U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2015, 06:29 AM
 
Location: NJ
16,813 posts, read 11,748,622 times
Reputation: 10805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Actually DOE's investment program was a resounding success.
500 million dollars lost on solyndra! 500 million dollars. Solyndra went out of business. Obama used solyndra as the prime example of solar success. by now half the country was supposed tobe employed in the solar and alternative energy programs.

More money lost on other solar companies. Imagine that money being used appropriately on alternate energy research.

Taxpayer cash is being squandered while a few successes are touted. Has tobe money laundering. Subsidizing solar panels to the public is hardly a success if you consider the promise made by obama re jobs created and technological sucess.
Instead we have a president who promised skyrocketing energy prices under his energy plan and a enery czar who says we have to raise gasoline prices to Euro levels. So the sucess is a huge drain on the economy in the form of taxation and is not mitigated by a handful of people putting solar panels on the roof. Solar is a good direction but is out of economical context.

Everything obama does is a resounding success. the media propaganda machine says so and weaponized federal agencies are mandated to say so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2015, 09:47 AM
 
39,190 posts, read 40,571,673 times
Reputation: 16071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Of course not.

The "redistribution" claims in most of polictico-speak is code for Reich Wangers blaming poor folks for their own problems.
The redistribution comes into play because these policies would necessarily have to include increased subsidies for the poor. All of the cap and trade policies proposed here in the US included increased subsidies for the energy assistance program.

World wide emerging economies will need to be paid off by wealthier nations to accept these caps. They aren't going to destroy their economy without compensation. All of the UN proposals include compensation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2015, 09:53 AM
 
39,190 posts, read 40,571,673 times
Reputation: 16071
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Since that isn't true, your entire premise is down the toilet.
You cannot on one hand argue solar and wind needs government intervention to compete against fossil fuels and then state it won't increase costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 04:34 AM
 
Location: DC
6,507 posts, read 6,426,164 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer View Post
500 million dollars lost on solyndra! 500 million dollars. Solyndra went out of business. Obama used solyndra as the prime example of solar success. by now half the country was supposed tobe employed in the solar and alternative energy programs.

More money lost on other solar companies. Imagine that money being used appropriately on alternate energy research.

Taxpayer cash is being squandered while a few successes are touted. Has tobe money laundering. Subsidizing solar panels to the public is hardly a success if you consider the promise made by obama re jobs created and technological sucess.
Instead we have a president who promised skyrocketing energy prices under his energy plan and a enery czar who says we have to raise gasoline prices to Euro levels. So the sucess is a huge drain on the economy in the form of taxation and is not mitigated by a handful of people putting solar panels on the roof. Solar is a good direction but is out of economical context.

Everything obama does is a resounding success. the media propaganda machine says so and weaponized federal agencies are mandated to say so.
Nice rant. If you actually look at the goals of the government program -- to accelerate the production and cost decline of renewable technology - one can easily see the overall program was a great success. If you look at the government portfolio in total you also see a success rate that any venture capital firm would be happy to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 04:37 AM
 
Location: DC
6,507 posts, read 6,426,164 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You cannot on one hand argue solar and wind needs government intervention to compete against fossil fuels and then state it won't increase costs.
All generation technologies receive government support. As to cost and price, study the impact of marginal cost pricing and get back to us with an educated assessment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 06:20 AM
 
Location: New York Area
15,587 posts, read 6,159,335 times
Reputation: 12173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Nice rant. If you actually look at the goals of the government program -- to accelerate the production and cost decline of renewable technology - one can easily see the overall program was a great success. If you look at the government portfolio in total you also see a success rate that any venture capital firm would be happy to have.
How much energy do these programs actually produce, net of the energy input to run them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 07:52 AM
 
39,190 posts, read 40,571,673 times
Reputation: 16071
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
All generation technologies receive government support. As to cost and price, study the impact of marginal cost pricing and get back to us with an educated assessment.
Firstly you are not addressing what I stated. Secondly you're flaming. Last but not least someone that doesn't know to use .0004 when you need to calculate .04% shouldn't be throwing any jabs about somebody's education. That's fifth grade math class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 09:10 AM
 
Location: DC
6,507 posts, read 6,426,164 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
How much energy do these programs actually produce, net of the energy input to run them?
How big is the US electric utility industry? How much capital would it take to change the production by 10%? Do a little homework and come back better informed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 09:16 AM
 
Location: New York Area
15,587 posts, read 6,159,335 times
Reputation: 12173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
How big is the US electric utility industry? How much capital would it take to change the production by 10%? Do a little homework and come back better informed.
With how much in the way of subsidies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2015, 12:04 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,827,766 times
Reputation: 3955
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
How much energy do these programs actually produce, net of the energy input to run them?
pssst. Exactly NONE of this is about producing Net Energy.

You may have picked that up from Extreme Nonsense by a group that promotes EROEI (aka Energy Returned on Energy Invested)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...nergy_invested

That wiki page has comparison of various energy systems.

But NONE of that applies.

This is about MONEY and Political Influence.

If a particular output (Often OIL in US Model -- to feed our Internal Combustion Engines) is desired and has a preference, you can sink a whole lot of other forms of Energy into the hole -- even more Energy than comes out -- and still be profitable -- until the Oil goes Surplus, as is currently then it all crashes -- but again ONLY due to money -- Not Energy nor EROEI.

So. Back to Money and Political Influence.

IF All sources were treated the same:

(with no Government Intervention -- so no Licenses to Pollute, no Exemption from Liability, no Eminent Domain for Private Business)

Nukes -- would never had been built, and already ceased operations. Nukes can only operate with .gov granted [Limited] Exemption from Liability. So if one blows up and poisons a Whole State -- not the operators' problem. No one will insure a Nuke.

Oil -- could not come out of the ground or be Refined due to Air Pollution Permits not being issued.

Natural Gas -- No fracking, and no Eminent Domain for Pipeline Right-of-Ways. Game-Over.

Coal -- Dirty Air and Air Pollution Permits, again. Could not operate.

So that leaves . . . .

Hydro, Wind, Solar, maybe Waves, and some Geo-Thermal.

All of which would have already swept the field . . . . if there were NO Government Intervention into the Energy Domain.

Has nothing to do with EROEI, and not too much to do with price. The markets would all re-adjust around the Renewable Costs and Prices . . . and on we would go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top