Republican Party keeps saying no to 345,000 new shovel ready jobs = stupidity!

[merrill]

Yes this source would produce 345,000 shovel ready jobs STAT!


Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[California Girl]

How'd that Solyndra investment work out?

Idiot.

 

[daveman]

How about a source of energy that actually works?

Nuclear.

 

[Avatar4321]

When have Republicans ever opposed alternative energy? we've been long time advocates of growing all energy industries. Just through private investment instead of allowing politicians to get campaign contributions from certain industries for giving them tax payer money.

If the alternative energy sources can compete, they wont need government to give them tax money.

 

[Avatar4321]

How about a source of energy that actually works?

Nuclear.

But I think that counters progressive attempts to eliminate energy sources that work.

 

[tinydancer]

environmentalists oppose wind farms. As a matter of fact they are wind farms largest opponents according to this article.

Environmentalists Appear to Be Wind’s Biggest Enemy
February 18, 2008

Environmentalists Appear to Be Wind's Biggest Enemy - Science News - redOrbit

 

[Avatar4321]

That's because they dont like seeing them in their back yard.

 

[bripat9643]

According to the experience of Spain, for every job created, 2.2 will be destroyed.

So much for your "shovel ready" jobs.

Yes this source would produce 345,000 shovel ready jobs STAT!


Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes this source would produce 345,000 shovel ready jobs STAT!


Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

OMG the level of Dishonesty you people are willing to stoop to, to Defend Obama and Attack Republicans is Astounding.

 

[whitehall]

Listen up you left wing freaks. We are mortgaging our grand-grand kids future to countries that sell us ....gasp....fossil fuel while the absolute fool in the white house tries to tell us that Solyndra was just a fluke and windmills really work and it is reasonable that a freaking city block of solar panels generates enough energy to cool a case of beer.

 

[Charles_Main]

environmentalists oppose wind farms. As a matter of fact they are wind farms largest opponents according to this article.

Environmentalists Appear to Be Wind’s Biggest Enemy
February 18, 2008

Environmentalists Appear to Be Wind's Biggest Enemy - Science News - redOrbit

In Fact Environmentalist Oppose most Really viable Forms of "Green Energy"

They Oppose Dams because the block Rivers and Fish, When Dams are perhaps the most Reliable, Cost Effect form of Green Energy there is.

They Oppose Wind Farms because they kill birds, and Fuck up their Back Yards.

They Oppose Nuclear because of Irrational over stated Fears about Accidents, When Nuclear is perhaps the only Source that does not Pollute with Hydro Carbons That can truly Replace our Coal, Oil, and Gas Fired Power Plants.

Then they sit around and wonder why people think they are irrational Fucking Nut Jobs.

 

[newpolitics]

When have Republicans ever opposed alternative energy? we've been long time advocates of growing all energy industries. Just through private investment instead of allowing politicians to get campaign contributions from certain industries for giving them tax payer money.

If the alternative energy sources can compete, they wont need government to give them tax money.

Are you serious with this? do you know how much contribution the oil and coal industry give during campaigns, not to mention the money they spend on lobbying? It's a LOT more than alternative energies, I can guarantee you that. Why do republicans all of a sudden become privy to corrupt practices when it comes to renewable energy sources, but conveniently forget how much it already goes down with non-renewable energy corporations? Get REAL!!!

 

[daveman]

How about a source of energy that actually works?

Nuclear.

But I think that counters progressive attempts to eliminate energy sources that work.

Indeed. They're simply not interested in sources that are economical, practical, and scalable.

 

[merrill]

Nuclear Power Is Not Clean or Green!

No contemporary energy source is as environmentally irresponsible, imposes such a high liability on taxpayers, or is as dangerous as nuclear power. Industry efforts to "greenwash" nuclear energy make a mockery of clean energy goals. Although nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!

The Real Dirt on "Clean" Nuclear Energy

* The mining, milling and enrichment of uranium into nuclear fuel are extremely energy-intensive and result in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

* Estimated "energy recovery time" for a nuclear power plant is about 10 to 18 years, depending on the richness of uranium ores mined for fuel. This means that a nuclear power plant must operate for at least a decade before all the energy consumed to build and fuel the plant has been earned back and the power station begins to produce net energy. By comparison, wind power takes less than a year to yield net energy, and solar or photovoltaic power nets energy in less than three years.

* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated that collective radiation doses amounting to 12 cancer deaths can be expected for each 20-year term a reactor operates, as a result of radioactive emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle and routine reactor operations. This calculation assumes no unplanned accidents and does not consider radiation releases from high-level nuclear waste "disposal" activities. Nor are nonfatal health impacts related to radiation exposure counted in this tally.

* Thermal pollution from nuclear power plants adversely affects marine ecosystems. "Once-through" cooling systems in use at half the U.S. nuclear reactors discharge billions of gallons of water per day at temperatures up to 25 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the water into which it flows.

The Waste Problem

* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for a quarter of a million years.

* The nuclear power industry has amassed hundreds of thousands of tons of "low-level" radioactive waste (or, in industry and regulatory parlance, "slightly radioactive solid materials"), which has created an enormous disposition problem. The industry hopes to absolve itself from liability for this waste through the insane practice of "releasing" it from regulatory control, whereupon it could be sent to recycling facilities and ultimately end up in common consumer products!

* Isolating nuclear waste from people and the environment requires significant energy and resources.

Safety and Security Risks

* Nuclear power poses unique safety and security threats, relative to other sources of electricity. A severe accident or attack at a nuclear plant could be catastrophic.

* Accidents do happen, as history has taught us at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, most recently, the Davis-Besse nuclear plant near Toledo, Ohio, which came dangerously close to disaster when acid corroded a hole in its reactor head. Don’t forget reports that the al Qaeda terrorist organization considered an attack on a U.S. nuclear power station.

* The insurance industry won’t insure against nuclear power plant accidents. Nuclear power plant operators rely on a government-backed "Price-Anderson" insurance scheme that limits their liability in the event of an accident or attack.

And Expensive Too!

* The Department of Energy admits that "Economic viability for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate." Since the inception of commercial nuclear power in the United States 50 years ago, this industry has been propped up by huge government subsidies.

*Note the Bush administration wanted to spend our tax dollars to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors. Energy legislation before the House would authorize production tax credits for new nuclear power plants, which would cost $5.7 billion by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Throwing more tax dollars at nuclear power will not make it safer, cleaner or more economical. Further, these subsidies to a mature industry distort electricity markets by granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable advantage over safe, clean energy alternatives.

Public Citizen Climate and Energy

 

[whitehall]

We don't have time to discuss the benefits of non-existing alternate energy while America is selling it's treasure to countries that produce fossil fuel energy. What do the greenies expect the US to do after we are reduced to the status of a 3rd world country? What do we do about fossil fuel when we are on our asses and our treasure is gone and we are in hock to Brazil or China or Saudi Arabia? There won't be any shovel ready jobs or any other jobs or pensions or government stability for that matter.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We learned about Shovel Ready last time. Not a second go round at the rotten apple. We have been schooled on what 'shovel ready' means

 

[daveman]

Throwing more tax dollars at nuclear power will not make it safer, cleaner or more economical. Further, these subsidies to a mature industry distort electricity markets by granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable advantage over safe, clean energy alternatives.

And yet, you support subsidies to alternate sources, which does not make them economical, practical, or scalable.

But that's different. Somehow. Right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I thought we already gave Bambam the go ahead on a shovel ready project. Turned out that one "wasn't so shovel ready"...shoveling shitloads of drivel since 2008. Nice work.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

The only "shovel ready" jobs that the Obamanistas have created are the shovels required to dig through the BULLSHIT that the American people have heard for the past three years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes this source would produce 345,000 shovel ready jobs STAT!


Renewing America's Economy (2004) | Union of Concerned Scientists


Wind
How Wind Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar
How Solar Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

Bio Mass
How Biomass Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Geo Thermal
How Geothermal Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists


Hydro Power
How Hydrokinetic Energy Works | Union of Concerned Scientists

California passed a law to do that a few years ago, how did that work out again?