I'd really like to see us build/test these Thorium Nuclear Power plants I've seen theorized on Youtube. If they work, they could be the best bridge energy we have available.
Nobody can afford to dump all vehicles in use now. Nobody can afford to improve our infrastructure so that ANYthing else can be used on a daily basis by all Americans.
Everybody knows (or at least I think everybody knows)..
1. We can't transition from one source of power to another in a week, it's a process that will take years or decades and the process has already begun. 2. We are, ultimately, going to transition to different sources of power for both electricity generation as well as vehicles. 3. Accepting #1 and #2 and working for a smooth transition is in everybody's interest more than fighting to hang on to old technology.
4. Make sure the new stuff works before we regulate the old stuff out of business ...
Just curious DC .. How much did oBUMa's gift to the "clean energy" companies in his alledged stimulus cost us? ... part two .. how many of those companies are still in business???? ..
Nobody can afford to dump all vehicles in use now. Nobody can afford to improve our infrastructure so that ANYthing else can be used on a daily basis by all Americans.
Everybody knows (or at least I think everybody knows)..
1. We can't transition from one source of power to another in a week, it's a process that will take years or decades and the process has already begun. 2. We are, ultimately, going to transition to different sources of power for both electricity generation as well as vehicles. 3. Accepting #1 and #2 and working for a smooth transition is in everybody's interest more than fighting to hang on to old technology.
4. Make sure the new stuff works before we regulate the old stuff out of business ...
Just curious DC .. How much did oBUMa's gift to the "clean energy" companies in his alledged stimulus cost us? ... part two .. how many of those companies are still in business???? ..
Pretty f'n sad ....
Yeah it's really F'n sad when people don't look at the big picture as well......
sure the below was written by the folks at scientific America so some of you will find it bias against god and country no doubt.
The loan program got its start a full decade ago with the Energy Policy Act of 2005—legislation that aimed to provide incentives to produce energy in the U.S., whether by drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or building new power plants. Only companies with established credit histories, however, like utility giant Southern Co., could take advantage of the loan program created by that bill. Companies behind new, alternative energy projects, like electric-carmaker Tesla Motors, typically did not have the benefit of such track records, however. As a result, almost no one applied for a loan.
So in 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to deal with the economic fallout of the Great Recession, the loan program got new terms. Most importantly, the federal government agreed to take more of the financial risk for renewable energy projects. The result was a stampede of applications. "There were hundreds of applications and 15 people working as hard as they possibly could when I got there," recalls Jonathan Silver, who became head of the LPO in 2009 and is now a managing director at Tax Equity Advisors and a clean-energy investor and consultant. "We were building this car as we drove it, which is not easy."
The loan program still required innovative technology, defined as "new or significantly improved technologies as compared with commercial technologies" (with commercial defined as used in three or more other projects over more than five years), but suddenly had a lot more money, specifically some $16 billion to loan before September 2011 on top of the $56 billion already available. The program also had the full expertise of the Energy Department to evaluate projects and help new technologies overcome the hurdles to commercialization, often dubbed the "valley of death" by those in the finance and tech industries. Those innovations range from the basic layout of solar farms of more than 100 megawatts to storing sunshine in molten salts and using lens to concentrate it and improve photovoltaic efficiency.
Between March 2009 and August 2010, when the window closed for new applications, the loan program received hundreds of submissions. By September 2011, the $16 billion had been loaned to various renewable energy projects. An additional $16 billion in loans, guarantees or commitments have been made since then, including $8 billion to help build the nation's first new nuclear reactors in more than 30 years in Georgia.
The biggest challenge the loan program faced may not have been public criticism of failed deals like Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and Beacon Power or technology letdowns such as the Ivanpah solar-thermal power plant producing less electricity than expected.
Rather, the biggest challenge came from within the Obama administration itself, particularly the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which stood athwart greater ambition. For example, one deal, dubbed SolarStrong, would have loaned $344 million to put solar panels on housing on military bases across the country. But OMB axed the deal because budget rules require it to assume that the Department of Defense might not have the appropriations to repay the loan in future decades. "At which point, all you can do is go home and have a scotch," Silver recalls.
"Military appropriations are not considered permanent appropriations," explains Peter Davidson, who oversaw the LPO from 2013 to June of this year. "It's the environment we have to work in, we try and do what we can."
In the end, the LPO's successes helped kill off some of its own portfolio of projects. Building utility-scale solar photovoltaic plants like Agua Caliente and Antelope Valley helped render obsolete solar thermal power plants like Ivanpah and Solana as silicon technology improved dramatically and costs dropped whereas the price of steel and glass remained relatively high. Large photovoltaic installations also helped make solar panels so cheap that it drove companies like Solyndra—whose business model relied on PV remaining expensive—into bankruptcy. "We were simply financing the best deals available," Silver says, noting that the program could not independently seek out good projects. "The single thing that bound all these applications together was not their size or technology or geography or financing structure. The single thing that bound them together is that they applied."
That also means the loan program may have taken too little risk. The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the U.S Treasury to date. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to Solyndra. And more money could be made if the program were to ever sell its group of loans rather than managing them for the next few decades.
Already, Tesla has repaid its $465-million loan nine years early, thanks to the innovative financing terms devised in its deal, part of $3.5 billion in loans that have already been repaid. Such advanced vehicle loans, for projects like Ford's EcoBoost engine, will help achieve the Obama administration's higher fuel-efficiency standard. Combined, these fuel-efficiency technologies are expected to help save some 600 million metric tons of CO2 per year compared with existing vehicles. Elsewhere, 1366 Technologies, another loan recipient, may yet make silicon photovoltaics even cheaper with its new, less wasteful manufacturing technique. And wind turbines produce electricity at a price that is now competitive with burning fossil fuels.
Private banks have followed where the LPO first tread, building 17 additional photovoltaic power plants larger than 100 megawatts. "Since September 2011 more than 1,700 megawatts of solar [PV] projects have been built," Davidson notes. "There is not one dime of federal financing in any of those projects. That, for us, is a success." And the solar-thermal technology in use at facilities like Crescent Dunes is also being built worldwide, in countries like Chile and South Africa.
But much more is needed to accomplish an energy transition that would see U.S. greenhouse gas pollution drop by 80 percent in the next 35 years. That's why some would like to see the loan program turned into a kind of permanent green development bank, although that is unlikely to happen in the current political environment. That's even though the LPO is a bipartisan achievement, launched under Republican Pres. George W. Bush and accelerated and amplified by the Democratic administration of Barack Obama.
"Let's take the profits back and turn it into an evergreen fund," Silver suggests.
Regardless, the success of the loan program with Recovery Act money encouraged the Obama administration to reopen solicitations for loan applications in 2013: $8 billion for "advanced fossil projects," including coal, gas and oil, especially employing technology to capture and store CO2; $4 billion for renewable and energy-efficiency projects; and $12 billion for advanced nuclear projects, including any efforts to build the first so-called small modular reactors in the U.S.
All told, there is still $40 billion waiting to be used in the loan program, including the money in its Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program for electric cars, better batteries, more efficient engines and the like. Still a large portion of all those monies may never be used, given the challenges faced by carbon capture and storage and nuclear, although there is an "active pipeline" of projects being evaluated, according to Energy Department spokesman Brian Mahar. The loan program also now hopes to receive applications for Distributed Energy Projects, including solar on home rooftops, grid batteries and similar technologies, though that will likely require bundling together a large number of these typically smaller clean energy projects.
Still, the loan program is not what it once was, helping to turbocharge a clean-energy economy. But it did seed the ground for an energy revolution with some 30 major projects so far, 20 of which are already producing clean power or churning out clean vehicles. All that is left to fight about is the speed at which clean energy will grow. "We launched the utility PV and cellulosic ethanol industry," Davidson says, just as federal investment helped enable everything from the origins of the Internet to hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”).
These clean-energy projects will prevent the emission of some 14 million metric tons of CO2 and the clean-power plants will produce enough electricity for more than one million average U.S. homes, by Energy’s estimates. These technologies will be available to help states meet the CO2-reduction goals laid out in the Clean Power Plan, already proved to work and just waiting to be built. The Obama administration has left a clean-power legacy that will stand as facts on the ground in the fight against climate change.
Just curious DC .. How much did oBUMa's gift to the "clean energy" companies in his alledged stimulus cost us?
Best information I can find is $150 billion over a 5 year period.
Quote:
part two .. how many of those companies are still in business????
I have no idea. I did find a list from Gateway Pundit that had a list of companies that were either out of business or close to going out of business. It was a very long list of almost 40 companies and it had the amount of money they were given.. it looks pretty bad, then you add it up and find out that it's about $7.5 billion worth... which is about 5% of the total $150 billion... I can't state as fact nor do I care to speculate on how successful the other 95% was.
The article is subtitled that our $150 billion only raised renewable energy generation by 1% and it says "slightly over 1%"... then below it is a graph showing that it went from 8.1% to 9.8%... by my calculations, that's a 1.7% increase. I'm sure a liberal outlet would have said "close to 2%" instead of "slightly over 1%".. Regardless, the $150 billion was not to increase generation immediately, it was to conduct research for the long term implementation of more efficient programs. I know most people don't want to think about the long term, they prefer to think, "we have fossil fuel now, we need energy now, lets spend our money on fossil fuel... and we'll deal with tomorrow, tomorrow." That is very short sighted IMHO... and they would rather continue to subsidize oil and gas companies to the tune of $30-40 billion a year, even though they are all very profitable already..
But I'm not here to advocate that Obama did it right or that his plan was financially sound or prudent... we are moving in the direction of renewable energy, the advances being made are quite dramatic, it's just going to take a while to get them to a point where they can be deployed on a larger scale because right now, they are pretty expensive, but those costs are coming down rapidly...
That's fine if they don't go. I know it's tradition to invite champs to the whitehouse, but have they been invited yet?
Doesn't matter. An invitation for a team to visit the whitehouse is a privilege, not a right. If they are invited, and if they choose not to go, big deal. If they think they are making some political statement, so be it.
Many will support their decision, IF that is the decision they choose to make.
Many will frown on that decision, IF that's the decision they choose to make.
They make millions playing a game. Their political leaning doesn't matter to most.
And actually, if they put just a portion of their collective wealth to good use, they could really help out a lot of people in their city. That would be a good thing. But, my guess is, that won't happen either.
Durant and Curry were probably afraid they would be patted down going through security.. and they wouldn't get the flagrant 1 call that they are used to getting.
To bad thats not how it was presented back then ... it was suppose to stimulate the economy and create jobs ... lets just say it wasn't very cost affective ...
I have no love of coal or gas or any of that ... I want whats best for out children .. this is no longer about me ... I'm an old man .... matter of fact when i build my house in a year or so .. i will use solar energy ... still not cost affective for most but I have the cash and it will save money bigtime in the long run ... for when i leave it to my family .. they will be happy it saves money and helps the good old planet earth ...
I also understand that you have to take FINANCES into consideration unlike many on the left ... and this was a stinking FAILURE ...
Just curious .. u put up a lot of numbers and it seems to me u made the claim that this was a very good investment based on the fact it leap frogged the green energy movement forward ... u have any clue how much that stimulus package actually was the catalyst .. u said u had a list of companies ... are those companies leading the charge in the green energy movement? ...
How much money has been given to the original companies in both striaght up cash and tax incentives ...
I'm genuinely curious ...
You'll never get me to believe that giving away 150 billion in the STIMULUS package was a good investment ... but thats semantics .. i would love to understand if it actually helped with the advances we've made ...
I love to learn and have been wrong a million times ... this place does not facilitate learning HARDLY EVER .. *L* ..
IF U CAN TEACH ME SOMETHING AND EDUCATE ME AND MAKE ME MORE INFORMED ON SOMETHING .. I'm all for it .. ooops on the caps .. wasn't looking up and didn't realize i was typing in caps ..
I'd like to know the correlation between that investment and the actual progress we've made in those areas ...
I know it FAILED MISERABLY with the creating and sustaining jobs portion ... this may be the bright spot for that "investment" ..
To bad thats not how it was presented back then ... it was suppose to stimulate the economy and create jobs ... lets just say it wasn't very cost affective ... rofl
Renewable energy is a pretty fast growing sector of the jobs market.. it is stimulating the economy and it is creating jobs.. it was never going to recreate the 90s like the internet.
Quote:
u put up a lot of numbers and it seems to me u made the claim that this was a very good investment based on the fact it leap frogged the green energy movement forward ...
To the contrary, I'm pretty sure I explicitly said that I CANNOT make any claims as to how successful the bulk of the spending was and that it was NOT my intention to defend Obama or this program.
Quote:
u said u had a list of companies ... are those companies leading the charge in the green energy movement? ...
Actually no, the list I mentioned was the list of green companies that were either bankrupt or soon to be.
Quote:
How much money has been given to the original companies in both striaght up cash and tax incentives ...
I'm genuinely curious ...
I have no idea, as I stated. It's almost an impossible number to calculate. Much like the tax incentives that are already given to extremely profitable companies in established industry. Heck if you look up numbers for the oil and gas industries, you will see answers anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion per year that they receive in tax incentives.
Quote:
You'll never get me to believe that giving away 150 billion in the STIMULUS package was a good investment ... but thats semantics .. i would love to understand if it actually helped with the advances we've made ...
So would I... and I'm not defending it. Let me put it to you this way... What if, in 1975, the government spent $150 billion dollars on technology ideas and innovation.. back then, folks would have said you were nuts. What if $149.5 billion of that went to companies that amounted to nothing.. and the other $.5 billion went to a new start-up called Microsoft. And Microsoft was finding their way and didn't really experience any real growth for more than 10 years, the investment in them was long forgotten and written off as a bad deal.... then around 1988, 13 years after your investment, it started rolling... and it went on to become... well, Microsoft... was the $150 billion wasted? Do you have any idea what Microsoft has contributed to the US economy over the last 30 years? They paid have paid back their own $.5 billion, and the other $149.5 billion many times over.... Out there somewhere, is the green energy equivalent of Microsoft. Maybe it's Tesla, I don't know... but they are out there.
Quote:
IF U CAN TEACH ME SOMETHING AND EDUCATE ME AND MAKE ME MORE INFORMED ON SOMETHING .. I'm all for it .. ooops on the caps .. wasn't looking up and didn't realize i was wrong ..
You know, it's not that hard to go back and fix all caps once you notice it.
Quote:
I know it FAILED MISERABLY with the creating and sustaining jobs portion ...
How do you know that? I will state for the record, again, I don't think it had the immediate impact that folks around Obama were hoping for.. I'll readily admit that. On the other hand, we don't know (at least I don't) what companies are out there on the verge of breakthroughs as a result of it.
You know what else is funny? I'm here advocating in favor of investing in the transition to renewable energy.... while OCD is calling me an "alt-right thinker" in a different thread... boy I do love the internet.
To bad thats not how it was presented back then ... it was suppose to stimulate the economy and create jobs ... lets just say it wasn't very cost affective ... rofl
Renewable energy is a pretty fast growing sector of the jobs market.. it is stimulating the economy and it is creating jobs.. it was never going to recreate the 90s like the internet.
Quote:
u put up a lot of numbers and it seems to me u made the claim that this was a very good investment based on the fact it leap frogged the green energy movement forward ...
To the contrary, I'm pretty sure I explicitly said that I CANNOT make any claims as to how successful the bulk of the spending was and that it was NOT my intention to defend Obama or this program.
Quote:
u said u had a list of companies ... are those companies leading the charge in the green energy movement? ...
Actually no, the list I mentioned was the list of green companies that were either bankrupt or soon to be.
Quote:
How much money has been given to the original companies in both striaght up cash and tax incentives ...
I'm genuinely curious ...
I have no idea, as I stated. It's almost an impossible number to calculate. Much like the tax incentives that are already given to extremely profitable companies in established industry. Heck if you look up numbers for the oil and gas industries, you will see answers anywhere from $10 billion to $50 billion per year that they receive in tax incentives.
Quote:
You'll never get me to believe that giving away 150 billion in the STIMULUS package was a good investment ... but thats semantics .. i would love to understand if it actually helped with the advances we've made ...
So would I... and I'm not defending it. Let me put it to you this way... What if, in 1975, the government spent $150 billion dollars on technology ideas and innovation.. back then, folks would have said you were nuts. What if $149.5 billion of that went to companies that amounted to nothing.. and the other $.5 billion went to a new start-up called Microsoft. And Microsoft was finding their way and didn't really experience any real growth for more than 10 years, the investment in them was long forgotten and written off as a bad deal.... then around 1988, 13 years after your investment, it started rolling... and it went on to become... well, Microsoft... was the $150 billion wasted? Do you have any idea what Microsoft has contributed to the US economy over the last 30 years? They paid have paid back their own $.5 billion, and the other $149.5 billion many times over.... Out there somewhere, is the green energy equivalent of Microsoft. Maybe it's Tesla, I don't know... but they are out there.
Quote:
IF U CAN TEACH ME SOMETHING AND EDUCATE ME AND MAKE ME MORE INFORMED ON SOMETHING .. I'm all for it .. ooops on the caps .. wasn't looking up and didn't realize i was wrong ..
You know, it's not that hard to go back and fix all caps once you notice it.
Quote:
I know it FAILED MISERABLY with the creating and sustaining jobs portion ...
How do you know that? I will state for the record, again, I don't think it had the immediate impact that folks around Obama were hoping for.. I'll readily admit that. On the other hand, we don't know (at least I don't) what companies are out there on the verge of breakthroughs as a result of it.
You know what else is funny? I'm here advocating in favor of investing in the transition to renewable energy.... while OCD is calling me an "alt-right thinker" in a different thread... boy I do love the internet.
I'm happy to see you advocate for something worthy, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just keep working on it, it all starts with accepting you've been in denial.
I'm an independent too! Just a liberal progressive independent. Was a centrist until they moved the center so far to the right. All over time from being a young Reagan Republican... Time and experience have made me a different person.
I'm an independent too! Just a liberal progressive independent. Was a centrist until they moved the center so far to the right.
There is no such thing as an independent.. call yourself what you want but 90% of people who claim to be independent vote for the same party almost all the time.. they just call themselves independent because it makes them feel enlightened.
And most "centrists" now are not opposed to gay marriage, have no issue with Roe v Wade, favor gun control, want some government involvement in healthcare, and favor legalizing weed.. how exactly has the definition of "centrist" moved to the right?
So since it seems obvious that oil and gas receive huge subsidies just like renewable energy does, and since renewable has created over 250,000 jobs, Diam only cares about it because it's renewable energy instead of big oil.
I'm not surprised. Some people get all butt hurt when you invest in the future.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
When the Establishment goes out of its way to investigate and attack the President at every turn and when they can find nothing on him, they then turn on all the people around the President, well, it makes it very hard to get good people to fill positions knowing they and their families will be under investigation and open to attack just for helping.
Excellent job of obstruction there folks. America will be weaker for it, as if that matters to any of you.
When the Establishment goes out of its way to investigate and attack the President at every turn and when they can find nothing on him, they then turn on all the people around the President, well, it makes it very hard to get good people to fill positions knowing they and their families will be under investigation and open to attack just for helping.
Excellent job of obstruction there folks. America will be weaker for it, as if that matters to any of you.
As long as the FREE STUFF keeps rolling in ... there good ...
The biggest liar, whiner and complainer in presidential history and that's all you got?
Yes, the GOP senate, the GOP congress and a prosecutor appointed by Trumps inner circle are attacking him. But you blame everyone else? So are you willing to say it's the GOP doing this and stop lying about it? lmao
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The biggest liar, whiner and complainer in presidential history and that's all you got?
Yes, the GOP senate, the GOP congress and a prosecutor appointed by Trumps inner circle are attacking him. But you blame everyone else? So are you willing to say it's the GOP doing this and stop lying about it? lmao
Where is the yawning emoji .. or the BS one ... either one works just fine ..
BTW ... you just LIED ... must be in you and the rest of your liberal buds DNA ... .... Trump doesn't even compare to your boy oBUMa when it comes to LYING ...
Its early in his term so he has a shot to pass him .. but for now that statement shows just how u truely feel ...
Are you gonna address me directly or continue having my name in your mouth like someone with no backbone?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And why do you and others keep implying that Pit is a liberal? Dude is a conservative.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And why do you and others keep implying that Pit is a liberal? Dude is a conservative.
This made me actually L M A O!
I laughed too at your comment. Just because someone doesn't walk lock step with trump doesn't make them a liberal.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So what gives you two the impression that he's liberal?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
For someone who doesn't read most of my post, you sure do have a lot to say about me.
Fake people will be fake, though. And you're no exception.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
well, it makes it very hard to get good people to fill positions knowing they and their families will be under investigation and open to attack just for helping.
Then again, there's the Occam's Razor approach which states: "if 2 or more explanations exist, the simpler/simplest is usually closest to the truth."
So, according to William of Ockham, employing lex parsimoniae:
Dude's a low-intellect douche, and no one of quality wants to work for him.
Yeah, the 'direct approach' works for me. K.I.S... S.
