Is it right to deny the American people jobs because of your religion?

[Revoltingest]

I favor green technology. But the big problem I see is that government is not committed to doing it.
Sure, sure....they spend money on it like drunken sailors, a sorry lot which is known for poor spending decisions.
Alas, gGovernment is driven by politics rather than sound economic thought.
I prescribe a cheaper better approach:
1) Alter city zoning laws to allow higher density. Larger buildings have lower energy usage per unit. Density makes mass transit systems more cost effective.
2) Raise taxes on energy purchases, particularly those with latent costs (eg, pollution).
3) Don't ban pipelines or drilling. Implement stringent but thoughtful regulation & costs upon them.
4) Relax building codes where energy efficiency can be boosted (eg, eliminating window headers where not needed).
Put me in charge of directing a much smaller program to do research in promising but under served areas (eg, small scale cogeneration in homes).

Problems solved!
(I know, I know....solution impossible.)

 

[Falvlun]

I favor green technology. But the big problem I see is that government is not committed to doing it.
Sure, sure....they spend money on it like drunken sailors, a sorry lot which is known for poor spending decisions.
Alas, gGovernment is driven by politics rather than sound economic thought.
I prescribe a cheaper better approach:
1) Alter city zoning laws to allow higher density. Larger buildings have lower energy usage per unit. Density makes mass transit systems more cost effective.
2) Raise taxes on energy purchases, particularly those with latent costs (eg, pollution).
3) Put me in charge of directing a much smaller program to do research in promising but under served areas.)

Problems solved!
(I know, I know....solution impossible.)

Sounds like a good start to me.

I do think that government throwing money at particular companies willy-nilly is not the best of plans. To little too late, and often (as seems to be the case) not well researched.

Government investment in green energy, imo, should be limited to infrastructure building, and perhaps, support of research grants for green technology. It also wouldn't hurt if it led by example, e.g. making their own buildings, fleets of vehicles, etc "green".

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like a good start to me.

I do think that government throwing money at particular companies willy-nilly is not the best of plans. To little too late, and often (as seems to be the case) not well researched.

Government investment in green energy, imo, should be limited to infrastructure building, and perhaps, support of research grants for green technology. It also wouldn't hurt if it led by example, e.g. making their own buildings, fleets of vehicles, etc "green".

I'm even willing to allow socialism......but only as long as I'm in charge, & can delegate to trusted technocrats & managers.

I particularly dislike tossing billions of dollars at spendy electric vehicles which the public doesn't want.
Ford & GM have been slopping at that trough for decades. There are quicker, greener & more cost-effective
places to put our resources (eg, gas guzzling pollution spewing clunker buy-back program, remote-sensing
devices along highways to spot emission offenders).

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm even willing to allow socialism......but only as long as I'm in charge, & can delegate to trusted technocrats & managers.

When I am appointed, can I have my own gulfstream and a sexy pilot on weekends?

 

[Revoltingest]

When I am appointed, can I have my own gulfstream and a sexy pilot on weekends?

You gots the money, then you gets the honey!

 

[Panda]

I favor green technology. But the big problem I see is that government is not committed to doing it.
Sure, sure....they spend money on it like drunken sailors, a sorry lot which is known for poor spending decisions.
Alas, gGovernment is driven by politics rather than sound economic thought.
I prescribe a cheaper better approach:
1) Alter city zoning laws to allow higher density. Larger buildings have lower energy usage per unit. Density makes mass transit systems more cost effective.
2) Raise taxes on energy purchases, particularly those with latent costs (eg, pollution).
3) Don't ban pipelines or drilling. Implement stringent but thoughtful regulation & costs upon them.
4) Relax building codes where energy efficiency can be boosted (eg, eliminating window headers where not needed).
Put me in charge of directing a much smaller program to do research in promising but under served areas (eg, small scale cogeneration in homes).

Problems solved!
(I know, I know....solution impossible.)

Never thought I would say this but I agree with you.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I spit coffee all over my computer.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics!

The only way unemployment is lower is because folks ran out their 99 weeks and we don't count them any more.

Surely you are not telling me you believe the recession is over and the economy is just fine?

Ha! Good gods no!
But as we all know, the economy was already tanked, and diving faster when Obama took office.
Since then the stimulus and other insightful policies have leveled off that burning death spiral, and we have returned to a little better than when Obama was handed the hand-grenade from George Jr. sans pin.
...and we continue to gain ground. :yes:

 

[Panda]

Sounds like a good start to me.

I do think that government throwing money at particular companies willy-nilly is not the best of plans. To little too late, and often (as seems to be the case) not well researched.

Government investment in green energy, imo, should be limited to infrastructure building, and perhaps, support of research grants for green technology. It also wouldn't hurt if it led by example, e.g. making their own buildings, fleets of vehicles, etc "green".

Governments though money at things and expect instant results, they also change their policies to much to match what is popular. In the energy market "soon" can mean any time within the next 10 years. Here the distribution and transmission companies know what they are doing 7 years in advance at least. Infrastructure is hard to change and slow to change, sometime you wish the politicians would bugger off and leave the people that actually know what they are on about to get on with it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Governments though money at things and expect instant results, they also change their policies to much to match what is popular. In the energy market "soon" can mean any time within the next 10 years. Here the distribution and transmission companies know what they are doing 7 years in advance at least. Infrastructure is hard to change and slow to change, sometime you wish the politicians would bugger off and leave the people that actually know what they are on about to get on with it.

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

 

[waitasec]

Put me in charge...

Revoltingest for prez!!!!

 

[Magic Man]

Great! I love the intentions! The thing is Solyndra went bankrupt and there where no green jobs.

Yes, they invested in something that didn't work out. It happens. It should be avoided when possible, but it's not the end of the world when it happens, unless they've sunk $1 trillion into it or something.

You can have an acre of solar panels and it will not run a factory. I won't even mention rainy days.

You should really read up on solar energy.

We have spent Billions on the Chevy Volt and have sold less than 10,000 of them, you do the math.

I love seeing the latest anger-inducing propaganda thrown into your posts. There is a maximum of $3 billion in subsidies for the Volt over the course of 20 years. That's assuming Chevy meets all of the employment and other milestones necessary to max out the grant. If they don't, they could receive considerably less than that amount. So, instead of 10,000, let's say they sell 10,000 a year for 20 years. Now we've invested at most $3 billion into a car that has sold 200,000 units.

Link

Going green is a wonderful idea, but it will not heat your home tonight or get you to work in the morning.

It could, if you do the right things. Going green could include getting your home on solar and buying an electric car. That would heat your home tonight and get you to work in the morning.

Yes, we can proceed with green technology, but we need jobs right now and the Keystone pipe line would cost the government nothing and put some folks to work.

Oh, not the Keystone pipeline again. Look, it wouldn't create many jobs, and most of the ones it did create would be temporary and possibly not even in America. The reason Obama rejected it was because it was rushed and left a lot of important details to be determined. For instance, they hadn't even decided on exactly where it would go.

One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.
Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.


Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.

The Cornell researchers concluded:

The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates....

The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the U.S.
​

​

Link

Right now we need to utilise all energy and not cherry pick just what we like.

OK, then what's the problem with investing in green energies? Yes, some of the particular companies might fail. We can agree that that's a bad thing, but when you invest in something on the ground floor, that's bound to happen sometimes.

 

[Magic Man]

Because the government and their regulations ARE THE PROBLEM.

The less government we have, the better off I am.

Incorrect. The problem is not the government and regulations. The problem is bad government and regulations. Think of it like a lasagna. If you put all the right ingredients in and cook it right, it tastes great. If you put a little too much of this or that in or cook it too long, it doesn't turn out so great. If you made a bad lasagna, the solution isn't to stop making lasagna altogether. The solution is to fix the recipe and make a good lasagna.

There certainly is some bad legislation out there that needs to be fixed, but the answer is not as easy or general as "less government, less regulation". For instance, lack of good regulation is what caused the housing crisis. That's a case where more regulation is needed, and of course it has to be the right regulation. Essentially, we need less bad regulation and more good regulation.

I don't want a big brother or a federal nanny taking care of me.

I want to be responsible for myself and free from governmental controls.

We have coddled your generation way too much. You have become dependant on someone else for your survival.

I understand why some folks need a government to take care of them, what I don't understand is why anyone would prefer to be dependant on anyone or anything?

Dawg, I love you brother, but your educators have brain washed you way worse than FOX news ever could.

Just so you understand, I'm saying both influences are bad OK?

Why can't people think for themselves and provide for themselves any more?

Sure, we need roads, bridges, hospitals, airports, I get that.

Do we need the government involved in every aspect of our lives?

Is it really a big deal if someone would have to buy there own rubbers for Pete's sake?

I don't understand why folks would be satisfied with what the government provides them when there is so much more to be realized just by going out there and making it happen.[/rant]

Phew, that's a lot of ranting based on overreactions. Yes, there are people who want to live off the government and abuse the system. No, those people are not a very large group. You keep talking in generalities, which is the problem. This isn't a case where you just say "more regulation bad, less regulation good". That's like saying "I got food poisoning from chicken last night, so I need to cut out eating meat altogether". The EPA and other government organizations that conservatives like you rail against are good for people. They keep our air and water as clean as possible, among other things. When you see a regulation, instead of just rejecting it because it's government regulation, try figuring out why it's there and what it does. But to do that you have to get past this "government and regulation bad" nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Keystone is not some new technology that might go wrong, keystone would be a fraction of the pipelines we already have Dawg.

Like I said before, I've been involved in the environmental assessment of many highway and road projects.

The asphalt road is not some new technology either, but a highway still needs careful planning or severe environmental impacts can happen. The way we've set things up now, that careful planning happens in the environmental assessment process, which you're saying should be shortcutted for this project.

The green god followers said the same thing about the caribou in Alaska would be adversely affected by that pipe line and guess what? They actually like the pipe line, they huddle around it for warmth and the herds are probably larger because of it.

I hope you're wrong. If you're really saying that a thousand mile-long feature is putting out so much heat into the arctic wilderness (and the permafrost beneath it) that it's physically noticeable, then there would be very significant environmental impacts.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You should really read up on solar energy.

I'm certified to install solar energy systems. :sorry1:

 

[Magic Man]

I'm certified to install solar energy systems. :sorry1:

Then why would you make false claims about it?

 

[work in progress]

Keystone is not some new technology that might go wrong, keystone would be a fraction of the pipelines we already have Dawg..

They Keystone XL wouldn't even be carrying oil in the first place. The "upgraded" bitumen that's liquified enough to actually flow in a pipeline is highly acidic, and prone to cause leaks and ruptures in the pipes that have already been used for its transport. The course you and the Republicans are dedicated to is suicidal....there is no other way to describe it....that Keystone Pipeline will run right through the Oglala Aquifer, and it will just be a matter of time before it leaks and poisons the drinking water of millions of Americans. It's not an "if", it's a "when."

And then we factor in the fact that the carbon footprint of the process of turning tar sands into oil products is at least three times the carbon emitted from conventional oil, and there is no question about the fact that this is not a left/right political issue...it's a matter of greed for short term comfort vs. moral concern for younger generations to follow after us!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Then why would you make false claims about it?

I did not make false claims, Geeze!

Unless we presented what the current draw was for a factory and actually did the load calculations, there is no way we could decide how many panels would be necessary.

I just did a solar project where you could purchase a panel at our cities solar farm. We meter how much electricity your panel produces and then deduct it from your electric bill. All the panels stay in one place instead of installing them at each home.

Here is the thing, we can't run the city on these panels. They are a supplemental supply at best.

Back to this factory, There are times of high demand where the panels could not keep up, and even if you had enough panels to do this, if a cloud came by, you would be in trouble.

We currently do not have enough energy storage technology at this time.

Energy has to be constantly produced and the generation plants have to have the ability to deal with additional load requirements or the system will stumble.

The best system I have seen is a telecommunication building where their load is smaller and constant and they do run MOSTLY on total solar and do have battery capacity to deal with most situations.

It is however a sunny climate, it would never work everywhere. Even then they are still on grid.

Bottom line, you can't run any building 24-7, 365 off grid on solar only even if you had an acre of panels.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....
I hope you're wrong. If you're really saying that a thousand mile-long feature is putting out so much heat into the arctic wilderness (and the permafrost beneath it) that it's physically noticeable, then there would be very significant environmental impacts.

He is.
pipeline effect on caribou - Google Scholar

As for melting the permafrost, not so much. Because they considered that in the engineering. Raising the pylons above sections of permafrost tundra, and/or adding cooling towers (like a geothermal system) to keep the soil cold (usually solar panel powered) with each tower independant from a central line.
at least on the Alaskan pipeline.
As for the caribou. They got a photographer to get a shot of a herd passing and grazing under the pipeline, and !POOF! America thinks there is no environmental problems. In fact, those crazy caribou just Love the pipeline! Yaaaayyy. :flirt: :slap:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Perhaps if we put in the Keystone pipe line, the caribou will come to the states if they like pipe lines that much.

Ding Ding, Round Two!

There are more polar bears on our earth RIGHT NOW than any time in history!

 

[Kathryn]

Now, Rev, you know people don't want to hear that.