Why do Republicans celebrate the failure of Green Energy

[Steelplate]

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.

Ummm.... ever hear of Hydrogen? Plentiful, clean, efficient as hell.... difficult to manufacture though... However, If BIG OIL, or some other current entity would pour their $$$ into R&D on how to more efficiently produce it, that company(s) would still have something to sell and profit off of.

If we find a reasonably cost effective method for extracting hydrogen, Fuel Cells could power 18 wheelers, airplanes, cars, get homes off of the electrical grid, etc.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why do Democrats celebrate wasteful spending on green programs that bare no fruit?

 

[Charles_Main]

Politics aside, what is to be gained if Green Energy fails as an alternative energy source? Isn't having alternatives to big oil a benefit for this country? Why is it official GOP policy that Drill, baby drill is the only acceptable answer to our energy needs?

All new technologies suffer failures. More money has been lost in this country by speculative oil failures than anything else

Why the celebrations?

Nobody is celebrating you Jack ass. Pointing out that Obama Made poor Decisions picking winners in the Green Industry is not Celebrating the Failure of Green Energy, It's just being Realistic. It's Perfectly Rational and Fair Criticism.

Were not Celebrating the Failure of Green Energy, were Pointing out that The President, and Congressional Dems Passed a Massive Stimulus, and Handed out money like Candy, Often it seems to Obama Donors, and Democrat Friends, and in some Cases they gave the Money to Companies that were not going to make it, and it wasn't a Secret.

You can not force an Industry to be Viable and Profitable by Tossing Money at it in the Form of Blank Check Government Loans.

All you are doing is trying to Deflect from that issue by claiming Were Celebrating the Demise of Green Energy.

Fuck Man I want off Oil as much as the Next guy. I would love to see real Viable Green Solution, But I am not going to hold my tongue When I see the Government Handing out money to Supporters Companies that then Fail and leave the Tax Payers on the Hook. I am not going to Shut up and let it slid when I think were going about it the wrong way.

For Christ Sake just think of how much research we could have funded with all the Money Obama handed to Companies that are failing, or have failed? If you are going to toss at something on this Scale, then for Christ sake have some control over how it's spent.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why do Democrats celebrate wasteful spending on green programs that bare no fruit?

Or better yet why do they always Misrepresent what we "Republicans" are saying. The Idea that most Republicans are Celebrating the Death of Green Companies is Laughable and Offensive.

These god Damn Childish little alinksi Heads really piss me off Sometimes with their False Assumptions and Accusations as to the Motives of Criticism of Obama and Democrat Polices.

 

[Zander]

Politics aside, what is to be gained if Green Energy fails as an alternative energy source? Isn't having alternatives to big oil a benefit for this country? Why is it official GOP policy that Drill, baby drill is the only acceptable answer to our energy needs?

All new technologies suffer failures. More money has been lost in this country by speculative oil failures than anything else

Why the celebrations?

Because people like you need to be reminded of how dumb you are.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

The oil from that pipeline would go into the world supply, run by OPEC. The US isn't a member of OPEC.

 

[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.

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.

Ummm.... ever hear of Hydrogen? Plentiful, clean, efficient as hell.... difficult to manufacture though... However, If BIG OIL, or some other current entity would pour their $$$ into R&D on how to more efficiently produce it, that company(s) would still have something to sell and profit off of.

If we find a reasonably cost effective method for extracting hydrogen, Fuel Cells could power 18 wheelers, airplanes, cars, get homes off of the electrical grid, etc.

Hydrogen...Excellent idea.
I wrote earlier in speculation that the oil companies would not find it in their best interest if hydrogen technology was somehow mass produced at a motor fuel.
This is political. No one regardless of their political affiliation or ideology is innocent on this one.
I saw an Episode of "Stossel" where hydrogen as a motor fuel was discussed.
Hydrogen would be a miracle if mass marketed and distributed.
The best part of hydrogen is the only waste product of hydrogen combustion is water vapor.
Compare Fuel Cell Vehicles Side-by-Side
HowStuffWorks "The Future of Hydrogen-Boosted Gas Engines" is an even better idea...
BTW, most people are unaware that diesel locomotives are actually powered by electric motors. The diesel simply powers the the motor which turns a generator which generates power to the drive wheels. This is why a typical locomotive can realize an effective 150 MPG of diesel fuel.
It is THE real hybrid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

The oil from that pipeline would go into the world supply, run by OPEC. The US isn't a member of OPEC.

Oh please. Where did you hear that garbage?

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Liberals Fail To Realize that

1) Fossil Fuels are the Only Viable Source of Energy we currently have the Can Provide Energy on the Levels we need.

2) Solar, Wind, and most other Cutting Edge Green Energy Sources are simply not ready yet, and therefore Continuing to Use, and get oil is Going to happen.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

The oil from that pipeline would go into the world supply, run by OPEC. The US isn't a member of OPEC.

Opec has powerful Influence of Oil Prices, they do not "Control the oil" The US and Canada would have control over who it was sold to.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Ummm.... ever hear of Hydrogen? Plentiful, clean, efficient as hell.... difficult to manufacture though... However, If BIG OIL, or some other current entity would pour their $$$ into R&D on how to more efficiently produce it, that company(s) would still have something to sell and profit off of.

If we find a reasonably cost effective method for extracting hydrogen, Fuel Cells could power 18 wheelers, airplanes, cars, get homes off of the electrical grid, etc.

Hydrogen...Excellent idea.
I wrote earlier in speculation that the oil companies would not find it in their best interest if hydrogen technology was somehow mass produced at a motor fuel.
This is political. No one regardless of their political affiliation or ideology is innocent on this one.
I saw an Episode of "Stossel" where hydrogen as a motor fuel was discussed.
Hydrogen would be a miracle if mass marketed and distributed.
The best part of hydrogen is the only waste product of hydrogen combustion is water vapor.
Compare Fuel Cell Vehicles Side-by-Side
HowStuffWorks "The Future of Hydrogen-Boosted Gas Engines" is an even better idea...
BTW, most people are unaware that diesel locomotives are actually powered by electric motors. The diesel simply powers the the motor which turns a generator which generates power to the drive wheels. This is why a typical locomotive can realize an effective 150 MPG of diesel fuel.
It is THE real hybrid.

Just as soon as you guys give up the Secret on how to Cost effectively Produce Large Amounts of Hydrogen. Just because you can make it does not mean you can make it work. Current Technology can not produce more Energy out of the Hydrogen they get, then it took to get it.

It's nothing but a pipe dream until that issue is solved. Unless you want to allow the Building of new Nuclear Plants, that can supply the power Needed to Extract Hydrogen from Water for Liquid Fuel to Burn on Mass it's simply not Practical. We get 80% of our Electricity from Coal and Gas Fired Plants, Using them to supply Electricity To Extract Hydrogen would make no sense as they would burn more potential Energy then the Hydrogen they got is capable of Producing, There for it would be a net loss, and more Pollution going into the air.

 

[Mr. H.]

Politics aside, what is to be gained if Green Energy fails as an alternative energy source? Isn't having alternatives to big oil a benefit for this country? Why is it official GOP policy that Drill, baby drill is the only acceptable answer to our energy needs?

All new technologies suffer failures. More money has been lost in this country by speculative oil failures than anything else

Why the celebrations?

This is what I get for having a day job- coming into a thread 180+ posts hastes.

First of all, there is effectively no "Big Oil" in the U.S. any more. Independents do over 90% of the E&P (exploration and production) in this country. It's been that way for decades.

I can't speak for GOP pollicy, but I can say with certainty that the petroleum industy believes in a balanced approach to energy policy- and that includes "Green Energy".

What the industry objects to is the creation of artificial markets. Ethanol is an example.
Direct targeted government loan guarantees and mandated production quotas is another source of contention.

The big kicker is the arbitrarily singling out of hydrocarbons (oil/gas/coal) as a pariah on society and the targeting of these industries for punitive tax penalties based solely on their success in the marketplace. Add to that the continuation of blatant lies regarding profits as some kind of "windfall" and you've got the recipe for a lot over very pissed off people.

People who risk their own money and their investor's money on producing a "base" commodity upon which all other industry relies.

For someone who's been involved in hydrocarbons for over 30 years, I'd like nothing better than to see "Green" energies succeed. But... and that's a big butt... it must be understood that it's the nature of true success that for any process or technology to become accepted and profitable it must first prove itself on the battleground of failure- and do so at its own peril.

 

[Bern80]

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.

What a fucking joke you are. The issues he presented with regard to those 'greener' alternative energies are real. They are the reasons said energies currently can not take the place of fossil fuel based energy. But people like you are so stupid and hell bent on demonizing 'big oil' that you lose all objectivity in examing those real problems. The process of making batteries for these cars is especially poluting, putting lead and/or iron-oxide particles into the air. Ethanol requires the use of several times more water than gasoline. I could go on.

 

[Nosmo King]

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).

No, I'm not stumped. I presented my opinion on fossil fuels and you waved it away with a tired old Conservative cliché: typical tree-hugger whining.

You want to discuss these issues on your terms and your terms alone. And those terms do not include a rational view of the real problems. Only dismissal based on the narrow Conservative template.

 

[Bern80]

You want to discuss these issues on your terms and your terms alone. And those terms do not include a rational view of the real problems. Only dismissal based on the narrow Conservative template.

He laid out for you an entire paragraph the rational views of the real problems. It is you who just doesn't seem to like that your 'Green energy' has some very real problems. YOU are the one focused on one single line of a post full of real issues with green energy. I don't often respond on the behalf of others but the out right dishonesty and lies you put forth are infuriating and need to made plain for all to see. You focused on one single line of his post. The one that called you whiner. While ignoring the entirey of the rest of the post that contained exactly what you claim to want to talk about it. Do you deny that those issues exist with 'green energy'? Is he incorrect about them? Come on. You say you want rational discussion about the real issues? They were put right in front of your face and YOU are the one the responded like an immature, dishonest, juvenile because you know you don't have the answers.

 

[Mr. H.]

There are no government subsidies for oil.
"Big energy" is the largest private sector investor in sustainables.

 

[Steelplate]

Ummm.... ever hear of Hydrogen? Plentiful, clean, efficient as hell.... difficult to manufacture though... However, If BIG OIL, or some other current entity would pour their $$$ into R&D on how to more efficiently produce it, that company(s) would still have something to sell and profit off of.

If we find a reasonably cost effective method for extracting hydrogen, Fuel Cells could power 18 wheelers, airplanes, cars, get homes off of the electrical grid, etc.

Hydrogen...Excellent idea.
I wrote earlier in speculation that the oil companies would not find it in their best interest if hydrogen technology was somehow mass produced at a motor fuel.
This is political. No one regardless of their political affiliation or ideology is innocent on this one.
I saw an Episode of "Stossel" where hydrogen as a motor fuel was discussed.
Hydrogen would be a miracle if mass marketed and distributed.
The best part of hydrogen is the only waste product of hydrogen combustion is water vapor.
Compare Fuel Cell Vehicles Side-by-Side
HowStuffWorks "The Future of Hydrogen-Boosted Gas Engines" is an even better idea...
BTW, most people are unaware that diesel locomotives are actually powered by electric motors. The diesel simply powers the the motor which turns a generator which generates power to the drive wheels. This is why a typical locomotive can realize an effective 150 MPG of diesel fuel.
It is THE real hybrid.

Just as soon as you guys give up the Secret on how to Cost effectively Produce Large Amounts of Hydrogen. Just because you can make it does not mean you can make it work. Current Technology can not produce more Energy out of the Hydrogen they get, then it took to get it.

It's nothing but a pipe dream until that issue is solved. Unless you want to allow the Building of new Nuclear Plants, that can supply the power Needed to Extract Hydrogen from Water for Liquid Fuel to Burn on Mass it's simply not Practical. We get 80% of our Electricity from Coal and Gas Fired Plants, Using them to supply Electricity To Extract Hydrogen would make no sense as they would burn more potential Energy then the Hydrogen they got is capable of Producing, There for it would be a net loss, and more Pollution going into the air.

Ummm... how much power would it take to power a massive Hydrogen production plant? How about a solar array in the Mohave Desert to power the plant... that way, until a more efficient means of production can be found, it wouldn't really matter about the efficiency problem if the plant(s) were powered by renewable energy.

You see, we don't have to have solar panels on every house... but proper application of solar or wind power can be very beneficial. But the status quo doesn't want that to happen.

 

[Steelplate]

There are no government subsidies for oil.
"Big energy" is the largest private sector investor in sustainables.

Turn the channel.

Oil Companies Reap Billions From Subsidies - NYTimes.com

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

None of this is true. You need to do a little more research, especially into recent developments. It's possible to completely meet a typical home's electricity needs from solar, and many homeowners do. Or from wind (depending on the area where you live), or from a combination. The cost up front is still fairly steep, but a lot of that is the installation cost, and that can be cut out by doing it yourself. Cost of solar panels has dropped to a little over a dollar a watt, and with a 20-year lifespan that means over 100 kwh for a dollar. That's just the solar panels of course; add other equipment and (worse) installation costs and it drops. But it's very much a viable way to create energy. It's pretty much on part with unsubsidized oil. Natural gas is slightly more expensive, nuclear is way more expensive, and coal and hydroelectric are a good deal cheaper (hydro probably always will be).

Like I said, if we would just phase out the fossil-fuel subsidies, that by itself would probably be enough to accelerate our transition to green energy rapidly. The benefits are so huge that without that artificial cost-dampener for fossil fuels, the market would take care of it.

Sorry, but your math doesn't add up. Solar costs a lot more than a dollar a watt. I recently investigated, and a 2000 watt system went for $38,000. That's little more than enough to power a blow dryer. Furthermore, it doesn't work at night, so what do you do then?

Solar power is a joke. It always will be.

actually, it will eventually be viable as the technology advances.

and on a side note, i'm really glad you're not in charge of new inventions.

 

[kwc57]

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.

View attachment 17280