cat fighters hardly fly.
Government subsidies do not account for the bad. Investment $$$ from private sources follows the good.
The solar panel battle is not in the funding, it is in the delivery system of the product. As long as some Chink somewhere will build it for cheaper the jobs and the industry will never be here regardless of who subsidizes it.
That's the point...they AREN'T making them cheaper than we can...they are subsidizing the crap out of them. According to the study I referenced before, WE make them cheaper but their government is subsidizing the hell out of them.
Point one is unsupported by empirical data.
Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.
Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.
If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.
You claim there is no empirical data to support that the use of fossil fuels is polluting our rivers, lakes and streams?
There are traces of oil and gas in every major river basin in America.
I give you a pass to think on that one again.
No, there is no evidence it is affecting the climate. There is more environmental pollution in the water from California's mandated use of MTBE then there is from fossil fuels. And more to the point MTBE takes centuries to breakdown and disappear from the system. Fossil fuels will oxidise within weeks and some within days.
You claim there is no empirical data to support that the use of fossil fuels is polluting our rivers, lakes and streams?
There are traces of oil and gas in every major river basin in America.
I give you a pass to think on that one again.
No, there is no evidence it is affecting the climate. There is more environmental pollution in the water from California's mandated use of MTBE then there is from fossil fuels. And more to the point MTBE takes centuries to breakdown and disappear from the system. Fossil fuels will oxidise within weeks and some within days.
More of something else does not mean "no evidence" as you claimed before.
I do accept your change but what you stated before there is NO evidence that fossil fuels are polluting.
And that is not true. I agree with the climate statement.
The consensus of scientists is never right all the time, just 99% of the time. I will go with the consensus on this one.I won't waste my time debating global warming. It's been accepted by every major scientific organization on the planet. No one but a fool or a conspiracy theorist would deny it.Point one is unsupported by empirical data.
Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.
Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.
If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.
The internal combustion engine is extremely inefficient. When the fuel is burned, 80% of the energy is wasted producing heat not motion. It seems economically efficient only because we have built a huge infrastructure of exploration, production, refining, and transporting in order to delivery the fuel to an engine that wastes 80% of the energy. Alternative energy sources are expensive only because we have not invested in the infrastructure to support them.
The federal government has leased 40 million acres for oil production yet 3/4 of this land produces no oil and most of it has not even been explored. Oil companies want to drill wherever there is oil regardless of the environmental impact.
Engine Efficiency
Most oil leases on public lands go unused - US news - Environment - msnbc.com
Consensus isn't science no matter how hard you try to make it so. Remember, the consensus in science once upon a time said the world was flat. Just 50 years ago the consensus on the building of mountains was it happened as the planet shrank through cooling of the crust. Amazing how massive a change a few years of research can alter the horizon.
If you choose to actually learn about the science involved i will be happy to winnow the wheat from the chaff for you. If you choose to remain uninformed i can't help you.
