• 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!

Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

teamosil said:
I'm not sure what you mean then. If you understand AGW then you know that reducing carbon emissions reduces global warming.
Click to expand...

I am saying that reducing carbon emissions may not reduce global warming. Again, we had global warming in the past and we did not use fossil energy when that occurred. If we were to eliminate our use of fossil fuels and replaced them with alternative energy, we would be in a situation similar to the one that existed the last time we had global warming.

teamosil said:
A company that won't make a profit for 20+ years and which will only make one then if it gets enough investment is a terrible investment for an individual. Their money will basically just be sitting there idle for most of those 20 years when it could be invested in something making profits today.
Click to expand...

Why would it take 20+ years for solar to become profitable. It is in use now and has been for decades. Why can't it make a profit after this amount of time?

teamosil said:
Now, that isn't all industries. Cars, for example, were pretty rapidly profitable.
Click to expand...

Really? When Ford built the assembly line, he had to put in the equipment, hire people and had to purchase or have made all of the various parts that went into his automobile. He invested a ton before he ever made a profit. I doubt profitability was rapid.

teamosil said:
Computers though, like the internet, were developed primarily by the government for decades before any of those people got involved. Computers were first invented in WWII by the military to crack enigma and the military, DARPA especially, and NASA were the primary investors in computer research for decades before it was ripe for the private sector.
Click to expand...

Here is a timeline on the development of the computer. Private industry began the development and then the military asked for items that computers would do, but work was performed by private companies. It is one thing to make products for the government and quite another to receive guaranteed loans to develop a product.

[video]http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?year=1939[/video]


teamosil said:
Think of all the things in your day to day life that were developed, or even invented, by the government. Radio,
Click to expand...

Marconi and Tesla did not work for the government. The government did not get involved in radio until it took over all of the patents that existed at the time of 1917. The purpose of taking the patents was to prevent the enemy to get their hands on how the radio was built. Again, it is one thing to make something to supply to the government and it is quite another to receive guaranteed loans from the Federal Government.


teamosil said:
satellites, microwaves, computers, the internet... I don't believe that the government should just go around willy nilly investing in fads or that most industries require long term government investments to get off the ground, but some do and identifying and properly funding those has always been a key to the economic success of any economic powerhouse. We need to continue setting up the booms that the US will be leading 10, 20, 50, years from now like we've always done in the past or else we're not going to be able to stay on top. Green energy is pretty clearly the next one of those up.
Click to expand...

Again, I believe that we can continue to develop alternative energy sources and expand the production of oil and gas. That is a balanced approach. That approach holds down costs, provides sufficient domestic energy, and gets us to the future without needless losses.
 
LesGovt said:
[...] Why would it take 20+ years for solar to become profitable. It is in use now and has been for decades. Why can't it make a profit after this amount of time? [...]
Click to expand...
Because dirty fuel (coal, crude) is cheaper, at least in the short term and from the consumer perspective.
 
I wonder if these now out of work greenies would welcome Obama like they did when he was wasting their tax money and ours for a ridiculous project that never had a chance in hell of making, because China can make the same product for less than half as much.

$355 million wasted dollars to fight the HOAX of man caused Global Warming. What Crock O Stuff.
 
Councilman said:
I wonder if these now out of work greenies would welcome Obama like they did when he was wasting their tax money and ours for a ridiculous project that never had a chance in hell of making, because China can make the same product for less than half as much.

$355 million wasted dollars to fight the HOAX of man caused Global Warming. What Crock O Stuff.
Click to expand...

I love the HOAX that you use all of the time - really jumps out at you. I would have believed in AGW if I weren't saved from scientific understanding by your use of bold fonts in ALL CAPS!
 
LesGovt said:
Thank you for attempting to help make my case. You don't need to do that. Now you have a nice evening.
Click to expand...

Been down this road before with your type. You see what your masters on Fox tell you to see.

Too much Red Kool-Aide tea, I guess.

But you keep after that Al Gore...and maybe they'll reward you with a seat at the table.
 
Karl said:
Because dirty fuel (coal, crude) is cheaper, at least in the short term and from the consumer perspective.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that alternative fuels cannot compete in the market place. Since they cannot, you are willing to have the government hand out guaranteed loans to companies who cannot compete. No wonder the Federal Government is a fiscal disaster.
 
hazlnut said:
Been down this road before with your type. You see what your masters on Fox tell you to see.

Too much Red Kool-Aide tea, I guess.

But you keep after that Al Gore...and maybe they'll reward you with a seat at the table.
Click to expand...

You are embarrassing your side of the argument. I appreciate your help, but you really don't have to assist me.
 
LesGovt said:
I think it is shortsighted to guarantee loans to the tune of over half a billion dollars to a company that goes bankrupt.
Click to expand...

i think it is shortsighted to spend trillions of dollars to maintain access to the remaining reserves of a finite resource. we should be innovating the next energy solution instead. there is a legitimate role for both public and private money in this endeavor.


LesGovt said:
You did not see any rejoicing in this thread, so you just commented because your fingers could not help it. Is that what happened?
Click to expand...

no
 
Helix said:
i think it is shortsighted to spend trillions of dollars to maintain access to the remaining reserves of a finite resource. we should be innovating the next energy solution instead. there is a legitimate role for both public and private money in this endeavor.
Click to expand...

The only way you are going to get private money in real terms getting into these energy schemes, is if liberal policy of artificially choking off domestic supply of oil, and ability to produce it is abandoned. This is transparent.

j-mac
 
Helix said:
i think it is shortsighted to spend trillions of dollars to maintain access to the remaining reserves of a finite resource. we should be innovating the next energy solution instead. there is a legitimate role for both public and private money in this endeavor.
Click to expand...

If it takes trillions to take the oil and gas out of the ground, it will make trillions plus some for the oil companies and it should not cost the taxpayers a dime. No one is saying that innovation should be stopped with regards to the next energy solution.
 
1 out of 4 restaurants fail or change hands in the first year, and 3 out of 5 do so within the first 3 years. How come someone isn't picking on the spectacular failure of one particular restaurant and extrapolating that as proof that the industry is doomed?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
1 out of 4 restaurants fail or change hands in the first year, and 3 out of 5 do so within the first 3 years. How come someone isn't picking on the spectacular failure of one particular restaurant and extrapolating that as proof that the industry is doomed?
Click to expand...

I don't know, is America being forced to use restaurants instead cooking at home due to an artificial shortage of cooking oil or something?


Bad analogy.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The only way you are going to get private money in real terms getting into these energy schemes, is if liberal policy of artificially choking off domestic supply of oil, and ability to produce it is abandoned. This is transparent.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Transparently mindless...
This hypothetical situation is tripe and belongs in the conspiracy forum.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
1 out of 4 restaurants fail or change hands in the first year, and 3 out of 5 do so within the first 3 years. How come someone isn't picking on the spectacular failure of one particular restaurant and extrapolating that as proof that the industry is doomed?
Click to expand...

I am not sure to whom you are speaking, but I have never suggested that the alternative energy industry is doomed with or without failures. I don't believe that any industry should recieve Federally guaranteed loans or subsidies. Restaurants don't receive the loans or subsidies and nor should a manufacturer of solar panels.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The American people aren't being forced to use solar panels.
Click to expand...

This is correct. If the loan to a solar panel manufacturer is guaranteed by the Federal Government and the manufacturer fails on the loan, the American people are picking up that tab.
 
LesGovt said:
I am not sure to whom you are speaking
Click to expand...

Absolutely nobody in particular, it was just food for thought.

LesGovt said:
I have never suggested that the alternative energy industry is doomed
Click to expand...

I never said you did -- but many here on this forum have.

LesGovt said:
Restaurants don't receive the loans or subsidies
Click to expand...

You might want to check with the U.S. Small Business Administration before you say that again.
 
j-mac said:
The only way you are going to get private money in real terms getting into these energy schemes, is if liberal policy of artificially choking off domestic supply of oil, and ability to produce it is abandoned. This is transparent.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Scarcity will choke off supply on its own in coming decades. In my opinion, funding the discovery and development of whatever comes next should be a national priority.
 
LesGovt said:
This is correct. If the loan to a solar panel manufacturer is guaranteed by the Federal Government and the manufacturer fails on the loan, the American people are picking up that tab.
Click to expand...

Are you for the cessation of any government assistance to any private business whatsoever? How about the purchase of services from private business?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Are you for the cessation of any government assistance to any private business whatsoever? How about the purchase of services from private business?
Click to expand...

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is that someone has to sell products and services to the government. That is an appropriate business practice and is far different from guaranteed loans or subsidies.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You might want to check with the U.S. Small Business Administration before you say that again.
Click to expand...

Ah, they might arrange for a small business loan. Good correction. Are those loans guaranteed by the Federal Government? Does the government make the loans or are they made through banks or other financial institutions? Again, my belief is that the Federal Government should not be making or guaranteeing loans for businesses, start-ups or otherwise.
 
LesGovt said:
I am saying that reducing carbon emissions may not reduce global warming. Again, we had global warming in the past and we did not use fossil energy when that occurred. If we were to eliminate our use of fossil fuels and replaced them with alternative energy, we would be in a situation similar to the one that existed the last time we had global warming.
Click to expand...

That isn't how it works. It isn't binary like there is either global warming or no global warming. The more factors causing the earth to heat up, the more it will heat up. At this point, no matter what we do, we're realistically going to keep increasing our emissions for the foreseeable future. If we do nothing to limit emissions, it will increase faster. The more we limit emissions the less it will increase. If we really are at a point in history where it is going to increase from natural causes, then that is all the more reason we need to limit emissions to soften the blow.

LesGovt said:
Why would it take 20+ years for solar to become profitable. It is in use now and has been for decades. Why can't it make a profit after this amount of time?
Click to expand...

Because oil is currently cheap. It won't always be. And there are scientific breakthroughs happening all the time that make solar cheaper.

LesGovt said:
Really? When Ford built the assembly line, he had to put in the equipment, hire people and had to purchase or have made all of the various parts that went into his automobile. He invested a ton before he ever made a profit. I doubt profitability was rapid.
Click to expand...

Certainly a lot more rapid than things that take 20+ years of R&D before they are commercially viable.

LesGovt said:
Here is a timeline on the development of the computer. Private industry began the development and then the military asked for items that computers would do, but work was performed by private companies. It is one thing to make products for the government and quite another to receive guaranteed loans to develop a product.
Click to expand...

Whether the government is buying the product and stimulating development or giving out loans to stimulate development doesn't really matter to me as long as it is getting done. The effect is the same either way. Besides, a lot of those things listed there are either government agencies or funded by research grants. I'm not saying the only development of green energy should be driven by government loans or something. Certainly private industry should continue to take the lead. But government boosting it makes sense to me. It's a good investment for the nation economically.

LesGovt said:
Again, I believe that we can continue to develop alternative energy sources and expand the production of oil and gas. That is a balanced approach. That approach holds down costs, provides sufficient domestic energy, and gets us to the future without needless losses.
Click to expand...

"Expanding production" is just a name for using the finite supply up faster. We need to be looking for ways to slow our consumption, not increase it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom