• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to invest $2 billion in solar power

Care to look at your own posts? You derided the use of federal money to do exactly that. YOU said it.



Wait. So you're against providing money to make solar more effective, but you want to continue research to make it more effective? How about we take some of those subsidies oil gets and allocate them to solar?

Wow.

I think he just wants to help boost their morale. Give them a pat on the back and say good job. He supports research but doesn't want to fund it. Problem is that isn't how it works in the real world. Unless you want people to make solar panels using our large mounds of refuse. Now that would be cost effective. Create jobs building something that doesn't work.
 
I think he just wants to help boost their morale. Give them a pat on the back and say good job. He supports research but doesn't want to fund it.

But he doesn't seem to have any problems funding coal, gas, oil and nuclear with federal subsidies. Including $1.6 billion in credits to research cleaner coal. I have at least three posts right now with evidence linking to significently large subsidies to those and nary a single peep about getting rid of them from him. I realize most people here are walking contriditions that could not define "consistency" if their life depended on it.

Problem is that isn't how it works in the real world. Unless you want people to make solar panels using our large mounds of refuse. Now that would be cost effective. Create jobs building something that doesn't work.

If we stripped out the subsidies gas, coal and nuclear get, solar would be in the ball park of cost effective.
 
But he doesn't seem to have any problems funding coal, gas, oil and nuclear with federal subsidies. Including $1.6 billion in credits to research cleaner coal. I have at least three posts right now with evidence linking to significently large subsidies to those and nary a single peep about getting rid of them from him. I realize most people here are walking contriditions that could not define "consistency" if their life depended on it.



If we stripped out the subsidies gas, coal and nuclear get, solar would be in the ball park of cost effective.

I guess it goes along with the idea of 'don't fix what works'. Even if 'what works' is politically and environmentally flawed. Any attempt and we'll be "reading Marx by candlelight".
 
I guess it goes along with the idea of 'don't fix what works'. Even if 'what works' is politically and environmentally flawed. Any attempt and we'll be "reading Marx by candlelight".

I think it's more "I'm too partisan and proud to admit that maybe I could be wrong and that my belief system isn't fact based."

Subsidies for solar are bad....but subsidies for fossil are good? I mentioned a better idea, 30 year tax break, you know cutting taxes for them and no praise. I guess $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil is okay, but not for solar.

I don't want to see our money flowing out to buy foreign solar. But some people here do. It's amazing how some people here can call themselves patriots and hold positions that are diametrically opposed to the future of this country.
 
I think it's more "I'm too partisan and proud to admit that maybe I could be wrong and that my belief system isn't fact based."

Subsidies for solar are bad....but subsidies for fossil are good? I mentioned a better idea, 30 year tax break, you know cutting taxes for them and no praise. I guess $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil is okay, but not for solar.

I don't want to see our money flowing out to buy foreign solar. But some people here do. It's amazing how some people here can call themselves patriots and hold positions that are diametrically opposed to the future of this country.

It's how constrained someones vision of the world is. If they don't directly reap benefits it isn't "cost-efficient."

He is restricted in his volume for improvement and has limited or no ability to affect his surroundings.

It is better to cope incrementally with tragic dilemmas than to proceed categorically with moral imperatives – for amelioration of evils and for progress it is generally preferable to rely on systemic characteristics of social processes (such as moral traditions, the marketplace, the law, or families) rather than solutions proposed by government officials. - Mr. Sowell

I don't want that either. Maybe we can't always win technologically? Doesn't mean we shouldent try to at least attempt to pave way for advancement. We have discussed solar energy for YEARS and haven't made much of an attempt to improve and implement it in some fashion.
 
I believe we should be investing in all of it--soloar, wind, oil, natural gas, nukes, hydro. However, that would make too much sense to most folks on the Left.

Somebody might **** around and actually make some money. Can't have that!
I agree that we should be looking into all forms of renewable energy, but we know nuclear power is very efficient and works great. I think we should make due with what we know right now (by building nuclear plants) and still look into other energy options. Somewhat like drilling for oil and using our oil now before we find an answer to replace oil with a renewable fuel.
 
I agree that we should be looking into all forms of renewable energy, but we know nuclear power is very efficient and works great. I think we should make due with what we know right now (by building nuclear plants) and still look into other energy options. Somewhat like drilling for oil and using our oil now before we find an answer to replace oil with a renewable fuel.

Only problem i have with nuclear is im unsure how plants can handle natural events such as earthquakes, tornados, storms, and hurricanes. Had a nuclear power plant recently evocated and part of it was ripped apart here due to a tornado. In no way do i disagree with you with the funding in nuclear power. Cause as far as i understand they ARE pretty safe, efficient, clean, and more renewable then other unrenewable sources. Nuclear should take part in the conversion to renewable sources. It's one step closer to a goal.
 
Only problem i have with nuclear is im unsure how plants can handle natural events such as earthquakes, tornados, storms, and hurricanes. Had a nuclear power plant recently evocated and part of it was ripped apart here due to a tornado. In no way do i disagree with you with the funding in nuclear power. Cause as far as i understand they ARE pretty safe, efficient, clean, and more renewable then other unrenewable sources. Nuclear should take part in the conversion to renewable sources. It's one step closer to a goal.

Nuclear is definitely the right track.

I think 60% of new money should go towards new construction loan guarantees and kilowatt subsidies, 30% towards getting Thorium reactors commercial viable, and the rest towards workable fusion.
 
Nuclear is definitely the right track.

I think 60% of new money should go towards new construction loan guarantees and kilowatt subsidies, 30% towards getting Thorium reactors commercial viable, and the rest towards workable fusion.

I hope so. I mean we don't really inevitably expect space travel to infinitely run off fossil fuels? The answer lies within the sun.
 
I hope so. I mean we don't really inevitably expect space travel to infinitely run off fossil fuels? The answer lies within the sun.

Well, one day I hope mankind figures out how to control a qantum singularity. The capacity for energy generation is limited only by matter.
 
Well, one day I hope mankind figures out how to control a qantum singularity. The capacity for energy generation is limited only by matter.

It's converting that matter to energy that stumps us. Hence why we use matter that can naturally be used to produce energy, rather then attempt to alter a more abundant form.
 
Care to look at your own posts? You derided the use of federal money to do exactly that. YOU said it.



Wait. So you're against providing money to make solar more effective, but you want to continue research to make it more effective? How about we take some of those subsidies oil gets and allocate them to solar?

Wow.

Nothing you've said here is correct. Perhaps it is you that needs to look at my posts.
 
And the Efficiency of Solar Panels is at least 6 times as great as 20 Years ago. Maybe 10x soon.
Ooops!

Yes. That's true. I've heard that wonderful things are about to come out of the Federal Putting Wings On Pigs Office, next week.

Just remember, when next Monday rolls around, next week will be only seven days away.

So make that Rhode Island.

Which completely ignores the fact that the energy needs of the United States, at today's levels, never mind next week's levels, can't be transported across the nation on wires.

Can't be done.

No amount of manana is going to change that.

Has something to do with melting wires and how melted wires don't conduct electricity when they're on the ground.

Just think if it was only used in the West/Southwest we only need ¼ the area of Rhode Island.
Why be such a gremlin and bring up "portland Maine".. Why not go for the likely and doable.

Because the con-men are promoting the stupid "all the US" scam in ads I've seen on TV, and too many totally ignorant people are swayed by the magic box in their living room.

I mean, there's a reason this discussion is happening, right? You believe it's possible, against the facts of reality, to provide 100% if the US power needs with the shiny smiley guy in the sky, don't you?

Well, Helios isn't up to the task. Gaian realities dictate otherwise.

Thinking like yours is what stops innovation.

No, it doesn't.

Knowlege of what's impossible is what enables engineers to focus on the possible. There's a reason I don't build concrete airplanes with rubberband propellers, and use good old-fashioned graphite composites to carry wing loadings induced by titanium bladed turbofans on the airplanes I work on.

Want to power up the nation without burning chemicals?

Then you have to burn uranium, thorium, and plutonium, instead, until such time as it becomes possible to burn hydrogen and helium and lithium in fusion chambers.


Now We're talking very feasible and probably spread out so as not to be all in one spot. (So many places in Cal, Ariz, Nev, NM, etc)

No, overshading the western desert with solar collectors comprising an area similar to the state of Taxachusetts is not feasible. Doesn't matter how "spread out" it is, it's going be an unnatural shading of a tremendous area.

And what will Oil/NG/etc cost in 10 years do you think Genius?

Depends on any number of factors.

Will the Messiah's ignorant ban on off-shore drilling be lifted? Will the nation be able to access it's coal and oil and shale deposits as needed, or will treasonous politics in Washington still keep us bent over the "barrel" for socialist and terrorst nations? And how many gigawatts will brand new nuclear reactors be providing the nation's electric grids in a decade? How many foundations for new reactors will be laid by then?

As 2.3 Billion 'Chindians', etc, become more like the .3 Billion Americans in their energy consumption?
You need some basic imagination.. no.. even just forethought of this certainty.

I guess the US should start tapping it's native reserves for it's own use and letting the rest of the world compete for the socialist and terrorist oil instead.

It would only be conservative and good planning to put at least a much large slice in solar, for just one.

When the engineering can't possibly produce the energy needed?

Why waste the money when we could be mining uranium today?

You show the shallowest of cost analysis and one that will surely change... and probably has already. With interest rates as low as they are now, "more expensive" (and basically up-front-only) plants can be built and amortized at a much lesser cost. Especially if government or govt gauranteed/tax free financing is given as it is for many Municipal projects. In 20 years they could [still] be producing near Free energy when oil is $400 a barrel.

Oil isn't going to reach $400 a barrel until the Messiah runs the printing presses and devalues the currency.

But, because we shouldn't allow ourselves to become enthralled to socialist and terrorist nations, we should do everything we can to make sure that we take advantage of every useful energy resource this nation offers.

Tha means coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and in a limited fashion, solar, tidal, wave, and wind as fringe components of proportionately small worth.
 
So Nuclear, Coal and Natural gas are not cost effective, are not efficient, and are not Constitutional?

The government should be subsidizing not of it, and no, those subsidies are not Constitutional.

Don't need to post links to prove those subsidies exist, not to me, anyway.
 
I understand that solar powered energy is not currently as effective as coal, gas, etc. But why should we not seek to improve it? People act like this issue has never been brought up before. I'm glad he is at least making an effort towards the issue, chump change or not.

That is about to change. Google "black silicon", which is going to initiate the solar revolution. Instead of capturing the sun's power in a 2-dimensional array, you will now be able to capture it in a 3-dimensional array, which makes this new technology several times as efficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom