Rick Perry Calls Shift From Fossil Fuels To Renewables ‘Immoral’

[bripat9643]

Electricity helps produce food, numskull. It's used to provide refrigeration, make fertilizer and do food processing. Pesticides and fertilizer are literally made from fossil fuel. Electricity also runs things like hospitals and electric lights.

You're just an arrogant, callous asshole who thinks Africans aren't entitled to have all the modern technology that you enjoy. You want children to be malnourished because their parents can't own a refrigerator to keep milk cold. What a fucking piece of shit.

A, a true deplorable Ayn Rand fanatic

Now big oil is going to save the starving African children...

So how would you eat if there were no big oil to produce the food you eat? If you live up north, how would you survive bitter cold deadly temperatures in the winter? If you live south, how would you like to live there with no AC? If you had a medical emergency, how would you get to the hospital on time with no ambulances or personal vehicle?

The snowflakes don't seem to understand that we would all starve if it wasn't for oil.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's economical, sure. But alternatives don't have the power, the availability, nor the cost to replace fossil fuels. Do you have windmill in your backyard or solar panels on the roof of your home? If not, why not?

Ah, so now it's just about $$$, not about morality?

As a socialist I'd say the government needs to start a Manhattan program to develop nuclear fusion which doesn't have the drawbacks of solar and wind power so everybody can have clean energy (provided by the state) and they can tax the parasitic oil industry to pay for it, that would be the moral thing to do

The oil industry is not parasitic. It provides the government with hundreds of billions in taxes every year.

The so-called "green energy" industry is parasitic.

 

[Norman]

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome.

Blind, obedient commitment to a partisan ideology makes people say stuff like that. Perry says:

“Look those people in the eyes that are starving and tell them you can’t have electricity. Because as a society we decided fossil fuels were bad. I think that is immoral.”

Standard partisan binary argument, pretending that only fossil fuels provide energy, as if it's all or nothing. The question is whether he really believes what he said, which is possible. Ideologues can talk themselves into damn near anything.
.

Some hacks may even believe the chart you posted... that is, wind/solar energy is twice as cheap as nuclear energy.

I am sure that you live by that and purchase the undoubtedly much cheaper solar power plan, power your car with wind...

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Of course it's about money. Our economy struggled for years until fracking gave us the ability to produce fuel at a cheaper price. And fracking greatly lowered our so-called carbon footprint at the same time.

When people save money on fuel, that money goes into the economy and creates positive economic activity. So it's imperative that we have the lowest priced fuel as we can.

Interesting... and the cost of environmental pollution, does that compute in your low fuel prices?

Someone has to pay for that after all and it's not the oil companies

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it's about money. Our economy struggled for years until fracking gave us the ability to produce fuel at a cheaper price. And fracking greatly lowered our so-called carbon footprint at the same time.

When people save money on fuel, that money goes into the economy and creates positive economic activity. So it's imperative that we have the lowest priced fuel as we can.

Interesting... and the cost of environmental pollution, does that compute in your low fuel prices?

Someone has to pay for that after all and it's not the oil companies

What costs? I look out the window and I seen clear skies. I don't see any pollution at all.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Electricity helps produce food, numskull. It's used to provide refrigeration, make fertilizer and do food processing. Pesticides and fertilizer are literally made from fossil fuel. Electricity also runs things like hospitals and electric lights.

You're just an arrogant, callous asshole who thinks Africans aren't entitled to have all the modern technology that you enjoy. You want children to be malnourished because their parents can't own a refrigerator to keep milk cold. What a fucking piece of shit.

A, a true deplorable Ayn Rand fanatic

Now big oil is going to save the starving African children...

What do you propose as the alternative?

Give us a call when you catch a clue!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If it's economical, sure. But alternatives don't have the power, the availability, nor the cost to replace fossil fuels. Do you have windmill in your backyard or solar panels on the roof of your home? If not, why not?

Ah, so now it's just about $$$, not about morality?

As a socialist I'd say the government needs to start a Manhattan program to develop nuclear fusion which doesn't have the drawbacks of solar and wind power so everybody can have clean energy (provided by the state) and they can tax the parasitic oil industry to pay for it, that would be the moral thing to do

Oil companies don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes passed on to them by everyone else.

Dumbass!

 

[Reasonable]

Try posting a thoughtful OP and I will respond in kind. You are a clown.

Perry, Pruitt, Trump etc are the clowns. Actually they’re dangerous but your head is too far up fat boy’s ass to see the light of day..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it's about money. Our economy struggled for years until fracking gave us the ability to produce fuel at a cheaper price. And fracking greatly lowered our so-called carbon footprint at the same time.

When people save money on fuel, that money goes into the economy and creates positive economic activity. So it's imperative that we have the lowest priced fuel as we can.

Interesting... and the cost of environmental pollution, does that compute in your low fuel prices?

Someone has to pay for that after all and it's not the oil companies

It's not anybody really because these inflated illness claims are just that, made up.

The problem with all this green nonsense is that it's perpetual. It never stops. No matter how many billions or trillions of dollars we've thrown at it, environmentalists are never happy. They only want more.

I don't know how old you are, but I can remember as a child, all they wanted was to get lead out of the gasoline. If they got that done, they would be happy. That was back in the 60's.

Are they happy today? Of course not. And if we spent another three trillion dollars on it, would they be happy tomorrow? Of course they wouldn't.

So yes, it is a question of finances. How broke would we have to be before the environmentalists are happy? Try to answer that question. What would it take for them to shut up? What are the measurements and how much would it cost us?

Don't feel bad about not being able to answer the question. I asked it over a dozen times on USMB, and nobody is able to provide an answer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Electricity helps produce food, numskull. It's used to provide refrigeration, make fertilizer and do food processing. Pesticides and fertilizer are literally made from fossil fuel. Electricity also runs things like hospitals and electric lights.

You're just an arrogant, callous asshole who thinks Africans aren't entitled to have all the modern technology that you enjoy. You want children to be malnourished because their parents can't own a refrigerator to keep milk cold. What a fucking piece of shit.

A, a true deplorable Ayn Rand fanatic

Now big oil is going to save the starving African children...

So how would you eat if there were no big oil to produce the food you eat? If you live up north, how would you survive bitter cold deadly temperatures in the winter? If you live south, how would you like to live there with no AC? If you had a medical emergency, how would you get to the hospital on time with no ambulances or personal vehicle?

A liberal will stand there telling you about the evils of big oil while eating a sandwich wrapped in plastic.

While using makeup made from petro, under a roof which shingles are made from oil, then a drive down the asphalt road made out of oil.

 

[busybee01]

I believe in a all of the above energy approach. Renewable energy is possible on a small scale such as installing solar energy panels on houses. Subsidies for this are necessary because most people do not have $25,000 on them. Of course Trump made that more expensive by placing tariffs on solar panels. Trump's war on American consumers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe in a all of the above energy approach. Renewable energy is possible on a small scale such as installing solar energy panels on houses. Subsidies for this are necessary because most people do not have $25,000 on them. Of course Trump made that more expensive by placing tariffs on solar panels. Trump's war on American consumers.

If the government has to subsidize it, then it's not worth the money.

Renewable energy will come, but at it's own time. If you force the issue then it will only make matters worse than better. It takes time, development, research, experiments. You couldn't put fuel injection in the Model-T because our understanding of the combustion engine was nowhere near enough to even dream about such advancements. They kept making things better and better until we finally arrived at that point. Back when I was a teen in the 70's, we still had cars that didn't have power steering. When it first came out, it was very expensive just like air conditioning. Eventually they got it down to a science and it became more economical.

I remember when cell phone meant carrying a car battery around in a case, and there being very few places you could actually use the thing. In your car, you had to use a suction cup antenna to get any reception at all. That was only a few short decades ago. Today your cell phone is like your best friend. It does nearly everything for you. But nobody back when cell phones first came out dreamt of our phones today.

 

[busybee01]

I believe in a all of the above energy approach. Renewable energy is possible on a small scale such as installing solar energy panels on houses. Subsidies for this are necessary because most people do not have $25,000 on them. Of course Trump made that more expensive by placing tariffs on solar panels. Trump's war on American consumers.

If the government has to subsidize it, then it's not worth the money.

Renewable energy will come, but at it's own time. If you force the issue then it will only make matters worse than better. It takes time, development, research, experiments. You couldn't put fuel injection in the Model-T because our understanding of the combustion engine was nowhere near enough to even dream about such advancements. They kept making things better and better until we finally arrived at that point. Back when I was a teen in the 70's, we still had cars that didn't have power steering. When it first came out, it was very expensive just like air conditioning. Eventually they got it down to a science and it became more economical.

I remember when cell phone meant carrying a car battery around in a case, and there being very few places you could actually use the thing. In your car, you had to use a suction cup antenna to get any reception at all. That was only a few short decades ago. Today your cell phone is like your best friend. It does nearly everything for you. But nobody back when cell phones first came out dreamt of our phones today.

I don't have any problem with tax breaks for individuals. Individuals again do not have $25,000 on them. I would disagree. Solar power is feasible on a small scale such as individual homes or buildings.

 

[Silhouette]

Blind, obedient commitment to a partisan ideology makes people say stuff like that. Perry says:

“Look those people in the eyes that are starving and tell them you can’t have electricity. Because as a society we decided fossil fuels were bad. I think that is immoral.”

OK, it's not Perry's fault maybe that he doesn't know that most of the people starving who need electricity live in places where it's massively hot and the sun beats down all day. Few oilmen dare to brave out of the box to see that using fresnel concentrators, electricity can be generated quite cheaply. Heat "batteries" can store that electricity at night. And in place where cogeneration with another type of fuel for runs of cloudy days or rain, there may be a geothermal source to tap. In that case, no worries about the weather at all.

Perry instead of bowing at the altar of sticky black oil, should bow at the altar of "use linear solar thermal or geothermal in conjunction with another fuel and charge the same as if we were burning fuel 24/7, instead of getting it free 50% of the time or more."

I mean, green energy could get these guys rich. They're just being doofusses about it.



Here's how easy and simple the technology is to set up. Uses steam turbines like all the other types of conventional power, including deadly nuclear plants. (They just heat water to steam, but do it the most deadly way we know)



vv apparently you whitehall posted before you read this ^^

 

[whitehall]

Typical half truths and fake news that angry whiny lefties eat it up like pablum. Perry said it was immoral to deny starving people in developing nations cheap energy like fossil fuel. Hypocrite elitist lefties enjoy the comfort and convenience of gasoline and oil but the immoral bastards would deny the same convenience to less advanced humans just to make a freaking political point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I believe in a all of the above energy approach. Renewable energy is possible on a small scale such as installing solar energy panels on houses. Subsidies for this are necessary because most people do not have $25,000 on them. Of course Trump made that more expensive by placing tariffs on solar panels. Trump's war on American consumers.

If the government has to subsidize it, then it's not worth the money.

Renewable energy will come, but at it's own time. If you force the issue then it will only make matters worse than better. It takes time, development, research, experiments. You couldn't put fuel injection in the Model-T because our understanding of the combustion engine was nowhere near enough to even dream about such advancements. They kept making things better and better until we finally arrived at that point. Back when I was a teen in the 70's, we still had cars that didn't have power steering. When it first came out, it was very expensive just like air conditioning. Eventually they got it down to a science and it became more economical.

I remember when cell phone meant carrying a car battery around in a case, and there being very few places you could actually use the thing. In your car, you had to use a suction cup antenna to get any reception at all. That was only a few short decades ago. Today your cell phone is like your best friend. It does nearly everything for you. But nobody back when cell phones first came out dreamt of our phones today.

I don't have any problem with tax breaks for individuals. Individuals again do not have $25,000 on them. I would disagree. Solar power is feasible on a small scale such as individual homes or buildings.

The truth is that it's not cheaper or better than fossil fuel. Cleaner? Yes it is, if you are willing to pay for it.

If the government has to subsidize any product, it's because the product cannot sell itself.

 

[Silhouette]

The truth is that it's not cheaper or better than fossil fuel. Cleaner? Yes it is, if you are willing to pay for it.

If the government has to subsidize any product, it's because the product cannot sell itself.

I beg to differ. An electric plant using geothermal or solar thermal linear fresnel in combination with another type of fuel is having to buy far less fuel to produce "x" energy. That results in a NET PROFIT to the stockholders. The only "subsidizing" the government might be up to in that situation is to grant said electric company the right to keep charging the same rates as if they burned fuel 24/7. And really, that costs the taxpayers nothing at the end of the day.

Win win. It's only those who heavily invested in fossil fuels that would object to this. But if they gradually converted stock into the much more profitable green or green/combo companies, they'd make out like bandits. Boiled down it just is a matter of fossilized and unwise investing practices.