Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 90

Thread: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

  1. #41
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    I am glad you also understand that nuclear energy is sustainable whereas experimental technology is not economically sustainable but maybe in the future.
    You mean to the tune of 76 or so BILLION in subsidies in fiscal year 2010 alone?

    "economically sustainable" really?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Huh? Enrichment is relatively safe. Mining uranium is not that dirty. What exactly are you talking about?

    The problem is that nuclear plant construction is historically horrifically over budget and over time.
    Because they are financed by the government.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,716
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    So why were they even brought into this discussion?
    I am not sure although I was only concerned with your question as it related to the groups that call themselves Tea Parties.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    At least nuclear power is a proven efficient producer of electricity, unlike all these "green" technologies that have yet to cost less than current methods even with their government funded offsets! Even the article makes this clear ...
    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...
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-30-11 at 06:25 PM.

  5. #45
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    Not sure exactly what side of the fence you have decided to fall on, but their is no single Tea Party it is not lead by a single group or individual and whatever you may find as being the position of A Tea Party still cannot be the position of all the Tea Parties nationwide, their only common position I know of is fiscal responsibility, responsible spending & less taxes.
    That is spot on.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

  6. #46
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Because they are financed by the government.
    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.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #47
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    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.
    You can't be serious? You can't export nuclear energy like you can oil or natural gas. Besides, if the government owned nuclear power plants they'd likely tax the hell out of them! This is the one reason I oppose nationalizing domestic energy except where it comes to competing on the international market.

    To that, I'd rather the government owned oil and gas fields like other nation-states do. Atleast then the country would have a better chance and picking their international partners in the global marketplace. Not saying they should own all domestic oil fields. Just one or two so that they can't be pushed around as far as being manipulated for the cost of imported oil like we are now by OPEC.

    Let private companies retain their hold in domestic markets and compete accordingly with global markets. Just my 2-cents worth; but I'd never advocate the government owning a domestic energy industry that couldn't be exported or be in competition with in the private sector.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-30-11 at 06:34 PM.

  8. #48
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,716
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    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...
    It is in 5th or 6th place for no other reason than it is not cost effective and efficient enough to compete with the other more popular energy alternatives in place in the USA at this time.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  9. #49
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I've seen few support it being subsidized. Even those that did seemed to be not real enthused about it. Perhaps if you feel that someone holds that position you should take them up on it as opposed to some generalized statement like this.
    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.

    Because they are financed by the government.
    Wrong. Do you not understand the difference between a loan a loan guarantee?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #50
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    It is in 5th or 6th place for no other reason than it is not cost effective and efficient enough to compete with the other more popular energy alternatives in place in the USA at this time.
    Like oil which got I believe in excess of $60 billion in subsidies last year?
    Or Coal which got an estimated $345 billion?
    US Coal Subsidy $345 billion: Harvard Study Commercial Climate

    Hydro's going to be cheap as fuel is essentially free.

    It's not really a good argument to claim it's not cost effective when 3 out of the top 4 are getting major subsidies that distort the true cost.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •