Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 07-09-2011, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post

How so? The way you make money is bringing a better product to the market. If for example you produced a solar panel that could compete with coal you wold want to patent and bring this product to the market so you could make a fortune. If you try and hide it by not patenting or making it public someone else could, a patent only lasts for 20 years which is relatively short time to develop and deploy any kind of tech like this on really large scale. It would be within the best of interests of the patent owner to move forward quickly...
One example is solar panels and net metering.
Here in Texas TXU will not do net metering..that is buying back electricity when you generate more than you use. And here in Texas during the summer that can happen. No discounts either for going solar from the electric company. You'd think they would welcome net metering as it sends back electricity to them. But they lose "revenue" with this movement. And for now that's who I'm stuck with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2011, 08:37 AM
 
2,170 posts, read 2,861,336 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Please vote for Ron Paul 2012. We don't need this UN (insert explitive here)!
We need to withdraw from the UN and take that prime real estate on NYC east side back for profitable development. The UN is completely irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,828,984 times
Reputation: 7801
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
That's trillion with a T. Where do they think all this money will come from. Take a guess the evil developing countries. When will this insanity end.

"
Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.
So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Domestic [COLOR=blue !important]Product[/color][/color][/color] of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”
Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]survey[/color][/color] is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N., with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”
[LEFT]
Read more: Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion - FoxNews.com
[/LEFT]
We seriously need to cut the nuts off the UN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 09:03 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,051,710 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
One example is solar panels and net metering.
Here in Texas TXU will not do net metering..that is buying back electricity when you generate more than you use. And here in Texas during the summer that can happen. No discounts either for going solar from the electric company. You'd think they would welcome net metering as it sends back electricity to them. But they lose "revenue" with this movement. And for now that's who I'm stuck with.
I like the net metering idea but that's not what I meant when I said a better product coming to the market. Those solar panels still cost a fortune.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 03:04 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,698,996 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Heck, people are fighting their HOAs for metal roofs and solar panels.
Got to have that green front lawn cut just so high, etc.

We are our own worst enemies.

Rural folks are a lot more green than urban folks due to their location, lack of regulations, services, etc.
Exactly. Rural people are much more likely to heat their homes with wood burning stoves and live without air conditioners. Some really rural types even use outhouses - you can't get more green than that!

I'm pretty green. I live in the SW and don't use an air conditioner. My electric bill is about $50 to $60 a month. Trees can keep a yard and house quite cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 04:06 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,914,172 times
Reputation: 4459
the "green" push is to help china grow:

Chinese solar panel manufacturers accounted for slightly over half the world’s production last year. Their share of the American market has grown nearly sixfold in the last two years, to 23 percent in 2010 and is still rising fast, according to GTM Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm in Cambridge, Mass.

In addition to solar energy, China just passed the United States as the world’s largest builder and installer of wind turbines. [Siemans.com]
Remember the images of our President visiting a wind turbine plant? It was a Siemens plant in the Midwest that made components for turbines. Siemens is a large multi-national company – foreign-owned and much of its money leaves the country. or this:

One Chinese photovoltaic panel maker, Yingli, entered the U.S. at the beginning of 2009 and by year’s end had captured nearly a third of the California solar market.)

But China is spending relatively little on direct green energy investment in the U.S. – just $253 million in 15 projects between 2003 and 2010.And much of that investment appears driven by U.S. policy, according to the report.“Clean energy firms and manufacturers of solar panels and wind turbines are investing in local manufacturing in order to qualify for stimulus projects that require local content,” the authors wrote.Chinese solar giant Suntech, for example, has opened a manufacturing plant in Arizona and Yingli is considering doing the same in a Southwest state, executives have told me.

we are to get left behind again!

in the meantime, china is buying up fossil fuels like crazy:

Chinese national oil companies have embarked on a “mega-spree” of fossil energy foreign acquisitions, accounting in fact for almost 20% of the world’s global deal value in the first quarter of 2010.

Recently, Chinese oil giant Sinopec paid ConocoPhillips $4.65 billion to acquire its share in a Canadian tar sands project. Weeks later came the company’s $2.46 billion acquisition of Angola’s deep water oil reserves and a $7.56 billion acquisition of Swiss-based Addax Petroleum. PetroChina has announced a$20 billion loan to Venezuela to be paid by oil and the company will spend at least $60 billion over the next 10 years to acquire more oil and gas assets abroad. Even more recently, CNOOC, China’s third largest oil company, paid $6 billion to acquire the Brazilian Peregrino field.

i also like the idea to cut off the UN, as well as all of those other US revenue sucking operations, like the IMF.

Last edited by floridasandy; 07-09-2011 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 04:56 PM
 
13,005 posts, read 18,908,288 times
Reputation: 9252
If the money can create jobs in the US it would help put a dent in the huge unemployment rate. If the hordes of construction workers, architects and engineers out of work can be put to work on green building projects it would create a big economic boost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:01 PM
 
45,226 posts, read 26,443,162 times
Reputation: 24980
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
If the money can create jobs in the US it would help put a dent in the huge unemployment rate. If the hordes of construction workers, architects and engineers out of work can be put to work on green building projects it would create a big economic boost.
They could create another bubble like they did with housing!

yeah, thats the ticket
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,727,332 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
The world will be decarbonized by one means or by another. The supplies of coal, oil and gas are finite and today only a small fraction of a growing worlds people use the bulk of those fuels. Our use of these fuels is growing and through the miracle of compounding demand the supply will have to double and redouble at an accelerating pace. We will run out of supply sometime in the next century and hence will be decarbonized. This should be a given and the only question is what kind of world do we find in the year 2100? Will it be a world where we have alternatives and sustainable energy sources or will it be the world as our tomb -- a world where our burned out ruins are a monument to our lack of imagination, wisdom and humanity. We have a choice still.
De-Carbonized? Are not we carbon based life forms We better get busy and come up with an Antivirus for the pesky infestation know as human kind That's the greenies goal you know. The earth is only for very few of us (them) so the rest of you (us) can just die!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 05:13 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 6,138,513 times
Reputation: 2908
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If I moved to the middle of 1000 acre ranch solar/wind might be the most cost effective, that doesn't make it the most cost effective for the masses overall.

You need to use what resources you have.
You ended your last sentence too soon. You forgot the word "wisely".

Frankly, I don't care about the UN and I don't care about the cost. Obviously green measures will create jobs and whole new industries. The cost will be balanced by the benefits. The only reason we are in this current energy situation is because it's the one that renders some people the most profit. Those people have kept alternatives under the table, out of sight. Going back to the greener pastures of 300 years ago as a strategy for the future would be good to research. We are still a part of nature no matter how much we try to divorce ourselves from it.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top