Page 10 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 223

Thread: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

  1. #91
    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: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    It's dumb because we are not one big hive society ... if alternative energy cannot make money for individuals it won't fly, no matter the subsidizing or other progressive nonsensical and artificial means to force it.
    So nuclear power is stupid too? You do realize the huge amount of government support that industry gets no?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #92
    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: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    We need to get serious about our independence from foreign oil. We need to open up ANWR and other places. Big job creater and the money would not be going to our enemies.
    Not going to work. First, your assumption is that oil won't be priced on international markets. It's the biggest reason why pro-ANWR arguments in a security sense make absolutely no sense. Every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground in the ANWR ten years from now will be priced on the market, further ensuring that large producers, like OPEC and Russia will take most of the profits from the price increases. Second, the rise in global demand and the small amount of US supply will not bring prices down. And staying on oil heavily ensures that the largest consumer of oil, the US keeps propping prices of oil up ensuring large cash flows to countries like Iran.

    No, the real way to get energy security is either nationalization of oil, or getting off oil as a primary liquid fuel. Removing a huge portion of US demand for oil will see oil prices drop considerably and the cash flows funding Iran as well. Furthermore, making large strides in alternative and then exporting it to the developing world ensures that they will not replace us in global oil demand effectively ending any substantial growth for oil. Without oil exports, Iran is screwed.

    We need to get serious about nuclear, proven to work and clean. If that would happen I wouldn't be against throwing money at solar or other alternatives.
    The problem with nuclear is it requires $2 billion in tax payer guaranteed loans and large amounts of subsidies per kilowatt. I don't have a problem with that, but people need to recognize that nuclear power cannot function without government assistance.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not going to work. First, your assumption is that oil won't be priced on international markets. It's the biggest reason why pro-ANWR arguments in a security sense make absolutely no sense. Every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground in the ANWR ten years from now will be priced on the market, further ensuring that large producers, like OPEC and Russia will take most of the profits from the price increases. Second, the rise in global demand and the small amount of US supply will not bring prices down. And staying on oil heavily ensures that the largest consumer of oil, the US keeps propping prices of oil up ensuring large cash flows to countries like Iran.

    No, the real way to get energy security is either nationalization of oil, or getting off oil as a primary liquid fuel. Removing a huge portion of US demand for oil will see oil prices drop considerably and the cash flows funding Iran as well. Furthermore, making large strides in alternative and then exporting it to the developing world ensures that they will not replace us in global oil demand effectively ending any substantial growth for oil. Without oil exports, Iran is screwed.
    Oil in the US is already nationalized. Didn't you notice when Obama arbitrarily ordered all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico halted for no reason whatsoever? Didn't you notice when Obama made his speech praising himself for closing more areas to oil exploration while explaining that he's increasing exploration areas?

    The problem with nuclear is it requires $2 billion in tax payer guaranteed loans and large amounts of subsidies per kilowatt. I don't have a problem with that, but people need to recognize that nuclear power cannot function without government assistance.
    So, what you're saying is that it's okay for the government to waste hundreds of billions on subsidies for bogus electic cars from Government Motors, to subsidize job killing unproductive forays into sunshine power, to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and then give out guarantees to people who simply don't have the resources to buy a house, but you balk at a loan guarantee to a company providing a necessary product to a captive market with predictable loan amortization schedules and defined costs?

    Well, I'm against all that useless stuff, not just loans to an industry that could help make the US independent of terrorists in the Middle East, Russia, and South America.

  4. #94
    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: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oil in the US is already nationalized.
    Only if you define nationalized as you see fit with no regard to its actual definition. But once we do that, the English Language has no use.

    Didn't you notice when Obama arbitrarily ordered all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico halted for no reason whatsoever?
    Apparently the largest oil spill in the US is "no reason." Furthermore, closing access to one portion of US held waters is not nationalization.

    US oil would be nationalized if we had a Venezuela/Mexico system. Which we do not.

    Didn't you notice when Obama made his speech praising himself for closing more areas to oil exploration while explaining that he's increasing exploration areas?
    And that proves the actual definition of nationalized HOW?

    So, what you're saying is that it's okay for the government to waste hundreds of billions on subsidies for bogus electic cars from Government Motors
    Bogus? You have this really awful tendency to define words however you see fit with absolutely no regard for their real definitions. The Volt gets 40 miles on its charge without the downsize of many full fledged electric cars. Hardly "bogus."

    to subsidize job killing unproductive forays into sunshine power
    So subsidizing an industry so that it hires more people kills jobs? By more growth we kill more jobs! lol.

    Well, I'm against all that useless stuff, not just loans to an industry that could help make the US independent of terrorists in the Middle East, Russia, and South America.
    At least you're consistent.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    [QUOTE=obvious Child;1058934427]Only if you define nationalized as you see fit with no regard to its actual definition. But once we do that, the English Language has no use.

    Something is nationalized when the national goverment can give arbitrary orders without respect to law regarding the function and operation of a particular company or industry. Another name for this is fascism.

    Apparently the largest oil spill in the US is "no reason." Furthermore, closing access to one portion of US held waters is not nationalization.
    Exactly. The oil spill caused by the failure of one government agency to ensure that one drilling rig was obeying the law was not sufficient reason to shut down the businesses of other companies which have not been proven to be GUILTY of operating outside the law, and in fact, since those operations had not demonstrated any sudden urge to erupt in black gold, the practical assumption would have been to review their operating processes while permitting their operations to continue.

    However, we have an inexperienced child running the show in Washington. A child who not only has no experience in command, who's got no experience running a business, but he doesn't even have any experience ever doing any thing useful in his whole life, ever. But, he did see an opportunity to throw tens of thousands of Americans out of work and by the same act vastly increase the dependency of the US on foreign oil. So Obama took that opportunity to do as much damage as he could when it was fresh.

    Unless you're willing to argue that the president in the White House is the most incompetent boob ever, with absolutely no respect for the laws this nation was built on, then you can't deny the alternative, that the damaging moratorium was spiteful and deliberate.
    US oil would be nationalized if we had a Venezuela/Mexico system. Which we do not.
    So you're trying to argue that there's only one shade of red?

    That it?

    And that proves the actual definition of nationalized HOW?
    He has the personal authority to control who drills where and who looks where for what.

    Since the Left's goal in nationalizing the American oil industry is nothing more or less than the closing of it, the President's exercise of power to increasing restrict drilling sites is all they need or want to do at this time.

    Bogus? You have this really awful tendency to define words however you see fit with absolutely no regard for their real definitions. The Volt gets 40 miles on its charge without the downsize of many full fledged electric cars. Hardly "bogus."
    No, it's a bogus car because it's technology was obsolete the day the stupid thing was revealed on the market. Outside of the rubber wheels and motor-thingy, it's no different in concept than the million candle-power spot light I have plugged into the wall for later use when I want to signal the crew on the space station or blind airline pilots, even though what I really use it for is to signal other boats that my sail boat is HERE, just in case they don't see all the other lights in the rigging.

    But, it's got a battery, it's got a charger, it turns AC into DC, it runs down, and one of these days I'll have to replace the whole spotlight because it won't be economical to replace the battery.

    JUST LIKE THE VOLT.

    But....I just spent a couple hundred bucks replacing the alternator in my van, and the EGR valve and the distributor, and the coil, and other thingies our President couldn't figure out what to do with, and my gas hog bus is good for it's next hundred thousand miles. It's battery replacement cost is about a hundred bucks, too.

    So subsidizing an industry so that it hires more people kills jobs? By more growth we kill more jobs! lol.
    Yes.

    Learn economics someday. Money doesn't grow on trees. It has to be stolen from someone else first before one useless company can be subsidized over another.

  6. #96
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not going to work. First, your assumption is that oil won't be priced on international markets. It's the biggest reason why pro-ANWR arguments in a security sense make absolutely no sense. Every barrel of oil that comes out of the ground in the ANWR ten years from now will be priced on the market, further ensuring that large producers, like OPEC and Russia will take most of the profits from the price increases. Second, the rise in global demand and the small amount of US supply will not bring prices down. And staying on oil heavily ensures that the largest consumer of oil, the US keeps propping prices of oil up ensuring large cash flows to countries like Iran.

    No, the real way to get energy security is either nationalization of oil, or getting off oil as a primary liquid fuel. Removing a huge portion of US demand for oil will see oil prices drop considerably and the cash flows funding Iran as well. Furthermore, making large strides in alternative and then exporting it to the developing world ensures that they will not replace us in global oil demand effectively ending any substantial growth for oil. Without oil exports, Iran is screwed.



    The problem with nuclear is it requires $2 billion in tax payer guaranteed loans and large amounts of subsidies per kilowatt. I don't have a problem with that, but people need to recognize that nuclear power cannot function without government assistance.
    Barbbtx made no mention of PRICE. If we have to pay more to stop getting oil from our enemies, it will be worth the price.
    And Nuclear in the USA is not subsidized, no more than is coal or gas.
    Loan guarantees are not loans. Even if the billions were direct loans from the govt, they have to be paid back....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #97
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    If we used ALL our corn crops for fuel, and none for food, it would still displace only a small percentage of our gasoline use...
    Ethanol from crop and landscape waste products is the only way that it makes sense. Don't waste corn on cars. I like my chili cheese frito corn chips too much....
    The paper addresses global ethanol production, of which US corn subsidies and import barriers keep the price high, while keeping corn based ethanol production feasible. Easing these barriers will bring the global price of ethanol down, while reducing domestic corn production required in the process.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #98
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a good fuel for vehicles, and does burn cleaner than gasoline or diesel. It would have to be used where the infrastructure is already in place. Any area that has it for heating homes can add pump stations, and you can even have a compressor at your home.
    Where there are no natural gas pipelines, you would think that propane would be a good choice, but it is more dangerous. Propane is heavier than air, natural gas is lighter than air. So the gas leak heads up away from the car, propane settles along the ground, where it might find a spark or flame to ignite it. And propane has to be manufactured, CNG just needs to be transported. There was a time when gas was just burned off at the well. There was no good way to collect and transport it...
    During the 70's and 80's some people would retrofit a propane fuel tank in their trucks. I have seen a decent number of those actually. Propane costs too much money now, so nobody does it anymore.
    Last edited by drz-400; 08-21-10 at 06:16 PM.

  9. #99
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Barbbtx made no mention of PRICE. If we have to pay more to stop getting oil from our enemies, it will be worth the price.
    And Nuclear in the USA is not subsidized, no more than is coal or gas.
    Loan guarantees are not loans. Even if the billions were direct loans from the govt, they have to be paid back....
    Nuclear is the most highly subsidized form of electicity production behind refined coal. It gets more in subsidies than all renewable energies combined for electricity production, it gets more than coal (not refined), more than nat gas, more than anything else but refined coal. Of course things like refined coal, wind and solar are much more dependent upon their subsidies, Nuclear is still much more dependent upon subsidies than the other forms of energy like coal, nat gas, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, etc though.

    By far the largest subisidy for non-electrical energy goes towards ethanol. Its primary focus is to lower our dependency on (foreign) oil and to encourage growth in the US ethanol industry.

    I should add that nuclear energy will literally do nothing to reduce our demand for foriegn oil.
    Last edited by drz-400; 08-21-10 at 06:48 PM.

  10. #100
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Obama Says Commitment to Clean Energy Will Boost Jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Nuclear is the most highly subsidized form of electicity production behind refined coal. It gets more in subsidies than all renewable energies combined for electricity production, it gets more than coal (not refined), more than nat gas, more than anything else but refined coal. Of course things like refined coal, wind and solar are much more dependent upon their subsidies, Nuclear is still much more dependent upon subsidies than the other forms of energy like coal, nat gas, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, etc though.

    By far the largest subisidy for non-electrical energy goes towards ethanol. Its primary focus is to lower our dependency on (foreign) oil and to encourage growth in the US ethanol industry.

    I should add that nuclear energy will literally do nothing to reduce our demand for foriegn oil.
    Your last statement, I agree with 100%.
    The rest of your post....read the following...
    Energy Report - Government Financial Subsidies
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

Page 10 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... 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
  •