The unsustainability of "green" energy

[elektra]

According to Mamooth, you're lying about what I supposedly said, because you couldn't address what I actually said.

Now, if you'd like to address what I actually said, give it a try. Should I go over my points again, maybe in smaller words to help you out? Let me know specifically what it was that confused you so much. After all, my mission is use the light of reason to banish the darkness of your barbarism.

Oh, until you address me politely, I'll be referring to you as "pissguzzler". Remember pissguzzler, I return the respect I'm given. If you can't act like a grownup, then I get to have fun making you cry.

wow, great post MOOT, "piss guzzler"? Water sports? How come all you liberal nutcakes are also sexual perverts? Intellectually I would think you were smart enough to be above bathroom humor, you certainly portray yourself as being smart. Now am I pissguzzler or someone else.

Yes, go over your points again, MOOT, in smaller words, quote the original, and then put them in smaller words, hopefully everyone encourages you to use smaller words, cause this will be great.

Go ahead MOOT, go over your points, in smaller words!

 

[elektra]

Rotty's getting obsessed. I believe the reason is "butthurt over being humiliated".

So first Rotty whines about coal companies going bankrupt. Then he whines it's not a dying industry. And doesn't see the contradiction.

About 75,000 people work in the coal industry. Over a million now work in renewable energy. Rotty wants to toss that million out of work to save the 75,000.

The number has coal workers been dropping steadily since the 1950s, no matter who was in office. All those coal jobs lost under Republican presidents? Rotty doesn't care. He'll blame it on the liberals somehow.

Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.

Mammy got whipped so bad with facts that she has to resort to personal insults. Typical.

Coal mining isn't "going bankrupt" nor did I ever say that. Nice straw man. The fact that you have to lie about what I said is proof that you've been defeated. So I'll ask the same two dumbed-down just for liberals questions again that you are clearly too afraid to address:

• Why is Hillary Clinton and other libtards threatening to bankrupt the coal industry with regulations if it's "dying" on it's own?

• If "over a million people" (clearly a bullshit claim since you have no link to back up your lie), why does the government need to spend hundreds of billions to keep it from collapsing?!?

I can understand you fear in addressing these simple questions as they really illustrate the absurdity of your position. But if you do find the courage - let me know.

Take MOOT up on the smaller word thing, I would love to see MOOT use smaller words.

 

[P@triot]

Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by six to one in Logan Co., W.V., CNN pointed out, but the residents are outraged over Clinton’s call to eradicate the coal industry.

“It was not easy here to randomly find people here who want Hillary Clinton for president,” CNN reported, adding that out of the nearly 20 random Democrats they interviewed, nearly all of them were already supporting Trump.

CNN Struggles to Find Democrat Not Voting Trump

 

[frigidweirdo]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

 

[P@triot]

Now, if your phrased your question more honestly, I'd point out the free market sucks balls at long term planning. Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism.

"Piss guzzler" and "sucks balls"? So we've established that your immature, homosexual, and extraordinarily sexually deviant. Probably get erections thinking about mommy like Bill Clinton does - uh? Yeah...you are the textbook libtard.

Former Clinton Mistress: Bill’s Sexual Fantasies Inspired by His Mother

Now...for the mature, intelligent people on USMB (you're eliminated so don't panic) - the free market has driven "long term planning" since the beginning of the U.S. For instance, both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates believed that one day, every single home would have a computer in it. Most people laughed at them. The government did not subsidize them and they manufactured the future. The same can be said for electricity, the telephone, the cell phone, and pretty much every thing that has made the U.S. the most advanced nation in the world.

Furthermore, even if your outrageously false claims were true (and in typical libtard fashion you literally just make stuff up because you're too lazy to do any research or leaner anything), the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to "steer capitalism" or engage in "long term planning" for the private sector. Further still, it is not authorized to engage in anything related to energy development.

But, you have no idea how your government is designed, how it functions, or what its responsibilities are. Bet you could write an encyclopedia though about drinking the pee of other men or dressing in mommy's thongs and bra's though. Typical liberal.

 

[P@triot]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

 

[P@triot]

Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.

Half a billion dollars (since you can't handle basic math - that is $500 million) just to Solyndra alone. And it still couldn't say afloat. Declared bankruptcy and closed its doors.

Poor maMOOT - doesn't understand the meaning of words but throws them around anyway in a desperate attempt to sound "intelligent".

The regulations were created specifically to bankrupt and end the coal industry because the "green" industry can't compete with them. They get hundreds of billions from government and they still have to keep closing their doors. Creating regulations designed specifically to eliminate an industry is not "removing a subsidy" (which never existed). But....one would have to know what the word "subsidy" means to understand that. And how could maMOOT have time for education when it takes a while to dress up in mommy's clothes and flip through homosexual magazines which focus on sexually deviant behaviors like ingesting urine??? And yes...Moot really did make reference to his affection for that kind of disgusting stuff above (just scroll up).

 

[frigidweirdo]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

 

[P@triot]

Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.

Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is not one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".

But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.

Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is not one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".

But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.

Neither was invading Iraq.....

 

[P@triot]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

 

[P@triot]

Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.

Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is not one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".

But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.

Neither was invading Iraq.....

Want to bet?

 

[frigidweirdo]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.

Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is not one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".

But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.

Neither was invading Iraq.....

Want to bet?

Yeah, I bet you can't find the term "Iraq" in the US constitution.

 

[elektra]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

and there you have it, with the liberal idiot can not defend one idea, they move to the next, then the next, then the next.

You know there are other threads, a different forum for the War in Iraq, what is the matter, your argument in favor of renewable energy is, UNSUSTAINABLE?

 

[mamooth]

wow, great post MOOT, "piss guzzler"? Water sports? How come all you liberal nutcakes are also sexual perverts? Intellectually I would think you were smart enough to be above bathroom humor, you certainly portray yourself as being smart. Now am I pissguzzler or someone else.

Yes, go over your points again, MOOT, in smaller words, quote the original, and then put them in smaller words, hopefully everyone encourages you to use smaller words, cause this will be great.

Go ahead MOOT, go over your points, in smaller words!

When you wrote that, pissguzzler, you were obviously intoxicated because of what you'd just guzzled.

Now, given how butthurt you get when your own tactics are turned back on you, what does that tell you about your tactics?

If you want to discuss the issues instead of crying at me, give it a try. Let's get back to what you were running from. You've been crying and deflecting for so long, it's hard to remember the topic. Oh, that's right. It's the collapse of the coal industry.

Here's coal production.

That plunge happened all on its own. Do you plan to reverse it? How? China and India have cut imports to a fraction of formal levels, and those imports will soon hit zero. Domestic demand has crashed as well. How do you propose to revive interest in a product that's not wanted? More government subsidies?

 

[mamooth]

Half a billion dollars (since you can't handle basic math - that is $500 million) just to Solyndra alone. And it still couldn't say afloat. Declared bankruptcy and closed its doors.

And other loans being payed back put the program as a whole in black.

No wonder you're so confused here. You don't understand something as simple as banking. Some loans fail. That's made up for by the ones that don't.

Poor maMOOT - doesn't understand the meaning of words but throws them around anyway in a desperate attempt to sound "intelligent".

Free advice: In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it. You can't, because you're a blustering cult parrot.

The regulations were created specifically to bankrupt and end the coal industry because the "green" industry can't compete with them.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

Now that you've descended into bizarre conspiracy rants, it's time to stop treating you like a serious adult. You're in the 'comic relief' category now.

Oh, since you're so upset about not getting a nickname, you can be "pissdrinker" if you want. Seems appropriate, given how you devoted a whole post to the topic. Or maybe you just wanted attention. That happens a lot with my stalkers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Half a billion dollars (since you can't handle basic math - that is $500 million) just to Solyndra alone. And it still couldn't say afloat. Declared bankruptcy and closed its doors.

And other loans being payed back put the program as a whole in black.

No wonder you're so confused here. You don't understand something as simple as banking. Some loans fail. That's made up for by the ones that don't.

Poor maMOOT - doesn't understand the meaning of words but throws them around anyway in a desperate attempt to sound "intelligent".

Free advice: In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it. You can't, because you're a blustering cult parrot.

The regulations were created specifically to bankrupt and end the coal industry because the "green" industry can't compete with them.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

Now that you've descended into bizarre conspiracy rants, it's time to stop treating you like a serious adult. You're in the 'comic relief' category now.

Oh, since you're so upset about not getting a nickname, you can be "pissdrinker" if you want. Seems appropriate, given how you devoted a whole post to the topic. Or maybe you just wanted attention. That happens a lot with my stalkers.

You don't understand something as simple as banking. Some loans fail. That's made up for by the ones that don't.

Except in the case of these stupid green crony loans.

 

[elektra]

wow, great post MOOT, "piss guzzler"? Water sports? How come all you liberal nutcakes are also sexual perverts? Intellectually I would think you were smart enough to be above bathroom humor, you certainly portray yourself as being smart. Now am I pissguzzler or someone else.

Yes, go over your points again, MOOT, in smaller words, quote the original, and then put them in smaller words, hopefully everyone encourages you to use smaller words, cause this will be great.

Go ahead MOOT, go over your points, in smaller words!

When you wrote that, pissguzzler, you were obviously intoxicated because of what you'd just guzzled.

Now, given how butthurt you get when your own tactics are turned back on you, what does that tell you about your tactics?

If you want to discuss the issues instead of crying at me, give it a try. Let's get back to what you were running from. You've been crying and deflecting for so long, it's hard to remember the topic. Oh, that's right. It's the collapse of the coal industry.

Here's coal production.

That plunge happened all on its own. Do you plan to reverse it? How? China and India have cut imports to a fraction of formal levels, and those imports will soon hit zero. Domestic demand has crashed as well. How do you propose to revive interest in a product that's not wanted? More government subsidies?

MOOT, you are projecting, you are PWD, Posting While Drunk. Butthurt? MOOT, you are certainly obsessed with perversion while drunk. My tactics? MOOT, you do know that you did not direct that comment at me, I just jumped into the middle. You should keep your rants against users, straight, but then again you are PWD.

Now Moot, at least keep you word, I will gladly engage with you but you stated you would use smaller words so go back and rewrite your post with smaller words.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.

Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is not one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".

But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.

LOL Adam Smith, communist philosopher? LOL, Rotten, you are even stupider than I thought.