• 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

I asked for a single renewable type or renewable project (that you support) here:


You failed to list a single renewable type or renewable project in your response below - "exactly as I predicted" in the bold above:

You wanted me to name a specific company in which i would invest money?

I don't see any right now though I did some investigating in the past, particular in batteries and natural gas.

You want stock advice?
 
You wanted me to name a specific company in which i would invest money?

I don't see any right now though I did some investigating in the past, particular in batteries and natural gas.

That would be nice, or it could be a kind or type of renewable energy (e.g., Wind, Solar, Hydro-electric, Thermo-electric, Wave, Hydro-turbine, Tidal, diesel from trash). Natural gas is NOT a renewable. It's also a finite resource, therefore not a renewable resource. It's interesting that you mention batteries. That's a step forward. We need better batteries for use in EVs or for holding energy from intermittent power sources like Wind and Solar. As long as you would support public funding for battery tech for use in utilities or EVs, I would could count that as support for renewables since batteries are an important part of the renewable solution.

My point is, you can't say that you support renewables when you fail to support every single renewable solution available. Make sense?
 
As long as you would support public funding for battery tech for use in utilities or EVs, I would could count that as support for renewables


Yet another example of what I mentioned above in post 172.

How about them apples Grant? You are good, if you support 'public funding'... otherwise, you DO NOT SUPPORT RENEWABLES. :roll:

542890_425772910785501_205344452828349_1529449_658987407_n.jpg
 
Yet another example of what I mentioned above in post 172.

How about them apples Grant? You are good, if you support 'public funding'... otherwise, you DO NOT SUPPORT RENEWABLES. :roll:

Grant asserts that he is "for" renewables and doesn't know anyone who is against. The very simple question I pose is: which renewable source do you support? So far, no answer (a specific renewable source) is received. Thus, his original assertion is negated. FAIL, in other words. Your little picture is apropos.

May I assume form your comment that you are against "public funding" for industry? Can I then assume you are against the subsidies and tax breaks (by tax omission, the costs become public funding) for the oil industry?
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to play your little pedantic word game.

I pointed out the fallacy of your logic. The same logic many use. If you do not support 'xxxxxx' then you are horrible and want the children to suffer. It's all quite silly and transparent. You verified it again when you said that if he supported 'public funding' of something then he was for that something, suggesting if he did not support public funding, he was against the whole thing.
 
That would be nice, or it could be a kind or type of renewable energy (e.g., Wind, Solar, Hydro-electric, Thermo-electric, Wave, Hydro-turbine, Tidal, diesel from trash). Natural gas is NOT a renewable. It's also a finite resource, therefore not a renewable resource. It's interesting that you mention batteries. That's a step forward. We need better batteries for use in EVs or for holding energy from intermittent power sources like Wind and Solar. As long as you would support public funding for battery tech for use in utilities or EVs, I would could count that as support for renewables since batteries are an important part of the renewable solution.

My point is, you can't say that you support renewables when you fail to support every single renewable solution available. Make sense?

By supporting it do you mean financially?

I haven't seen anything that would interest me at the moment but also haven't been doing much research.

Natural gas is finite? I see you've done your homework.
 
No it doesn't. Private investment into startups still fail all the freaking time.

Private investments are made with more knowledge because individuals have their wealth at stake. They are also funded by private investors and not our tax dollars.
 
By supporting it do you mean financially?

I haven't seen anything that would interest me at the moment but also haven't been doing much research.

Natural gas is finite? I see you've done your homework.

No, not financially. Just what renewables would you like to see employed as part of the national energy grid?
 
I'm not going to play your little pedantic word game.

I pointed out the fallacy of your logic. The same logic many use. If you do not support 'xxxxxx' then you are horrible and want the children to suffer. It's all quite silly and transparent. You verified it again when you said that if he supported 'public funding' of something then he was for that something, suggesting if he did not support public funding, he was against the whole thing.

If someone is against renewables because of 'public support,' that's one thing. They are claiming the issue is public support for industry which smacks of Communism. I would understand this complaint. If people don't want government money funding the energy industry, then those same people should be far more unhappy with the 'public support' for the oil industry. If they are okay with the 'public support' for the oil industry, but not okay with 'public support' for renewables, they make it clear that 'public support' is not the true issue. It's what the 'public support' is for that is an issue for them. There's nothing pedantic about it, it's simple logic and common sense. It's not a matter of you're for us or against us, it's a matter of stating one thing, but by actions stating another.

If someone rails against subsidies for renewables and then likewise rails against against subsidies for oil, this is consistent. I would understand that. But that isn't what I'm seeing here.
 
Last edited:
Yet another example of what I mentioned above in post 172.

How about them apples Grant? You are good, if you support 'public funding'... otherwise, you DO NOT SUPPORT RENEWABLES.

Yep. But that seems to be the trend these days, Arbo. Political leaders have managed to divide society into us and them, with more class warfare on the way, and the leftists are expected to slavishly follow the party line. The line ups for Kool Aid are blocks long.
 
Yep. But that seems to be the trend these days, Arbo. Political leaders have managed to divide society into us and them, with more class warfare on the way, and the leftists are expected to slavishly follow the party line. The line ups for Kool Aid are blocks long.

Wait a second here. Which side of the fence is always trying to figure out who is the true?

Hint it ain't the party of non conservatives.
 
Last edited:
No, not financially. Just what renewables would you like to see employed as part of the national energy grid?

Whatever are you talking about? Are you asking me what I want the government to do as far as a national energy program is concerned?

Tell me how much energy the Department of Energy has created for its multi billion dollar annual budget,
 
Have no idea what you're talking about.

I was commenting on the party line comment and how conservatives are always tossing around the RINO and or not true conservative talking point.
 
I was commenting on the party line comment and how conservatives are always tossing around the RINO and or not true conservative talking point.

"True conservative" another hint-hint wink-wink undefined identity.

Time to identify it if you're brave enough to face the truth:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/race-baiting/

I know I know, it's from "alternative right", from the "sophisticated racists". But it nicely defines (Republican) race baiting, implicit racism, explicit racism, and the subconscious white identity without all the P.C. B.S.
 
Last edited:
Whatever are you talking about? Are you asking me what I want the government to do as far as a national energy program is concerned?

Tell me how much energy the Department of Energy has created for its multi billion dollar annual budget,

Here you go (your answer in Bold):

A $9 billion Obama administration grant program for renewable energy projects has created tens of thousands of jobs, an Energy Department report out Friday concludes.
[...]
The report — conducted by DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory — concludes that the program supported 52,000 to 75,000 construction and installation jobs on average over the three years it was in effect.

Between 43,000 to 66,000 of those were indirect jobs in the supply chain (for example, in parts manufacturing). The other roughly 9,400 of the jobs were in the design and development of renewable energy systems.
[...]
Through Nov. 10, 2011, the program handed out about $9 billion to 23,000 projects with 13.5 gigawatts of combined capacity. The final figures won’t be known for some time because of projects that met “safe harbor” requirements at the end of 2011 and will be completed later on.
DOE: Renewable grant program was a big jobs creator - POLITICO.com
 
Back
Top Bottom