ANOTHER Solar company files bankruptcy!!!

[Flopper]

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.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

But he was helped in other ways....
But didn't Tony Rezko help Henry Ford a home???
And I believe Bill Ayers wrote Ford's biography, too!!!

 

[sealybobo]

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.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

 

[Flopper]

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.

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%.

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

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Funny you understand all this but then you want Obama to hurry up and sign the keystone pipeline plan.

Americans can't keep flying gas powered cars and airplanes forever. High speed railways would be a solution to our energy crisis. For example, connecting north florida and southern florida. It would be used and profitable. Build it along I75. Problem solved.

In fiscal year 2011, Amtrak served 30.2 million passengers

Bush was right. Americans are addicted to oil.

I'm reading up on Amtrak right now and there were times when it was popular. There were also times when it was privately held and profitable. With our energy crisis, high speed rail transportation makes sense.

Back when Amtrak was profitable, they suddenly found themselves faced with unprecedented competition for passengers and freight with automobiles, buses, trucks, and aircraft, all of which were heavily subsidized by the government road and airport building programs.

Because of gas it is too expensive today to drive from Michigan to Florida. And airline prices are going up. High speed railways is a solution we should be exploring.

Or we can drill baby drill.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

So did the GOP Governor they have running Florida now. He didn't take Obama's stimulus money. Dummy.

I had to drive 2 hours on the turnpike in Florida. Besides the gas I had to buy, I also had to pay a $5 toll. Republicans don't like taxes but they sure don't mind charging us fees.

This is how they are able to say, "i didn't raise taxes".

Rick Snyder in Michigan just hiked up the fee to register your car every year an extra $100.

Mitt Romney didn't raise taxes in Massachussets by charging citizens "fees" for services. Taxes, fees, what's the difference. Its still money out of my pocket.

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

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%.

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

The second that public monies are no longer available to them the solar companies will go tits up.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Chink labor will ALWAYS be lower than ours. As of now they outsource a large amount of labor offshore to Viet Nam and other low wage countries.
Subsidizing out engineering has us where?
It does more harm than good as it rewards the bad.
Now if you want to lower and dumb down our currency so low that our entire economy is export based with no or very low consumer consumption society like the Chinks do then maybe it would work.
But that would make us a semi socialist society with the majority of Americans riding bicycles and making under 20K a year.
Choose your poison wisely.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

I was refering specificlly to the claim of climate change and nothing else. I was not precise enough so accept my apology for that.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

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.

The consensus of scientists is never right all the time, just 99% of the time. I will go with the consensus on this one.