• 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!

Solar company bankrupt despite 'win-win' DOE loan

People have accused him of croneyism for supporting Renewables. So his response is to point out how much croneyism exists for the oil industry, that the same people (who call support for renewables croneyism) never objected to when it comes to the oil industry. So if supporting renewables is croneyism, then oil has been getting much more croneyism for FAR longer, or supporting energy industries isn't croneyism at all. People gotta pick one. Not switch the definition mid-stream.

And I'm glad you agree removing tax breaks won't make gas prices go down. This is true. By the same token, removing the taxbreaks won't make gs prices go up. So why are we sacrificing Billions to this industry if removing the tax break won't change anything? Those Billions could help work on the deficit or replace our crumbling infrastructure. Why don't we?

I am not entirely sure increasing the cost of getting oil won't show up at the pump but I am sure if our government gets a few billion more in tax receipts they will just find new creative ways to squander it. We need to talk about spending less not spending more.
 
People have accused him of croneyism for supporting Renewables.

Really? Name one.
So his response is to point out how much croneyism exists for the oil industry,

Of course it does. They even have names for these organizations. They gather together, and even hold conventions, in how to further their product. And it takes Barrack Obama to point this out??

The cronyism here is that the president of the United States is giving money to his political friends and driving the economy into the ground. Forget this "renewable" craziness. That's for the dupes who will support this crook no matter what he says or does.
 
People have accused him of croneyism for supporting Renewables. So his response is to point out how much croneyism exists for the oil industry...
Really? Name one.
Grant
Rep. Cliff Stearns
The Republican in charge of the Solyndra probe, Oversight and Investigations subcommittee chairman Rep. Cliff Stearns, told Newsmax Thursday that Solyndra’s “enormous amount of expenditures would mean there’s apt to be fraud
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-solyndra-shelton-cronyism/2011/09/16/id/411300
Karl Rove
Karl Rove charged that, “The leadership of the auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patronage.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/clint-eastwood-chrysler-super-bowl-commercial-287778

Time spent 5 mins. That was incredibly easy. You didn't think it would be hard to find conservatives/republicans of accusing Obama of doing something wrong did you?

Of course it does. They even have names for these organizations. They gather together, and even hold conventions, in how to further their product. And it takes Barrack Obama to point this out??

The cronyism here is that the president of the United States is giving money to his political friends and driving the economy into the ground. Forget this "renewable" craziness. That's for the dupes who will support this crook no matter what he says or does.

So when George W. Bush insisted we develop renewables, was it cronyism then too? Was Bush a crook too?

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Xinhua) — U.S. President George W. Bush said on Wednesday that the United States must strongly push forward the development of renewable energy sources in order to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

“America has got to change its habits. We’ve got to get off oil,” said Bush when he addressed the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC).

“Dependency on oil presents a real challenge to our economy,” said Bush. It also presents a challenge to the national security of the United States. In 1985, 20 percent of America’s oil came from abroad. “Today that number is nearly 60 percent.”

Moreover, dependency on fossil fuels like oil presents a challenge to the environment. “When we burn fossil fuels we release greenhouse gases. The concentration of greenhouse gases has increased substantially,” he added.

Bush said that the United States recognized all three of these challenges, and are doing something about it. The Bush administration has set a great goal to reduce its dependence on oil by investing in technologies that will produce abundant supplies of clean and renewable energy.

Over the next 10 years, the United States will reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent, according to the target. In the meantime, it will continue to turn to renewable fuels to power cars, homes and business in this country.

Seems to me that Obama is just furthering the goals set by Bush. When Republicans AND Democrats can agree on the same goal (an astonishing occurrence) it's definitely worth looking into.
 
Last edited:
Grant
Rep. Cliff Stearns

Obama
Karl Rove

Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Super Bowl Ad: The Untold Obama Connection - The Hollywood Reporter

Time spent 5 mins. That was incredibly easy. You didn't think it would be hard to find conservatives/republicans of accusing Obama of doing something wrong did you?

It seems clear you're not even reading what you are posting. You made the claim that People have accused him of cronyism for supporting Renewables" and then failed to support that claim. He was accused of fraud, cronyism, etc, and rightly so, but not for supporting renewable energy. Everyone is for that.
 
It seems clear you're not even reading what you are posting. You made the claim that People have accused him of cronyism for supporting Renewables" and then failed to support that claim. He was accused of fraud, cronyism, etc, and rightly so, but not for supporting renewable energy. Everyone is for that.

Right. So "Everyone is for that[Renewables]" so long as it isn't Obama? Bring up Renewables and many people especially in the GOP will bring up cronyism. Thus these people are accusing Obama of cronyism for his support of Renewables. Split hairs enough times and you can get the disconnect you're seeking between the two. Look at the events as a whole and there is a clear connection.

Updating our energy security is NOT a political strategy for me as it is for so many people. It is a national security imperative. I will support Renewables whether the president is Republican or Democrat. It makes no difference to me. Supporting the country while foreign and hostile nations control our bloodflow of energy is what matters. So anyone attacking renewables (which eliminate foreign and hostile nations control our bloodflow) is attacking our country in my book. If you want to call Obama a crook, go ahead, I don't care. But if you insist on attacking him through his policies supporting Renewables to increase our energy independence, then you insist on attacking our nation. I will support ANY president who wants to stop supporting Persian Gulf nations and Hugo Chavez by ceasing to buy their oil. You, on the other hand, can call development of Renewables fraud, cronyism or whatever, but in so doing you are diminishing important American technological developments and supporting enemies of the USA.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that Obama is just furthering the goals set by Bush. When Republicans AND Democrats can agree on the same goal (an astonishing occurrence) it's definitely worth looking into.

There's nothing astonishing about it. Dems and Repubs agree on all of the big important issues like globalization, deficit spending, anti white racism, and that "energy independence" propaganda thing.
 
First, the industry does not have to support any enemies. We can get it from, um, HERE.

Second, what I meant by does not hold a candle is cost vs power output. And again, good luck fighting the environmentalist when trying to put in a wind farm or a massive solar array. How much farm land would have to be removed from crop production in order to have enough 'AE' equipment to power the nation without oil and coal?

The Great Plains is the Saudi Arabia of wind.

Windmills have small bases, so you put them IN the farm fields. They yield a much better return for the farmer than the same square footage of potatoes.

Solar, on the other hand, is most effective on desert land. It is usually built up off the ground so wildlife can move freely underneath.

Environmental impacts are minimal compared to fracking and oil shale extraction.

Its also far more difficult to EXPORT AE to more profitable areas of the globe than it is to sell oil obtained in America.
 
The Great Plains is the Saudi Arabia of wind.

Windmills have small bases, so you put them IN the farm fields. They yield a much better return for the farmer than the same square footage of potatoes.

Solar, on the other hand, is most effective on desert land. It is usually built up off the ground so wildlife can move freely underneath.

Environmental impacts are minimal compared to fracking and oil shale extraction.

Its also far more difficult to EXPORT AE to more profitable areas of the globe than it is to sell oil obtained in America.

I like helium-filled aerostats. You can deploy one in about a day from truck and 100Kw. They use even less space than windmills. They catch the more reliable and stronger winds above 1,000 ft. I hope they really catch on. Here's two systems worth considering:

A plan to make wind-power literally leap out from the box, and sail high into the sky, is the striking vision that this team has put forward. Taking advantage of the stronger and more consistent winds higher in the air, they are seeking to hoist a wind-turbine up to 2,000 feet aloft. Not only could this power source be deployed from a single shipping container in about a day in an emergency – it could offer a new angle to rolling out wind-power, so often strait-jacketed by high costs or local objections of late.

The problem with harnessing wind-power close to the ground is that the wind flow gets disrupted by buildings, trees and other landscape features. This has led to wind turbines being erected onto ever-higher towers, making the most of the cleaner, faster air up there. However, bigger means more cost, and more environmental impact.

But what if the buoyancy of a helium-filled shroud was used to concentrate stronger winds into the blades of a horizontally-aligned turbine? Power would be tapped via a conductive tether that holds the system at the optimal altitude. This unique design is adapted from reliable aerostats – essentially tethered blimps – that have decades of experience lifting multi-ton monitoring equipment such as radars into the air for long periods of time.

This Airborne Wind Turbine concept could be particularly useful in remote locations, where getting traditional energy infrastructure up-and-running can be costly and slow. With up to eight times as much power available at those higher altitudes, the economic case for wind farms in the sky could see them soaring more widely soon.
Aerostat Platform for Rapid Deployment Airborne Wind Turbine

The Advantages of MARS over Conventional Wind Turbines: Wind Power Anywhere™ removes all placement limitations. Coast-line or off-shore locations are not necessary to capture higher speed winds. Reaching winds at 1,000-feet above ground level allow MARS to be installed closer to the grid. MARS is mobile and can be rapidly deployed, deflated, and redeployed without the need for towers or heavy cranes. MARS is bird and bat friendly with lower noise emissions and is capable of operating in a wider range of wind speeds - from 4 mph to greater than 60 mph.

The Advantages of a MARS combined Wind and Diesel Solution over a Diesel Generator-only solution: MARS can complement a diesel generator by offering a combined diesel-wind power solution. MARS can provide power for a cost that is well below the range of cost for diesel power of $0.50 cents to over $1.00 per kWh in many locations, reflecting the fuel and transportation costs. The MARS combined solution allows lower pollution and green house gas emissions. It also results in lower handling, transporting, and storage costs.
Magenn Power Inc.
 
Right. So "Everyone is for that[Renewables]" so long as it isn't Obama? Bring up Renewables and many people especially in the GOP will bring up cronyism. Thus these people are accusing Obama of cronyism for his support of Renewables. Split hairs enough times and you can get the disconnect you're seeking between the two. Look at the events as a whole and there is a clear connection.

Do you understand what cronyism means? It has nothing to do with energy, renewable or otherwise.

Updating our energy security is NOT a political strategy for me as it is for so many people. It is a national security imperative. I will support Renewables whether the president is Republican or Democrat. It makes no difference to me.

Yes, i know. As I said earlier we all support renewable energy but there are many who do not support political corruption. You apparently do not understand the difference.
 
Yes, i know. As I said earlier we all support renewable energy but there are many who do not support political corruption. You apparently do not understand the difference.
Alright, what proof do you have of political corruption?
 
Schools out. I've lost patience.

Uh huh. Hate on Obama as much as you like. Just don't destroy an important energy policy just to further a political agenda.
 
Brilliant repartee aside, who doesn't support renewable energy?

Self described conservatives who think of renewable energy as "green", and therefore liberal and bad, and who think all we need to do is drill, baby, drill, and we can have $2 gasoline by edict of the president.

I've heard their rants, haven't you?
 
Self described conservatives who think of renewable energy as "green", and therefore liberal and bad, and who think all we need to do is drill, baby, drill, and we can have $2 gasoline by edict of the president.

I've heard their rants, haven't you?

And then the Greens and Libertarians met on the extreme edges of the political spectrum.
 
Self described conservatives who think of renewable energy as "green", and therefore liberal and bad, and who think all we need to do is drill, baby, drill, and we can have $2 gasoline by edict of the president.

I've heard their rants, haven't you?

Perhaps my question wasn't clear enough.

Who is against renewable energy? Do you have any names and the reasons why they are against renewable energy?
 
Who is against renewable energy? Do you have any names and the reasons why they are against renewable energy?

Perhaps this will answer your question:

Yesterday, 47 United States Senators voted to kill 37,000 American jobs, while giving $24 billion in tax breaks to big oil companies. It’s clear where these Senators’ loyalties lie: They would rather give handouts to the dirty energy of the past rather than invest in the clean energy of the future.
[...]
This bill would do two things: End several egregious subsidies to big oil companies, while extending industry-supporting incentives for clean energy. Among those incentives is the critical Production Tax Credit, which encourages investment in wind energy. As we’ve reported before, raising taxes on the emerging wind power industry by failing to extend this credit will kill 37,000 jobs. Indeed, we’ve already seen layoffs as manufacturing companies prepare for the worst.
[...]
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) had this to say about the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act:

My vote today was based largely on concerns over extending tax credits for a number of renewable technologies. Government should avoid picking winners and losers, and should allow the marketplace to work.

Wrap your head around that for a second. Senator Webb had two choices: Support Big Oil, or support clean energy. For all his tortured reasoning about allowing the marketplace to work, Webb can’t deny that he voted for $24 billion in tax subsidies to Big Oil companies.
47 US Senators Support Oil Subsidies, but Vote to Kill Wind Energy Jobs - CleanTechnica

Here is a list of the 49 Senators who are opposing renewables as demonstrated by their vote:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
 
Last edited:
Perhaps my question wasn't clear enough.

Who is against renewable energy? Do you have any names and the reasons why they are against renewable energy?

The reason why, as I said, is that they consider green energy to be liberal and therefore bad. Maybe you haven't heard their rants after all. Well, here's one.
 
The reason why, as I said, is that they consider green energy to be liberal and therefore bad. Maybe you haven't heard their rants after all. Well, here's one.

I swear, that guy is certifiable. Either that or he's a full-blown believer in the adage: Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes the truth.
 
I'm a fan of seeing these built. Solar Chimney.



That is the dumbest green idea I have ever heard about in my life. It will cost cost several billion dollars at least. And it can only generate 200 MW. :mrgreen: If you want to go green, why don't they just replace the mat, with solar panels and remove the chimney. That will produce far more electricity, and cost way less.

That is why the green movement is failing. They want to live in a high tech, green utopia, but in fact we live in reality.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this will answer your question:


47 US Senators Support Oil Subsidies, but Vote to Kill Wind Energy Jobs - CleanTechnica

Here is a list of the 49 Senators who are opposing renewables as demonstrated by their vote:


U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

If you read what was written you'll see that they were not against renewable energy but "extending industry-supporting incentives".

The Solyndra scam might have had something to do with that.
 
The reason why, as I said, is that they consider green energy to be liberal and therefore bad. Maybe you haven't heard their rants after all. Well, here's one.

I listened to the tape and nowhere did he say he was against renewable energy.

In fact, as I said, I have never heard anyone ever say they were against renewable energy,

And it seems you've never heard anyone make that claim either.
 
Back
Top Bottom