Why do Republicans celebrate the failure of Green Energy

[bripat9643]

Do you think that oil has never accepted any federal money for development, exploration or transportation?

Nope, it hasn't.

Was the oil business in this or any other country one founded upon and sustained exclusively by private investment?

Yep.

Is this why Conservatives find carbon fuel so noble? If it is, it goes to prove my theory that Conservatives are poor students of history.

ROFL! What conservatives like about carbon fuels is the fact that they are a good deal. They don't cost the taxpayers a dime. If "green energy" was viable, it wouldn't need government subsidies.

 

[rightwinger]

It's not the green energy's fault the owners are taking the government stimulus and giving it back to the guy that stole it from the American people to begin with.

I'm all for "GREEN", I just don't think politicians are the ones that should be selling it. Private investors + private money = successful business, Americans win and have real jobs. Government - campaign contributions = business failures, Americans lose and it costs them more than just money.

Do you think that oil has never accepted any federal money for development, exploration or transportation? Was the oil business in this or any other country one founded upon and sustained exclusively by private investment?

Is this why Conservatives find carbon fuel so noble? If it is, it goes to prove my theory that Conservatives are poor students of history.

Oil has a proven track record and use of oil works. The Chevy Volt, not so much.

Yes it does work. It also has it's drawbacks.

It doesn't mean we should stop looking for alternatives and celebrate if a potential competitor to gasoline fails

 

[Jarhead]

There is no better time. The energy void is there, the worldwide market is there. Waiting until we think the economy is right means someone else wil take the lead

The Government has always taken the lead in key research and development. We did it with aircraft, communications, medicine, space........why isn't energy worth the risk

Energy IS worth the risk.

But sadly we are in no position to take the risk.

Sure..China can take the risk...they pay their workers enough money to buy enough rice for one meal a day fgor a family of 4....

But we have a 15 trillion dollar debt. We can not risk.

Take Solyndra....maybe that half a billion dollars could have assisted some people who were about to lose their homes?

Just sayin'

All new technologies have their risk. When oil was first emerging as an energy source, you had to drill ten holes to get one to pay off. There was no market, there were failures......but it eventually paid off big time

I just can't understand why anyone would celebrate theses failures. Solyndra failed and the right gloated, the Chevy Volt had recalls and it was lead story on Fox for weeks.

Since 1975 we have seen the need to develop new technologies to replace oil technologies. Every time there is an oil crisis we scream for new technologies and then dump them as soon as cheap oil is flowing again.

Energy is not a political issue, it is for the better of all Americans

yet you make it a political issue....but that is besides the point.

Recalls of any auto is news. I watch Fox and I saw it maybe once every few days...and only when there was a press release about it...or an update.
The right did not gloat about the failues of solyndra and others. It gloated that it was correct when it said that they are not viable investments NOW.

Get rid of your spin

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you think that oil has never accepted any federal money for development, exploration or transportation?

Nope, it hasn't.

Was the oil business in this or any other country one founded upon and sustained exclusively by private investment?

Yep.

Is this why Conservatives find carbon fuel so noble? If it is, it goes to prove my theory that Conservatives are poor students of history.

ROFL! What conservatives like about carbon fuels is the fact that they are a good deal. They don't cost the taxpayers a dime. If "green energy" was viable, it wouldn't need government subsidies.

You know nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

i think it's simply become a wedge issue that tv and radio personalities use to separate two parties that are very similar. if we americans were smart, we would be doing everything we could to stop sending gobs of money to the people who wanna blow us up.

and can you imagine how much less political power the middle east would have if we developed something that made their natural resource much less powerful?

Yeah, and imagine if we could all ride magic carpets to work . . . . . .


Now let's talk about reality.

 

[Dragon]

It's also untrue that it isn't economically viable now. The technology has already been developed, although there are further improvements on the cutting edge. (Unfortunately, some of the improved competitiveness comes from increasing fossil-fuel prices rather than tech improvements to solar and wind; the lines crossed about a year ago.)

It is economically unviable because it is supplemental. Residentially, installing a few solar panels can lower your energy bill by a small amount. Windmills, otoh, aren't viable because start up costs are too high right now. It takes about twenty to thirty years to start recognizing savings. If they were viable and did save money from the onset, I would have already turned my house into a solar/wind hybrid.

None of this is true. You need to do a little more research, especially into recent developments. It's possible to completely meet a typical home's electricity needs from solar, and many homeowners do. Or from wind (depending on the area where you live), or from a combination. The cost up front is still fairly steep, but a lot of that is the installation cost, and that can be cut out by doing it yourself. Cost of solar panels has dropped to a little over a dollar a watt, and with a 20-year lifespan that means over 100 kwh for a dollar. That's just the solar panels of course; add other equipment and (worse) installation costs and it drops. But it's very much a viable way to create energy. It's pretty much on part with unsubsidized oil. Natural gas is slightly more expensive, nuclear is way more expensive, and coal and hydroelectric are a good deal cheaper (hydro probably always will be).

Like I said, if we would just phase out the fossil-fuel subsidies, that by itself would probably be enough to accelerate our transition to green energy rapidly. The benefits are so huge that without that artificial cost-dampener for fossil fuels, the market would take care of it.

 

[Jarhead]

Politics aside, what is to be gained if Green Energy fails as an alternative energy source? Isn't having alternatives to big oil a benefit for this country? Why is it official GOP policy that Drill, baby drill is the only acceptable answer to our energy needs?

All new technologies suffer failures. More money has been lost in this country by speculative oil failures than anything else

Why the celebrations?

Kind of suck's for you since you aren't getting the response you were looking for don't it?

I am getting exactly the responses I expected

so for a man that doesnt want to make this political...you were looking to make it political.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[bripat9643]

RW:

They're not celebrating the failure of green energy, which hasn't failed, but the failure of a few green energy COMPANIES, which they hope to leverage into slowing down the SUCCESS of green energy and thus maximizing the profits that the fossil-fuel industry can claim before it's all over.

I'm speaking of those who orchestrate the campaign, of course. The posters here, I'm reasonably certain, are manipulated dupes, not the masterminds.

Right wingers couldn't give a crap if "green energy" succeeds or fails. In fact, most would prefer to see it succeed, but only if it's not on the taxpayer's dime. Any industry that requires subsidies from the taxpayers to stay afloat is an industry that should die.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's not the green energy's fault the owners are taking the government stimulus and giving it back to the guy that stole it from the American people to begin with.

I'm all for "GREEN", I just don't think politicians are the ones that should be selling it. Private investors + private money = successful business, Americans win and have real jobs. Government - campaign contributions = business failures, Americans lose and it costs them more than just money.

Do you think that oil has never accepted any federal money for development, exploration or transportation? Was the oil business in this or any other country one founded upon and sustained exclusively by private investment?

Is this why Conservatives find carbon fuel so noble? If it is, it goes to prove my theory that Conservatives are poor students of history.

Oil has a proven track record and use of oil works. The Chevy Volt, not so much.

I asked if the oil business has ever taken government money for development, exploration or transportation. You're talking about the Chevy Volt.

Surely then you can understand my confusion. I'm asking legitimate questions, you're answering with anecdotes about a car.

 

[rightwinger]

Kind of suck's for you since you aren't getting the response you were looking for don't it?

I am getting exactly the responses I expected

so for a man that doesnt want to make this political...you were looking to make it political.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Yup

The right wing brigade responded just like I expected

 

[Nosmo King]

RW:

They're not celebrating the failure of green energy, which hasn't failed, but the failure of a few green energy COMPANIES, which they hope to leverage into slowing down the SUCCESS of green energy and thus maximizing the profits that the fossil-fuel industry can claim before it's all over.

I'm speaking of those who orchestrate the campaign, of course. The posters here, I'm reasonably certain, are manipulated dupes, not the masterminds.

Right wingers couldn't give a crap if "green energy" succeeds or fails. In fact, most would prefer to see it succeed, but only if it's not on the taxpayer's dime. Any industry that requires subsidies from the taxpayers to stay afloat is an industry that should die.

If this is true, shouldn't the oil business die?

 

[Article 15]

Did my best to debate you Article...but once again, you allowed your childish arrogance to get in the way.

No interest here.

Naw, you did what you like to do sometimes.....go into hack mode. I'm not about to entertain such nonsense and when you do that I call it out. Simple as that.

lol....and you deny it is your arrogance.

Uh....yes it is. You just proved it....again.

Simple as that.

Now my turn to be arrogant. One with your "I am always right" arttitude is not worth my time to debate.

I'm definitely not always right but one thing I'm really good at is spotting bullshit.....like your "we can't afford it" and "now is not the time" arguments and your "but you said _________________" and other assorted strawmen attempts.

You don't like getting it called out so you pack up and try it on someone else. Ho hum.

 

[bripat9643]

None of this is true. You need to do a little more research, especially into recent developments. It's possible to completely meet a typical home's electricity needs from solar, and many homeowners do. Or from wind (depending on the area where you live), or from a combination. The cost up front is still fairly steep, but a lot of that is the installation cost, and that can be cut out by doing it yourself. Cost of solar panels has dropped to a little over a dollar a watt, and with a 20-year lifespan that means over 100 kwh for a dollar. That's just the solar panels of course; add other equipment and (worse) installation costs and it drops. But it's very much a viable way to create energy. It's pretty much on part with unsubsidized oil. Natural gas is slightly more expensive, nuclear is way more expensive, and coal and hydroelectric are a good deal cheaper (hydro probably always will be).

Like I said, if we would just phase out the fossil-fuel subsidies, that by itself would probably be enough to accelerate our transition to green energy rapidly. The benefits are so huge that without that artificial cost-dampener for fossil fuels, the market would take care of it.

Sorry, but your math doesn't add up. Solar costs a lot more than a dollar a watt. I recently investigated, and a 2000 watt system went for $38,000. That's little more than enough to power a blow dryer. Furthermore, it doesn't work at night, so what do you do then?

Solar power is a joke. It always will be.

 

[rightwinger]

RW:

They're not celebrating the failure of green energy, which hasn't failed, but the failure of a few green energy COMPANIES, which they hope to leverage into slowing down the SUCCESS of green energy and thus maximizing the profits that the fossil-fuel industry can claim before it's all over.

I'm speaking of those who orchestrate the campaign, of course. The posters here, I'm reasonably certain, are manipulated dupes, not the masterminds.

Right wingers couldn't give a crap if "green energy" succeeds or fails. In fact, most would prefer to see it succeed, but only if it's not on the taxpayer's dime. Any industry that requires subsidies from the taxpayers to stay afloat is an industry that should die.

The Government subsidized our railroads and interstate highways. The Government subsidized space, the Internet, celular technology. Most of our medical advances now are subsidized by the government.

R&D costs money and involves risk. Private companies do not like to assume risk without some assurance of profit. We would have missed out on a lot of advances without government support

 

[thereisnospoon]

Politics aside, what is to be gained if Green Energy fails as an alternative energy source? Isn't having alternatives to big oil a benefit for this country? Why is it official GOP policy that Drill, baby drill is the only acceptable answer to our energy needs?

All new technologies suffer failures. More money has been lost in this country by speculative oil failures than anything else

Why the celebrations?

No one celebrating. It's a question of simple arithmatic.
These so called green technologies are expensive and not widely available.
While these ideas represent progress in the correct direction, it is the cost which turns off investment on the part of companies interested in the technology and of course the consumer which will bear the brunt of the higher costs.
Without ease of access and similar costs compared to present day energy sources, the consumer market is going to resist these technologies.
My thinking is we should be concentrating on new fuel technologies for our present day vehicles. Such as using methanol, hydrogen, propane or natural gas to power our vehicles.
It is my speculation that the oil indutry may very well be standing in the way of these ideas.
That's political stuff.
If I were in a position of leadership and power in Washington I'd be calling Oil Co. executives on the carpet for the purpose of twisting arms. My comment to them would be "either you lead the way on this stuff or I will force you out of the way".

 

[bripat9643]

Right wingers couldn't give a crap if "green energy" succeeds or fails. In fact, most would prefer to see it succeed, but only if it's not on the taxpayer's dime. Any industry that requires subsidies from the taxpayers to stay afloat is an industry that should die.

If this is true, shouldn't the oil business die?

How is it going to die when turds like you keep going to the gas station? The oil industry doesn't receive any subsidies. That's a left-wing myth. In fact, it has provided the government with trillions of dollars in revenues over its lifetime.

 

[kwc57]

It's not the green energy's fault the owners are taking the government stimulus and giving it back to the guy that stole it from the American people to begin with.

I'm all for "GREEN", I just don't think politicians are the ones that should be selling it. Private investors + private money = successful business, Americans win and have real jobs. Government - campaign contributions = business failures, Americans lose and it costs them more than just money.

Do you think that oil has never accepted any federal money for development, exploration or transportation? Was the oil business in this or any other country one founded upon and sustained exclusively by private investment?

Is this why Conservatives find carbon fuel so noble? If it is, it goes to prove my theory that Conservatives are poor students of history.

Speaking of being a poor student of history, google "history of the oil industry" and report back to the class how the US government developed the oil industry. We'll wait.

 

[Gadawg73]

What amazes me is all over the map some folks are.
"There is no such thing as global warming. The earth is not warming" was their first cry.
Then of course we all know the earth is warming but we do not know how much man has influenced that.
So they change their next tune to:
"Well, maybe it is is warming but those scientists are all crooks and it may not be warming but if it is man has not contributed to it at all".
So when they are confronted with that and told to go out and put their hand over their exhaust of their car when it is running and see if it is hot or cold they have to change their tune once again.
"Well, it is warming but we do not know how much man and his pollution is causing it"
And then it progressed to "Well, Hop Sing is doing it in China so we should be able to do It" BS argument,
to where we are now:
"Well, we are polluting and the warming is happening but our economy would collapse if we did anything to stop it".
The politics of both sides is bad but the war on science is definitely American Christian right wing.

 

[bripat9643]

The Government subsidized our railroads and interstate highways. The Government subsidized space, the Internet, celular technology. Most of our medical advances now are subsidized by the government.

R&D costs money and involves risk. Private companies do not like to assume risk without some assurance of profit. We would have missed out on a lot of advances without government support

All the government subsidized railroads went bankrupt, so that's hardly an argument in favor of subsidies.

The interstate highways put a lot of private railroads out of business. The later system wasn't costing the taxpayers a dime. The interstate highway system is nothing but a huge wasteful boondoggle.

The government never provided a dime in subsidies to the cellular phone industry. All it did is define all the cells and sell them for a fixed price. The government receives hundreds of billions in tax revenue every year from the cellular industry.

The government performed one small step in the development of the internet. The idea that private firms wouldn't have developed it on their own is laughable.

Private industry invests hundreds of billions of dollars into R&D every year. Just look how fast flat screen TVs and cellular telephones have evolved. It's totally absurd to claim technology wouldn't advance without the government.

 

[Dot Com]

Politics aside, what is to be gained if Green Energy fails as an alternative energy source? Isn't having alternatives to big oil a benefit for this country? Why is it official GOP policy that Drill, baby drill is the only acceptable answer to our energy needs?

All new technologies suffer failures. More money has been lost in this country by speculative oil failures than anything else

Why the celebrations?

How is your home heated ?
What's your car run on ?
Who provides your home with electricity ?


You want to replace all that with solar panels, windmills and a Chevy Volt (which isn't worth a shit) at tens of thousands of dollars for installation and maintenance, knock yourself out.

I can't afford to.

the man w/ 3 houses can't afford to