Why do Republicans celebrate the failure of Green Energy

[thereisnospoon]

because it makes them feel vindicated so they can shriek "drill baby drill"

And you should choose another hobby such as knitting or baking cookies. This is no place for you.

thanks for the advise. it fits with your fifth grade education.

now feel free to throw a tantrum because of the neg.

I am confident that I am a helluva lot smarter than you.
You are graded on here by the amount of pertinent information you post.
Here's your GPA.......Animal House Zero Point Zero Sound Clip and Quote
Your opinion of me or my posts is as insignificant as a fart in the wind.
As a matter of fact, I am glad you neg repped me. That shows I am doing my job successfully pissing off you stupid liberals.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because it's not economically viable now is the reason why money should be spent on R&D to come up with technology, innovations, and new energies so it becomes economically viable.

Again, that attitude is short sighted and off-base.

Let the private sector invest in R&D....Leave the taxpayers out of it.

Ah, yes......Stay The Course!!!

"Modern Germany is neither a socialist paradise nor a model of laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, the German economy is based on close partnerships between the public and private sectors — and between management and workers. A network of state-funded research institutes helps incubate innovation, and worker representatives have long sat on German corporate boards."

German Economic Colossus​

What's your point, Mr Big Font?

 

[Valerie]

Celebrating the failure of green energy?? HARDLY... I, and others like me, fully support research and use of ALL forms of energy to see which is most viable and cost effective...

Nice try though, wrongwinger

Yep!

In 2003, Romney launched the Massachussetts Green Energy Fund, a $15 million project aimed at providing “an opportunity to capitalize on two emerging trends: the growing level of investment interest in clean energy and the importance of Massachusetts’ academic and corporate R&D in forming clean energy technology companies,” according to its website.

At the time, Romney called the fund a “springboard for the commonwealth by focusing on job creation in the renewable energy sector.”

And it is in the nature of venture funds that some of their projects fail. That’s why the private sector funds can get such high returns, and why some energy projects seen as having a huge public upside — from nuclear to solar — have convinced government officials to back them.

And so while Romney has criticized Solyndra on the campaign trail as a major failure of the Obama administration, his Green Energy Fund invested in several companies that have since failed or not lived up to expectations.

Romney's $15 Million Green Energy Fund | StateImpact Pennsylvania

Gov. ROMNEY: I think you hit the nail on the head. This is an election about what is the course for America? What is the soul of America going to be? Are we going to be a nation which is led by government? As Mitch Daniels said last night, the trickle down government, is that what we want? Bigger and bigger government taking the larger and larger slice of America, depressing the opportunity for success in America, supplanting ambition with envy. Is that the kind of America we're going to have? That's the kind of America President Obama is creating. Or are we going to return to the principles of economic freedom and opportunity and free enterprise that has build the most--built the most powerful nation in the history of the Earth? I take the latter course. That's what I want to return to. I want those principles to work for the American people. Not because I want the rich to get richer. The rich are doing fine. I'm not worried about the 1 percent. I'm worried about the 99 percent. I want to help the 99 percent. But you don't help the 99 percent by attacking and creating warfare on the 1 percent.

KUDLOW: And how does the cronyism play into that? You've come out, you had a very good summary in one of your debates about cronyism, cronyism and insiderism in Washington.

Gov. ROMNEY: Yes.

KUDLOW: Special favors and carve-outs for either big business or big labor or big environmentalists. How does that play in to economic growth and your critique against Mr. Obama?

Gov. ROMNEY: Well, take a look at his investment in a company like Solyndra. He--we know it failed. But let's say it hadn't failed. Here's the rest of the story. There must've been 100 different solar energy entrepreneurs in the country trying to get capital to start their ideas and see which one might be best. The president chose one, Solyndra, gave them $500 million. Guess what happened to the other 99 when that happened? The other guys that were out looking for investment couldn't get it because all their investors looked and said, `The government's already picked the winner. How can we give you 1 or $2 million to pursue your solar idea when the government has chosen their winner?' The president playing venture capitalist kills the capacity of other entrepreneurs in the entire economy to create their visions and to build enterprises. The idea of government picking winners and losers kills the ability of the private sector to create the best ideas.

News Headlines

 

[kwc57]

well, it turns out you have some reading to do! Did you ask me to do this search because you don't think the oil companies are subsidized or that you are just too lazy to do it yourself? Or maybe you are under the impression that the oil companies AREN'T subsidized. That would be amazing because you're smart enough to know about that.

So, here are some links:

NY Times Advertisement

What

One is from the New York Times, the other from The Heritage Foundation. Both are biased, but neither refute the existence of subsidies for the oil business.

Nice try NK, but no cigar. Show us where the US government was involved in the founding of the oil industry. You used the word "founded" and "history". You set the parameters. Stick to them. We aren't talking today where petroleum is a national security concern. We are talking the historical founding and development of the oil industry and who was responsible for it, the government or private business. Try again.

I was asking about subsidies for the oil business. I'm so sorry that your only reply was one drenched in semantics. What a tenuous position you hold when that is your best argument.

Keep flailing, you might make it to shore and save yourself. I responded to the words you typed. The fact that you got caught with your pants down is not my fault. The founding of the US oil industry was thru private enterprise. That is a historical fact. Is there a lot of government involvement in oil today? Yes, because energy is a national security issue and has been since we left horses and wagons behind for tanks and jets. Try powering a fighter jet with solar or wind technology.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Let the private sector invest in R&D....Leave the taxpayers out of it.

Ah, yes......Stay The Course!!!

"Modern Germany is neither a socialist paradise nor a model of laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, the German economy is based on close partnerships between the public and private sectors — and between management and workers. A network of state-funded research institutes helps incubate innovation, and worker representatives have long sat on German corporate boards."

German Economic Colossus​

What's your point, Mr Big Font?

What's your first-language, thereisnospoon??

Stupid, Fuckin' Teabaggers

"....the German economy is based on close partnerships between the public and private sectors..."

 

[Nosmo King]

Nice try NK, but no cigar. Show us where the US government was involved in the founding of the oil industry. You used the word "founded" and "history". You set the parameters. Stick to them. We aren't talking today where petroleum is a national security concern. We are talking the historical founding and development of the oil industry and who was responsible for it, the government or private business. Try again.

I was asking about subsidies for the oil business. I'm so sorry that your only reply was one drenched in semantics. What a tenuous position you hold when that is your best argument.

Keep flailing, you might make it to shore and save yourself. I responded to the words you typed. The fact that you got caught with your pants down is not my fault. The founding of the US oil industry was thru private enterprise. That is a historical fact. Is there a lot of government involvement in oil today? Yes, because energy is a national security issue and has been since we left horses and wagons behind for tanks and jets. Try powering a fighter jet with solar or wind technology.

So, let's sum up. Government subsidies for oil=good and necessary, government subsidies for sustainable energy=bad.

Seems the sustainable energy people need two things: more lobbyists to buy more congressmen and a think tank full of 'pundits' who can craft a message and buy the influence of Rush Limbaugh. After that, each and every Conservative will genuflect at the altar of sustainable energy. 'Cause Rush said so.

That has to be the way. Otherwise, all those Conservatives would realize that:

1) fossil fuels are a finite resource

2) fossil fuels create more pollution than we can safely absorb

3) fossil fuels are dirty to produce (obtain, refine and transport)

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

January 31, 2012​

"ExxonMobil had the largest profits of the Big Five oil companies in 2011, raking in $41.1 billion for the year. This 35 percent jump from last year is driven in large part by record-high oil prices. Today, the oil giant announced its fourth quarter profits of $9.4 billion, a 2 percent increase since 2010. Here are a few other facts about ExxonMobil:

– Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent.

– The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax."

Corporate PIGS At The Trough​

​

 

[kwc57]

I was asking about subsidies for the oil business. I'm so sorry that your only reply was one drenched in semantics. What a tenuous position you hold when that is your best argument.

Keep flailing, you might make it to shore and save yourself. I responded to the words you typed. The fact that you got caught with your pants down is not my fault. The founding of the US oil industry was thru private enterprise. That is a historical fact. Is there a lot of government involvement in oil today? Yes, because energy is a national security issue and has been since we left horses and wagons behind for tanks and jets. Try powering a fighter jet with solar or wind technology.

So, let's sum up. Government subsidies for oil=good and necessary, government subsidies for sustainable energy=bad.

Seems the sustainable energy people need two things: more lobbyists to buy more congressmen and a think tank full of 'pundits' who can craft a message and buy the influence of Rush Limbaugh. After that, each and every Conservative will genuflect at the altar of sustainable energy. 'Cause Rush said so.

That has to be the way. Otherwise, all those Conservatives would realize that:

1) fossil fuels are a finite resource

2) fossil fuels create more pollution than we can safely absorb

3) fossil fuels are dirty to produce (obtain, refine and transport)

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

Short answer, let us know when you develop an alternate energy source that can power the industrialized world like oil, gas and coal can. Big energy is big for a reason, it works. Personally, I want to see those solar powered 18 wheelers pulling cargo over the continental divide at 70 MPH and the wind powered airliner carrying hundreds of passengers across the ocean.

 

[Bern80]

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

Because it's cheap. That's another halmark iof unstable political regimes. They are countries with very low living standards that can't afford what it costs to produce 'greener' energy sources. This is why so much of this debate is stupid. Maybe the U.S. can afford financially to switch to green energy. It will certainly lower everyone's standard of living, but still it can probably be absorbed. The rest of the world can't. Especially developing nations. Meaning even if you got america totally off of fossil fuels you still have the rest of the world using them meaning you've barely made a dent in the global problem.

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

But they are unreliable in the short term. Meaning if switch to them we will have the fortune of having undependable renewable energy for a very long time. Thanks.

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

It isn't about dismissing sustainable energy. It's about dismissing non-feasable energy. Most of the advertising I see from the fossil fuel companies are trying to tout their greeness. Maybe their overstating it, but there is no doubt that even fossil fuel based energy is cleaner than it once was.

 

[Nosmo King]

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

Because it's cheap. That's another halmark iof unstable political regimes. They are countries with very low living standards that can't afford what it costs to produce 'greener' energy sources. This is why so much of this debate is stupid. Maybe the U.S. can afford financially to switch to green energy. It will certainly lower everyone's standard of living, but still it can probably be absorbed. The rest of the world can't. Especially developing nations. Meaning even if you got america totally off of fossil fuels you still have the rest of the world using them meaning you've barely made a dent in the global problem.

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

But they are unreliable in the short term. Meaning if switch to them we will have the fortune of having undependable renewable energy for a very long time. Thanks.

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

It isn't about dismissing sustainable energy. It's about dismissing non-feasable energy. Most of the advertising I see from the fossil fuel companies are trying to tout their greeness. Maybe their overstating it, but there is no doubt that even fossil fuel based energy is cleaner than it once was.

And yet, a simple solar panel attached to the roof of an India house can provide the electricity to work through the evening hours, do homework or even provide the power for a computer. Owing to the lack of a reliable distribution grid, something as dismiss-able as a solar panel changes lives for the better. Non-feasible? Tell that to the Indians.

 

[kwc57]

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

Because it's cheap. That's another halmark iof unstable political regimes. They are countries with very low living standards that can't afford what it costs to produce 'greener' energy sources. This is why so much of this debate is stupid. Maybe the U.S. can afford financially to switch to green energy. It will certainly lower everyone's standard of living, but still it can probably be absorbed. The rest of the world can't. Especially developing nations. Meaning even if you got america totally off of fossil fuels you still have the rest of the world using them meaning you've barely made a dent in the global problem.



But they are unreliable in the short term. Meaning if switch to them we will have the fortune of having undependable renewable energy for a very long time. Thanks.

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

It isn't about dismissing sustainable energy. It's about dismissing non-feasable energy. Most of the advertising I see from the fossil fuel companies are trying to tout their greeness. Maybe their overstating it, but there is no doubt that even fossil fuel based energy is cleaner than it once was.

And yet, a simple solar panel attached to the roof of an India house can provide the electricity to work through the evening hours, do homework or even provide the power for a computer. Owing to the lack of a reliable distribution grid, something as dismiss-able as a solar panel changes lives for the better. Non-feasible? Tell that to the Indians.

We don't live in India. Let India fund R&D for green energy. Not our job.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The best alternative energy that will meet our needs is nuclear.

Wind and solar on a scale large enough to make a real difference is too expensive and requires too much space.

IMO wind and solar are good on a small scale to supplement individual homes or small groups of homes where many panels are tied into a local grid. But wind and solar are unpredictable and not always 100% productive.

We should not be dumping billions into large scale wind and solar projects that will only supply energy some of the time.

Small nuclear reactors are cost efficient, safe and do not require the huge amounts of water that large breeder reactors do.

And waste is not a problem as over 98% of spent nuclear fuel is recyclable.

3% of all Japanese agree with you!

Tell me, when was the last tsunami that hit the interior of the United states 20 or 30 feet underground?

 

[Gadawg73]

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

Because it's cheap. That's another halmark iof unstable political regimes. They are countries with very low living standards that can't afford what it costs to produce 'greener' energy sources. This is why so much of this debate is stupid. Maybe the U.S. can afford financially to switch to green energy. It will certainly lower everyone's standard of living, but still it can probably be absorbed. The rest of the world can't. Especially developing nations. Meaning even if you got america totally off of fossil fuels you still have the rest of the world using them meaning you've barely made a dent in the global problem.

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

But they are unreliable in the short term. Meaning if switch to them we will have the fortune of having undependable renewable energy for a very long time. Thanks.

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

It isn't about dismissing sustainable energy. It's about dismissing non-feasable energy. Most of the advertising I see from the fossil fuel companies are trying to tout their greeness. Maybe their overstating it, but there is no doubt that even fossil fuel based energy is cleaner than it once was.

Oil companies are not stupid. A lot of their profits are invested in alternative energies.
They know that is the future and all that is lacking is the infrastructure and the delivery systems.
All this other stuff is just hooey.
Developing nations still walk and ride bicycles. WTF does that have to do with the industrialized world that uses 95% of the energy and has 20% of the population?

 

[Stephanie]

I swear..are all liberals always so DISHONEST?

I don't know one person who CELEBRATES the failure of Green energy...Especially NOW with the Obama giving and losing so much of us TAXPAYERS monies on it..

so the bigger question is...why aren't liberals UPSET with Obama over that?

 

[Political Junky]

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?

Yes.

 

[Freedomlover]

Where have you been? Hiding under a rock? If you look a little deeper into this issue you will find that most Republicans have taken a position of all of the above. It is foolish to think that green energy is anywhere close to taking the place of oil, or coal, for that matter. The big issue is how do we separate ourselves from middle east oil? One way is to build the pipeline from Canada to Houston! If Obama would quit pandering to the tree-huggers that line would be built and drilling for our own known reserves would substanually reduce what we import from middle east countries. In the meantime the private industry people who have been working on alternatives will have time to get it right the first time, unlike Solyndra and other government supported projects.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I was asking about subsidies for the oil business. I'm so sorry that your only reply was one drenched in semantics. What a tenuous position you hold when that is your best argument.

Keep flailing, you might make it to shore and save yourself. I responded to the words you typed. The fact that you got caught with your pants down is not my fault. The founding of the US oil industry was thru private enterprise. That is a historical fact. Is there a lot of government involvement in oil today? Yes, because energy is a national security issue and has been since we left horses and wagons behind for tanks and jets. Try powering a fighter jet with solar or wind technology.

So, let's sum up. Government subsidies for oil=good and necessary, government subsidies for sustainable energy=bad.

Seems the sustainable energy people need two things: more lobbyists to buy more congressmen and a think tank full of 'pundits' who can craft a message and buy the influence of Rush Limbaugh. After that, each and every Conservative will genuflect at the altar of sustainable energy. 'Cause Rush said so.

That has to be the way. Otherwise, all those Conservatives would realize that:

1) fossil fuels are a finite resource

2) fossil fuels create more pollution than we can safely absorb

3) fossil fuels are dirty to produce (obtain, refine and transport)

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

Government should get out of the energy business. Let the chips fall where they may.
BY entering the marketplace, the federal government attempts to choose winners and losers. There is nothing in the US Constitution that permits government to do that.
As for the rest of your post. Typical tree hugger whining.
In order to be referred to as 'sustainable' and energy source must be viable, available, create few polluting byproducts from concept to disposal of waste, is cost effective, affordable, can be produced with a positive return on investment and is readily available.
None of the so called "green energy" sources meet the above parameters.

I will ask you some questions. I want straight answers. Do not post links to blogs or reply with opinion pieces. Those answers are unacceptable.
Now, batteries for hybrid and electric cars...Explain how the harvesting of raw materials used in batteries, the production of said batteries, electricity needed to recharge the batteries and the disposal batteries effects the environment. Can the batteries be produced without the use of petro-chemical products and byproducts?
Ethanol...Explain the fuel economy of ethanol as opposed to gasoline with respect to the cost to the consumer. Explain the corrosive nature of the product on manufacturing equipment, transport and the impossibility to ship ethanol by pipe to the distribution point and discuss the need for vehicles and rail to transport the product.
Solar....Discuss the initial cost versus the affordability of solar devices to the average consumer. Explain the lag time between initial purchase and installation of equipment until any savings is realized.
Bio fuels. Discuss the cost of conversion from straight diesel engines to bio diesel. Discuss the cost of bio fuel. Then discuss the lag time between initial use and the start of cost benefit to the consumer.
I will not hold my breath until I receive a sensible reply.

 

[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?

Yes.

How do you propose to make that happen?

 

[Nosmo King]

Keep flailing, you might make it to shore and save yourself. I responded to the words you typed. The fact that you got caught with your pants down is not my fault. The founding of the US oil industry was thru private enterprise. That is a historical fact. Is there a lot of government involvement in oil today? Yes, because energy is a national security issue and has been since we left horses and wagons behind for tanks and jets. Try powering a fighter jet with solar or wind technology.

So, let's sum up. Government subsidies for oil=good and necessary, government subsidies for sustainable energy=bad.

Seems the sustainable energy people need two things: more lobbyists to buy more congressmen and a think tank full of 'pundits' who can craft a message and buy the influence of Rush Limbaugh. After that, each and every Conservative will genuflect at the altar of sustainable energy. 'Cause Rush said so.

That has to be the way. Otherwise, all those Conservatives would realize that:

1) fossil fuels are a finite resource

2) fossil fuels create more pollution than we can safely absorb

3) fossil fuels are dirty to produce (obtain, refine and transport)

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

Government should get out of the energy business. Let the chips fall where they may.
BY entering the marketplace, the federal government attempts to choose winners and losers. There is nothing in the US Constitution that permits government to do that.
As for the rest of your post. Typical tree hugger whining.
In order to be referred to as 'sustainable' and energy source must be viable, available, create few polluting byproducts from concept to disposal of waste, is cost effective, affordable, can be produced with a positive return on investment and is readily available.
None of the so called "green energy" sources meet the above parameters.

I will ask you some questions. I want straight answers. Do not post links to blogs or reply with opinion pieces. Those answers are unacceptable.
Now, batteries for hybrid and electric cars...Explain how the harvesting of raw materials used in batteries, the production of said batteries, electricity needed to recharge the batteries and the disposal batteries effects the environment. Can the batteries be produced without the use of petro-chemical products and byproducts?
Ethanol...Explain the fuel economy of ethanol as opposed to gasoline with respect to the cost to the consumer. Explain the corrosive nature of the product on manufacturing equipment, transport and the impossibility to ship ethanol by pipe to the distribution point and discuss the need for vehicles and rail to transport the product.
Solar....Discuss the initial cost versus the affordability of solar devices to the average consumer. Explain the lag time between initial purchase and installation of equipment until any savings is realized.
Bio fuels. Discuss the cost of conversion from straight diesel engines to bio diesel. Discuss the cost of bio fuel. Then discuss the lag time between initial use and the start of cost benefit to the consumer.
I will not hold my breath until I receive a sensible reply.

Right! I'll get right on that so you can be baffled and come back with something you feel at ease with such as "typical tree hugger whining".

Stack the deck and throw in a churlish remark like 'I will not hold my breath until I receive a sensible reply.'? Get real! No one, except maybe bripat, is stupid enough for that ploy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So, let's sum up. Government subsidies for oil=good and necessary, government subsidies for sustainable energy=bad.

Seems the sustainable energy people need two things: more lobbyists to buy more congressmen and a think tank full of 'pundits' who can craft a message and buy the influence of Rush Limbaugh. After that, each and every Conservative will genuflect at the altar of sustainable energy. 'Cause Rush said so.

That has to be the way. Otherwise, all those Conservatives would realize that:

1) fossil fuels are a finite resource

2) fossil fuels create more pollution than we can safely absorb

3) fossil fuels are dirty to produce (obtain, refine and transport)

4) fossil fuels seem to be concentrated in areas with unstable political regimes

5) sustainable energy, like fossil fuels, will take time to develop and implement, yet the pay back is huge in terms of environmental safety, political risk and long term reliability

6) big energy has the resources to spin their message so with out much intellect it's easy to dismiss sustainable energy.

Government should get out of the energy business. Let the chips fall where they may.
BY entering the marketplace, the federal government attempts to choose winners and losers. There is nothing in the US Constitution that permits government to do that.
As for the rest of your post. Typical tree hugger whining.
In order to be referred to as 'sustainable' and energy source must be viable, available, create few polluting byproducts from concept to disposal of waste, is cost effective, affordable, can be produced with a positive return on investment and is readily available.
None of the so called "green energy" sources meet the above parameters.

I will ask you some questions. I want straight answers. Do not post links to blogs or reply with opinion pieces. Those answers are unacceptable.
Now, batteries for hybrid and electric cars...Explain how the harvesting of raw materials used in batteries, the production of said batteries, electricity needed to recharge the batteries and the disposal batteries effects the environment. Can the batteries be produced without the use of petro-chemical products and byproducts?
Ethanol...Explain the fuel economy of ethanol as opposed to gasoline with respect to the cost to the consumer. Explain the corrosive nature of the product on manufacturing equipment, transport and the impossibility to ship ethanol by pipe to the distribution point and discuss the need for vehicles and rail to transport the product.
Solar....Discuss the initial cost versus the affordability of solar devices to the average consumer. Explain the lag time between initial purchase and installation of equipment until any savings is realized.
Bio fuels. Discuss the cost of conversion from straight diesel engines to bio diesel. Discuss the cost of bio fuel. Then discuss the lag time between initial use and the start of cost benefit to the consumer.
I will not hold my breath until I receive a sensible reply.

Right! I'll get right on that so you can be baffled and come back with something you feel at ease with such as "typical tree hugger whining".

Stack the deck and throw in a churlish remark like 'I will not hold my breath until I receive a sensible reply.'? Get real! No one, except maybe bripat, is stupid enough for that ploy.

Stumped.eh?
Figures. The obvious fact is you have no answers to these sensible questions.
You are out of gas( pun intended).