- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Am I the only one opposed to giving away more of our tax-money no matter what?
2Billion is a lot of damned money
There ar emuch more reasons why Solar hasnt caught on but the two primary reasons are 1-Cost to the consumer and 2-once you have solar installed, who do you tax for energy consumption? Neither party wants it.The only reason solar energy hasn't caught on in this country is because we continue to place it 5th or 6th behind:
1. oil
2. coal
3. hydro
4. nuclear
But if you really took a closer look at the U.S. solar power industry and stopped gauging it based on the Solyndra scandale alone you'd realize that the industry is viable and can be profitable if given half the change the top four energy industries have been given.
One way to change the way U.S. homeowners and consumers think about solar energy might be to make them standard for home construction just as we currently do for things like hot water tanks or A/C units. Right now, we look at the solar energy industry as being part of electric grids competing with oil, natural gas, hydro-electric or nuclear energy to power entire cities/communities. But if we make them standard home installations, the solar panel industry would BOOM overnight! Congress could even tie-in selling back energy to local utility companies so that these industries don't feel infriged upon (unless you just say "let choice and competition within the free market system do what it do"...I'm all for that!).
U.S. Solar Energy industry
As for Boehner pimping federal funding for a local nuke plant, all I can say is he's once again playing politics trying to have it both ways. Classic politics...:roll:
I'd prefer to just have all nuclear power plants be owned and operated by the government. Maybe set it up as a government corporation similar to how the Postal Service is organized.
Most probably have no idea its subsidized. The government hands out money to nuclear to construction to disposal. In many ways it's cradle to grave welfare. Without subsides, nuclear won't exist. They get construction loan guarantees, money per kilowatt and money for disposal of the facility. Cradle to grave welfare in the nuclear industry.
Wrong. Do you not understand the difference between a loan a loan guarantee?
I'd prefer to just have all nuclear power plants be owned and operated by the government. Maybe set it up as a government corporation similar to how the Postal Service is organized.
There are much more reasons why Solar hasn't caught on but the two primary reasons are 1-Cost to the consumer and 2-once you have solar installed, who do you tax for energy consumption? Neither party wants it.
Precisely correct. Energy companies dont want it, state and local municipalities dont want it...everyone knows there will be a tax hole that SOMEONE will have to fill.The cost could be drastically reduced if solar panels were made standard for home construction. They're really not that expensive. You can buy a solar panel from anywhere between $400-1,500.
As far as taxing the energy solar panels would produce, that is the big mystery now isn't it? The answer should be NOBODY! But that's the problem...
Local utility companies don't want solar energy to catch on for that very reason...it reduces energy consumption. Therefore, there's no incentive for local utility companies to allow solar panel installation to become standardized in home construction. There's also the competition solar power would have with the coal industry.
Those who think solar power is some fuex industry really haven't done their homework. For me, it's a matter of changing how we as homeowners approach solar power. Change the incentive from a "energy efficiency tax credit" to a standard appliance you buy with your home and the industry would thrive. Give the homeowner the choice up from if they want to have a solar panel installed on their home and you will see this industry change overnight.
Precisely correct. Energy companies dont want it, state and local municipalities dont want it...everyone knows there will be a tax hole that SOMEONE will have to fill.
I dont think it is as economical and viable as you imagine. If it were more home owners would use it. Panels are the cheapest part of the equation.
Thats what I recall as well...We were looking at renovating some rentals...thought it would be a nice benefit to offer tenants...no to low utilities. Problem is that the ROI just never gets there. As soon as it would pay for itself you would have to buy replacement parts.Maybe things have changed or I'm misremembering........but I think it was like $25-$30,000 to retrofit my house to run solely on solar when I checked a few years ago.
I realize that once the government committs to funding it's an open check. Just like Solyndra.
The Obama administration wanted to give them even more. Just like with the military. They will commit 2 billion to build a new jet fighter but once the over runs are up to 7 billion the government is still there with the money.
Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans. We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.
Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.
See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.
Solar is also fighting a fight against oil.
If your statement is true why is it that all the up and coming countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Indonesia, & Thailand, go for nuclear energy as an upgrade rather than solar, wind or other "green" technologies ?Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans. We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.
Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.
See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.
House Speaker John Boehner attacked the Obama administration for financing failed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, saying government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. That hasn’t stopped him from demanding that the U.S. make a winner of a nuclear-fuel plant in Ohio, his home state.
Boehner is backing a $2 billion Energy Department loan guarantee sought by USEC Inc. (USU) for its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, aimed at enriching uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.
“When it comes to emerging energy technologies, the Republicans don’t want to pick winners and losers -- unless it’s nuclear power,” Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate-change project manager in the Washington office of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview.
The collapse of Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month, two years after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, isn’t a reason to withhold financing from USEC, Boehner said in a Sept. 30 posting on his website. He cited a promise by Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign to aid the company.
“In the midst of the Solyndra controversy that has raised serious questions about the Obama administration’s oversight of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of Southern Ohio workers stand to lose their jobs if the Obama administration reneges on the president’s promise to support an energy project in the small town of Piketon, Ohio,” Boehner wrote. “I urge the administration to not betray the citizens of Ohio.”
USEC’s political action committee has given $10,000 to committees supporting Boehner since 2010, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra - Bloomberg
If your statement is true why is it that all the up and coming countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Indonesia, & Thailand, go for nuclear energy as an upgrade rather than solar, wind or other "green" technologies ?
After almost 70 years of producing uranium, I believe we can safely remove the "experimental" label here, especially since Iran is doing it as well, don't you think ?
The only stupid things here are your assumptions of what I figure and your lack of comprehension that these countries are foregoing all that "green" energy and building nuclear energy as their answer to their growing energy needs or as you put it "to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal. " If nuclear needs to be heavily subsidized like some in this thread have said then why would these countries dump money into a sinkhole when they could be going with sustainable green technology that is "safe" ?Because the land cost to energy output is higher. Furthermore Iran, Syria and North Korea are using the programs to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal. The civilian energy is largely just a byproduct. Iran, Syria and North Korea all went with reactors that produce far more waste then is necessary. North's Korea's plutonium reactor is a near copy of the breeder reactor the UK used to mass produce fuel for its nuclear weapons. Taiwan may have a secret nuclear program like South Korea did back in the early 90s.
A fair number of countries also go with nuclear because the seller of the plant offers financing. Essentially their direct short term costs are low. As opposed to the high startup costs normally associated with nuclear and that currently exist for most fuel sources aside from natural gas.
Furthermore the UAE is planning the largest solar plant in the world. Taiwan has a number of solar manufacturers that are competing with South Korea and China. Indonesia just started on its first wind plant. I can keep going, but the lesson here is to Google stuff before posting. Countries you named are going with green technologies. You look really stupid when you cite countries as proof that green doesn't work when those countries are using green technologies.
Furthermore just because nations are going towards nuclear doesn't mean anything I said is wrong. How you figured that, I'm not sure.
Best answer for future needs is nuclear, the same thing I have said above using all those countries that are planning nuclear for their energy needs instead of other "green" technology. It appears doubtful to me that such energy needs would also require their governments to subsidize them as some here have presented the case against nuclear power as efficient.If you are a Doctor you are considered to only practice medicine, never mastered. This in no way means that a doctor isn't a good doctor but over the years he will only get better. Just as nuclear power we will experiment with it more and more ever finding new ways to lessen the waste it creates. Best answer for cheap energy with the up in coming decades of more electric cars on the market.
Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans.
We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.
Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.
See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.
The only stupid things here are your assumptions of what I figure and your lack of comprehension that these countries are foregoing all that "green" energy and building nuclear energy as their answer to their growing energy needs or as you put it "to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal.
"If nuclear needs to be heavily subsidized like some in this thread have said then why would these countries dump money into a sinkhole when they could be going with sustainable green technology that is "safe" ?
Best answer for future needs is nuclear, the same thing I have said above using all those countries that are planning nuclear for their energy needs instead of other "green" technology. It appears doubtful to me that such energy needs would also require their governments to subsidize them as some here have presented the case against nuclear power as efficient.
House Speaker John Boehner attacked the Obama administration for financing failed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, saying government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. That hasn’t stopped him from demanding that the U.S. make a winner of a nuclear-fuel plant in Ohio, his home state.
Boehner is backing a $2 billion Energy Department loan guarantee sought by USEC Inc. (USU) for its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, aimed at enriching uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.
“When it comes to emerging energy technologies, the Republicans don’t want to pick winners and losers -- unless it’s nuclear power,” Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate-change project manager in the Washington office of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview.
The collapse of Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month, two years after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, isn’t a reason to withhold financing from USEC, Boehner said in a Sept. 30 posting on his website. He cited a promise by Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign to aid the company.
“In the midst of the Solyndra controversy that has raised serious questions about the Obama administration’s oversight of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of Southern Ohio workers stand to lose their jobs if the Obama administration reneges on the president’s promise to support an energy project in the small town of Piketon, Ohio,” Boehner wrote. “I urge the administration to not betray the citizens of Ohio.”
USEC’s political action committee has given $10,000 to committees supporting Boehner since 2010, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra - Bloomberg
Indeed they are. Nowhere is the solution to that being to simply give them millions of dollars.
It is NOT the governments place to subsidize for profit businesses. How much more should we have pored into Solyndra? I hate this arguement. The problem wasn't that we blew the money, it was that we did not give them enough. **** that. The problem was that the Chinese pulled the rug out from underneath what Solyndra was trying to do. Investors could see this coming from miles away which is why they stayed away. How then does another company ever compete with the company that the government is poring billions into? How much of these billions then find their way back into campaign coffers?
Nobody has any desire to deal with all the regulations put in place to simply allow to keep the government involved.
Bite me. Don't tell me that I simply do not understand.
We have these over runs because NO ONE in government demands accountability.
It's just open the check book. I would demand a bid that was binding. You build it for the amount you bid or the government takes legal action. Funny, it works in the real world where people can't just take the money from someone else.
If you do not believe you can do that, don't bid. If we decide that the new jet isn't worth the actual 10 billion it would actually cost to build, we don't build it.
Oh the horror!!!! God forbid we invest money into something actually works. :rofl
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?