Why we should listen to the 97%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

It's really odd to see you presenting a socialist position on this...and believe me - you are presenting a socialist position on this!

Please explain how not subsidizing politically connected, money losing, "green" energy is the socialist position.

I'm dying to hear your "thoughts".

 

[Saigon]

What the hell are "feed-in tariffs?"

"

With all due respect, BriPat, if you don't know what a feed-in tariff is, you shouldn't be discussing energy.

A feed-in tariff (FIT, standard offer contract[1] advanced renewable tariff[2] or renewable energy payments[3]) is a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology.[1][4] Rather than pay an equal amount for energy, however generated, technologies such as wind power, for instance, are awarded a lower per-kWh price, while technologies such as solar PV and tidal power are offered a higher price, reflecting costs that are higher at the moment.

Feed-in tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that this has largely been used by right-wing governments.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

It's really odd to see you presenting a socialist position on this...and believe me - you are presenting a socialist position on this!

Please explain how not subsidizing politically connected, money losing, "green" energy is the socialist position.

I'm dying to hear your "thoughts".

Because you are arguing against private companies making money through innovation. Obviously.

You said yourself that you were happy not to have private energy producers in your country in case they go bankrupt.

Any capitalist will tell you that investment in private companies involves risk - if you don't like that kind of risk, you might be happier in a socialist country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

It's really odd to see you presenting a socialist position on this...and believe me - you are presenting a socialist position on this!

Please explain how not subsidizing politically connected, money losing, "green" energy is the socialist position.

I'm dying to hear your "thoughts".

Because you are arguing against private companies making money through innovation. Obviously.

You said yourself that you were happy not to have private energy producers in your country in case they go bankrupt.

Any capitalist will tell you that investment in private companies involves risk - if you don't like that kind of risk, you might be happier in a socialist country.

Because you are arguing against private companies making money through innovation.

When you get a chance, show me where you feel I did that.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.

Face it man - you are not comfortable with private companies making money and creating jobs and paying taxes unless it is a product you approve of. Cars you seem to be ok with, oddly enough.

So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.

How is this statement capitalist?

Capitalism is all about innovation, risk and yield. If you want to wait for certainty, then try socialism.

 

[Snookie]

Global warming is a red herring created by the fossil fuel industry.

It takes the attentioon of the real issue, which is air and water pollution.

Too many people are dying of cancer and suffering from asthma in this modern age because of the pollution.
Air pollution has been getting worse since the orange fog of london. Our waters are being poisoned.

Snookie -

So you must be delighted that oil companies are finaly - after years of climate change denial - now supporting cleaner technologies....?

Let's discuss it after the next off shore oil spill.

 

[Snookie]

Capitalism is dead in this country. It's all about monetary manipulation, now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.

Face it man - you are not comfortable with private companies making money and creating jobs and paying taxes unless it is a product you approve of. Cars you seem to be ok with, oddly enough.

So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.

How is this statement capitalist?

Capitalism is all about innovation, risk and yield. If you want to wait for certainty, then try socialism.

When the alternative is throwing government money at Solyndras.
If private US companies want to invest in this technology, fine, as long as there are no subsidies or mandates.
That's the opposite of socialism.

 

[Saigon]

When the alternative is throwing government money at Solyndras.
If private US companies want to invest in this technology, fine, as long as there are no subsidies or mandates.
That's the opposite of socialism.

So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?

I think I must have missed those posts.

 

[Snookie]

The oxymoron of the century: " Clean Coal"

 

[freedombecki]

Freedom -

Should the govt have invested in Solyndra?

I have no idea. It's easy with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time only real indsutry insiders could have known how Solyndra's tech compared with that of the Chinese. More than a few German countries lost their lunch to the Chinese on that one as well. My guess is that few people knew how far ahead the Chinese were.

But the point Todd is struggling to grasp is that Solyndra does not = solar anymore so than GM = cars.

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

Because in capitalism, the best company with the best product wins. The others lose.

In Solar, it is companies like Suntech and Yingli Solar who are winning.

Do you mean the company with the best corrupt connections with re to their product wins.

Solyndra was funded by Obama's top financial campaign supporters and one of Nancy Pelosi's relatives. Obama called the Treasury Department and told them to put Solyndra to the top of the list and get that check for $535 million out yesterday. The treasury responded by sending them that half a billion out that same day to save Obama's chief financial supporter's butt with a guaranteed loan (He gets 100% of his investment back due to writeins of liberals to custom order their mishandling of the people's money.)

A failed panacea that doesn't deliver power at peak hours is totally lost power. It travels through lines almost at the speed of light (less resistance), and when it goes unneeded, it is 100% lost unless someone puts very questionable environmentally hazardous batteries into play, which are so inefficient and poisonous everyday people are encouraged to not throw their batteries in the trash in parts of the country that know this.

Additionally, a needless number of birds die when the power is not being utilized by both wind and tide sources, which also takes a heavy toll on marine life which is a mainstay staple food for people on the coast as well as inland.

Ask a professional electrical engineer. He's the guy who is a certified Professional Engineers' Society member, who has pledged he will tell the truth and will suffer the consequences of uncooperative managers, politicians, and divorce himself from their financial obligations and deliver reports with only the truth attached to them. If he tells you anything else than that wind-generated and solar-generated power sources meet electrical peak demands in anything but a haphazard manner because of their lack of demand in low times, you are being sold a bill of goods, and that frightens me,, because so far I see every indication that you trust untrustworthy sources for your information on timely electrical generation which tends to peak at night when winds die down and there is no solar backup. I'm just sayin'.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

In post #229, you clearly oppose the use of investment capital in new technologies and private companies.

Face it man - you are not comfortable with private companies making money and creating jobs and paying taxes unless it is a product you approve of. Cars you seem to be ok with, oddly enough.

So when I, and others, said we'll save billions by waiting until someone else creates a viable solar panel, we were right.

How is this statement capitalist?

Capitalism is all about innovation, risk and yield. If you want to wait for certainty, then try socialism.

Buying a working product rather than wasting taxpayer billions on products that aren't viable is socialism? Wow!
How much has Obama wasted on "green" energy in the last 5 years?
My electrons are still coal generated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the alternative is throwing government money at Solyndras.
If private US companies want to invest in this technology, fine, as long as there are no subsidies or mandates.
That's the opposite of socialism.

So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?

I think I must have missed those posts.

So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?

What subsidies do you feel coal and nuclear get?

 

[Saigon]

Freedom -

Do you mean the company with the best corrupt connections with re to their product wins.

With China.....very likely yes.

China has recently been found guilty of product dumping in Europe, gaining massive market share and bankrupting German producers by selling below cost.

Those kind of practices may have also played a part in Solyndra's downfall.

I really don't know if Obama should have put money into Solyndra even with what we knew then...perhaps not. I don't know enough details to be sure.

 

[Saigon]

So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?

What subsidies do you feel coal and nuclear get?

Um.....what?

Is that a serious question?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you have opposed all subsidies paid to coal and nuclear companies?

What subsidies do you feel coal and nuclear get?

Um.....what?

Is that a serious question?

Was that a serious claim?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

The subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fuel industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So why do you only complain about subsidies to renewables?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

The subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fuel industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So why do you only complain about subsidies to renewables?

Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.

LOL!
Not paying for CO2 is a subsidy to coal.
That's funny.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

(If you don't understand what is posted - as seems to be the case - read the material linked.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Do you support government subsidies paid to the nuclear and coal industries?

(If you don't understand what is posted - as seems to be the case - read the material linked.)

I'm still waiting to see some.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
1.Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
2.Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
3.Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

If #2 is supposed to be ethanol or H2, then I'm against it.
1 and 3 aren't subsidies.