• 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!

Are green energy programs wasting tax payer money?

Geoist said:
Perhaps you should provide links to support your own argument. I have already provided a link for mine.
Click to expand...

Asking me to prove a negative?

Seriously?

You didn't prove anything except the ignorance of what a subsidy is.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Personally, I would rather us get energy from this:

solar-farm-to-be-developed.jpg


Than this:

View attachment 67200641

But I guess that is just me. Maybe some people would rather us blow entire mountains up, destroy millions of acres of forest, pollute thousands of miles of rivers and streams, and literally scar the land for millions of years (How long do you think it will take for another mountain to form?).

I also all for nuclear, hydro where appropriate, natural gas, wind, geothermal.
Click to expand...


Mining-Operations1-12-23-11-670x447.jpg


Welcome to Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine, it produces the rare earth metals used to make your solar panels.
 
jmotivator said:
View attachment 67200658


Welcome to Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine, it produces the rare earth metals used to make your solar panels.
Click to expand...

And once again, a dumb comparison when you consider the number of mountaintop removal mines in America with the number of rare earth metal mines in the country. Mountain top removal thus far covers 1.2 million acres.
 
apdst said:
How many board feet of timber have been cleared for wind, solar and crops?

I went to a wind farm in Pennsylvania where 50 acres of timber were cleared to build the wind farm.

Shall we get into the pollution caused by leaking wind turbines?
Click to expand...

Most wind farms are located on prairie and in areas already used for crops and pastures. In contrast 1.2 million acres have been lost to mountain top removal thus far. Trees grow back, mountains don't. Moreover once again, the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history are all related to coal mining. Nothing has anything on it in terms of environmental destruction and harm to human health.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
And once again, a dumb comparison when you consider the number of mountaintop removal mines in America with the number of rare earth metal mines in the country. Mountain top removal thus far covers 1.2 million acres.
Click to expand...
Size comparison is meaningless given the miniscule size of the solar panel market. What do you suppose happens if/when the demand for solar panels grows beyond a fraction of a fraction of a percent?

X99SZl.jpg
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Most wind farms are located on prairie and in areas already used for crops and pastures. In contrast 1.2 million acres have been lost to mountain top removal thus far. Trees grow back, mountains don't. Moreover once again, the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history are all related to coal mining. Nothing has anything on it in terms of environmental destruction and harm to human health.
Click to expand...

Oh, you do want to get into the environmental damage caused by wind farms. Ok...

Pollution on a disastrous scale - Environmental Cost of Wind Turbine Manufacturing

New Evidence: Wind Farms Contaminating Water Supply in Scotland - Breitbart

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/289920/wind-energy-noise-pollution-robert-bryce
 
jmotivator said:
Size comparison is meaningless given the miniscule size of the solar panel market. What do you suppose happens if/when the demand for solar panels grows beyond a fraction of a fraction of a percent?

View attachment 67200664
Click to expand...

It still would have nothing on coal. We produce 909 million tons of coal per year in the United States. In contrast, there is an estimated 13 million tons of rare earth elements in the United States. Thus in 5 days, we mine more coal than we have in total rare earth deposits, and that is just in the United States.

Moreover, that doesn't even get into all the coal slurry every year, the coal ash and so on. Frankly its absolutely ridiculous to compare the environmental costs of any form of energy to coal. This is why I don't get the rabid opposition to fracking many have on the left. Natural gas is killing the coal industry and that is a great thing. Even if you the worst possible case with fracking in terms of environmental damage, coal is still exponentially worse.
 
apdst said:
Oh, you do want to get into the environmental damage caused by wind farms. Ok...

Pollution on a disastrous scale - Environmental Cost of Wind Turbine Manufacturing

New Evidence: Wind Farms Contaminating Water Supply in Scotland - Breitbart

National Review Online
Click to expand...

No form of energy is perfectly clean. However, wind has nothing on coal. Hell even if we burned tires to generate electricity, it would still have nothing on coal. Natural gas, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro, even oil burning, has not resulted in millions of acres of mountains being destroyed like coal has. It doesn't result in billions of gallons of coal slurry. It hasn't destroyed thousands of miles of rivers and streams. It doesn't level entire mountains. You could have a nuclear meltdown every 10 years and it would still have nothing on the environmental damage of coal. You could have a major oil spill every year and it still would have nothing on the environmental damage of coal. Simply put, nothing is even in the same ballpark as coal is when it comes to environmental damage.

I am for everything but coal. Natural gas I am all for. Nuclear I am all for. Wind, Solar, geothermal. I am all for it. Oil, sure. Anything but coal.

You ever been to China? I have twice. Spent a few weeks there on both occasions. Unless you have had a good rain to wash the air out for a few days, when you go outside the pollution is so bad that your eyes burn. On many days you can only see a block or so and any time spent outside results in you hacking up a bunch of crap when you come back in. That is all due to coal burning over there.
 
MickeyW said:
Are green energy programs wasting tax payer money? | On Air Videos | Fox Business


But the message of Obama's and Greenie politicians is an utter failure, in forcing not-ready-for-prime-time green energy sources, while wasting Billions and hurting the economy & jobs, needs saying.
Click to expand...

This Right Wing obsession with the government spending on anything other than military programs is actually hurting the country. There are many things in which the government should be investing resources. Where would we be today if the government never spent a dime to build the Erie Canal or the Interstate System, of the TVA dams or airports or the locks at Sault St Marie?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No form of energy is perfectly clean. However, wind has nothing on coal. Hell even if we burned tires to generate electricity, it would still have nothing on coal. Natural gas, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro, even oil burning, has not resulted in millions of acres of mountains being destroyed like coal has. It doesn't result in billions of gallons of coal slurry. It hasn't destroyed thousands of miles of rivers and streams. It doesn't level entire mountains. You could have a nuclear meltdown every 10 years and it would still have nothing on the environmental damage of coal. You could have a major oil spill every year and it still would have nothing on the environmental damage of coal. Simply put, nothing is even in the same ballpark as coal is when it comes to environmental damage.

I am for everything but coal. Natural gas I am all for. Nuclear I am all for. Wind, Solar, geothermal. I am all for it. Oil, sure. Anything but coal.

You ever been to China? I have twice. Spent a few weeks there on both occasions. Unless you have had a good rain to wash the air out for a few days, when you go outside the pollution is so bad that your eyes burn. On many days you can only see a block or so and any time spent outside results in you hacking up a bunch of crap when you come back in. That is all due to coal burning over there.
Click to expand...
I can't disagree, I have lived near a coal plant, and it is nasty business.
Burning 100 rail cars a day of coal, produces a lot of bad leftovers, and the ash is radioactive.
 
longview said:
I can't disagree, I have lived near a coal plant, and it is nasty business.
Burning 100 rail cars a day of coal, produces a lot of bad leftovers, and the ash is radioactive.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that is just the burning of it, and we burn it cleaner here than just about anywhere else. However, even if you could somehow burn it perfectly cleanly, the mining of it is still extremely environmentally destructive.
 
longview said:
I can't disagree, I have lived near a coal plant, and it is nasty business.
Burning 100 rail cars a day of coal, produces a lot of bad leftovers, and the ash is radioactive.
Click to expand...

The radioactivity threat of coal ash is over blown. The vast majority of coal ash is recycled safely into concrete. While burning away the carbon does concentrate the naturally occurring radioactive elements, it isn't
at dangerous levels.

So says the EPA, anyway.

Rare earth mineral mines tend to coincide with uranium deposits, so the radioactivity risk (as well as caustic risk) of REM mines are pretty high.

But all of these issues are risks to be mitigated, not to launch a jihad on the mining industry.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
The radioactivity threat of coal ash is over blown. The vast majority of coal ash is recycled safely into concrete. While burning away the carbon does concentrate the naturally occurring radioactive elements, it isn't not at dangerous levels.

So says the EPA, anyway.

Rare earth mineral mines tend to coincide with uranium deposits, so the radioactivity risk (as well as caustic risk) of REM mines are pretty high.

But all of these issues are risks to be mitigated, not to launch a jihad on the mining industry.
Click to expand...
I just think we are well positioned to move away from using a resource that has this many negatives.
I think we could spend the money currently being wasted on AGW research on nuclear plant research.
The energy is a requirement, the very basis of our modern society, but there are choices where that
energy will come from.
 
jmotivator said:
The radioactivity threat of coal ash is over blown. The vast majority of coal ash is recycled safely into concrete. While burning away the carbon does concentrate the naturally occurring radioactive elements, it isn't
at dangerous levels.

So says the EPA, anyway.

Rare earth mineral mines tend to co.
Click to expand...

Funny. Your link says:
A survey by the American Coal Ash Association showed that about 45 percent of all fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag was reused. Its use depended on the characteristics of the waste. Just over 60 percent of collected fly ash was used in concrete and blended cement. Almost 70 percent of bottom ash was used for concrete, blended cement and to fill structures or embankments. About 80 percent of boiler slag was used as blasting grit or roofing granules.
Click to expand...

Only in Denier Bizarroland is a 'vast majority' defined as 45%.
 
apdst said:
Oh, you do want to get into the environmental damage caused by wind farms. Ok...

Pollution on a disastrous scale - Environmental Cost of Wind Turbine Manufacturing

New Evidence: Wind Farms Contaminating Water Supply in Scotland - Breitbart

National Review Online
Click to expand...

On top of that, wind farms create warming as well. It has to do with the way the cause turbulence in the normal wind patterns, changing the transpiration of vegetation. Years ago, I came across studies that said that wind farms warm the area. One quantified it as 1/6th the amount of fossil fuels they replace. Now like all studies dealing with CO2, they use unreasonable high estimates for CO2. I will suggest that wind farms actually warm by more than the CO2 emitted that they replace.

A quick search reveals these, for those who are paywalled from research papers:

Do Wind Farms Increase Global Warming? | Sierra Club

Wind Power Found to Affect Local Climate - Scientific American

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

I will admit to not reading them, as I have read similar material years back. I don't know yet of these offer more insight. I go by the actual peer reviewed papers, like this one:

Nature Climate Change: Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature
 
Threegoofs said:
Funny. Your link says:

Only in Denier Bizarroland is a 'vast majority' defined as 45%.
Click to expand...

And so it does. It doesn't change the fact that the EPA doesn't seem to be as concerned by the threat of irradiated coal slurry as others seem to be.
 
longview said:
I just think we are well positioned to move away from using a resource that has this many negatives.
I think we could spend the money currently being wasted on AGW research on nuclear plant research.
The energy is a requirement, the very basis of our modern society, but there are choices where that
energy will come from.
Click to expand...

True enough. I think we should be converting to natural gas at this point. The world population has always drifted to cleaner, denser energy sources throughout history. We don't need scary stories to accomplish that. ;)
 
jmotivator said:
And so it does. It doesn't change the fact that the EPA doesn't seem to be as concerned by the threat of irradiated coal slurry as others seem to be.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't people be more concerned about eating bananas?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Asking me to prove a negative?

Seriously?

You didn't prove anything except the ignorance of what a subsidy is.
Click to expand...

You make the claim I am ignorant of what a subsidy is. Okay, show me the definition that contradicts my usage of the word.
 
Geoist said:
You make the claim I am ignorant of what a subsidy is. Okay, show me the definition that contradicts my usage of the word.
Click to expand...

Don't you have a dictionary?

Subsidy: a grant or gift of money: as

a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b : money granted by one state to another

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

Subsidy | Definition of Subsidy by Merriam-Webster

It is money "granted." That means it is money given. It is not a reduced amount of money to be received. The net result can be the same as a tax break, but a subsidy is not a tax break.
 
MickeyW said:
I fully disagree.



I agree on some level......there is a lot of waste in any government entity....and that's why they need to be run like a business, instead of a cash cow with over funding.
Click to expand...

It needs to be run like the Govt. that got us to the moon in 10 years. Our Govt. can get things done. Things the private sector could never do. But you don't get that with a bunch of Govt. hating Republicans in charge. They are mainly concerned with fulfilling their prophecy of how bad Govt. is and it shows. They have no clue how to govern and the polls show the public is getting wise. Changes are coming.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
It needs to be run like the Govt. that got us to the moon in 10 years. Our Govt. can get things done. Things the private sector could never do. But you don't get that with a bunch of Govt. hating Republicans in charge. They are mainly concerned with fulfilling their prophecy of how bad Govt. is and it shows. They have no clue how to govern and the polls show the public is getting wise. Changes are coming.
Click to expand...

JFKs Govt. got us to the Moon....and JFK would be laughed out of the Party today. Govt. is bad when run by a bunch of liberal turds!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Don't you have a dictionary?
Click to expand...

You are making the claim that I am wrong. The burden is on YOU to prove it.


Subsidy: a grant or gift of money: as

a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b : money granted by one state to another

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

Subsidy | Definition of Subsidy by Merriam-Webster

It is money "granted." That means it is money given. It is not a reduced amount of money to be received. The net result can be the same as a tax break, but a subsidy is not a tax break.
Click to expand...

You know full well 'subsidy' is also used in reference to other benefits such as in taxes.

Refer to the investopedia definition:

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
Subsidy Definition | Investopedia

So, while you may not like my use of the word 'subsidy', Investopedia's definition proves it was perfectly appropriate usage.
 
Geoist said:
You know full well 'subsidy' is also used in reference to other benefits such as in taxes.
Click to expand...

Yes, ignorant people use it all the time that way.

Investopedia is has a CEO whi is a digital media expert. Not an investment expert. I's all part of the game, to use the same correct and incorrect terms, and idioms that the ignorant masses use.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, ignorant people use it all the time that way.

Investopedia is has a CEO whi is a digital media expert. Not an investment expert. I's all part of the game, to use the same correct and incorrect terms, and idioms that the ignorant masses use.
Click to expand...

Hardly ignorant masses.

The masses use the word subsidy as a separate thing to tax break. It's those with an agenda who push the change of definition of words to win the argument they know is drivel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom