You guys might find this article of interest. . .
http://article.nationalreview.com/435331/happy-now/arthur-c-brooks
http://article.nationalreview.com/435331/happy-now/arthur-c-brooks
Keeping cancer alive: bailouts for autos, financial leeches, global warming
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
Green energy productive? Don't make me laugh. That's why they need billion$ in subsidies. Learn some math and physics and you'll see that "green energy" has incredibly low output...sometimes taking more fossil fuels as inputs than it produces.
Nuclear is the greenest of green energy. It produces a huge amount of output for a small amount of space. No need to ruin the landscape with miles of barely-producing windmills or solar panels.
Green energy is just another fairy tale from Obama & Co., along with the idea that we can spend, tax & regulate our way back to prosperity. It's amazing how stupid at least half the general public is.
which half of that general public are you in since i never mentioned the words"green energy"?
You responded to this post: "Green energy jobs announced just today. As a current bear, I hope we spend a trillion dollars on getting the air and water 2% cleaner."
Either you don't understand the concept of "context" or you were referring to green energy. It puts you in the same 50% either way.
to further analyze which side of the 50% stupid line you are on i have to point out that i said "productive projects" in my sentence. that would of course cover some green energy projects. i did not specify what. in order for me to be wrong you would have to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a green energy project.
want to keep digging your hole? its not looking so good for you.
T Boone had some good points. We should look at natural gas and I am interested in nuclear power. But I want an objective study from a non partisan group on the pros and cons of nuclear. And I don't want Wackenhut private security guarding it like they do now. Corn ethanol is a scam, yet another lobbying group winning out. Ethanol should be done, at this point, like Brazil sugar cane or switch grass. Until nano solar becomes wide spread I'll pass the ROI is 7-10 years and windmill farms create noise pollution in some cases.
First, learn at least third-grade level grammar. If you even had a point (which you don't), your writing style cheapens it.
Second, you're the one who is in a hole. No amount of incoherent rambling will help you climb out. You just admitted that you were including green energy projects as "productive," though at first you tried to back out. Stop. Go enjoy your weekend and enlighten yourself. Read a book that's not on "Obama's Approved List." That's a good start if you're really a "free thinker." Have a good one.
I agree. Nuclear + nat gas + drilling in Alaska and on other land (where the current type of disaster won't occur) is what we need. Perhaps alt sources will be feasible down the road, but the idea of them producing abundant energy (or long-lasting jobs, as Obama claims) now is ludicrous.
If the Dems find a way to get their "cap & tax" legislation through we'll see huge increases in our energy bills. One opinion is that it will push gas to $7 a gallon (at least). At tripple price increases, solar and some other alternative fuels become nearly competitive.
Obama's goal is to increase fuel/energy prices to FORCE green energy upon the U.S. Of course, under his plan there will be a big dip in the economy and green technology is not ready to take over from oil.
I agree that nuclear and nat. gas should be the immediate shift. But the Dems are against nuclear and are fighting nat. gas development. Then there is the infrastructure problem. There isn't any.
In the mean time the only responsible action is to open more areas to oil drilling - including Anwar. However, the government has dropped the ball on ensuring that deep water drilling is fail-safe. And not allowing the proper foreign equipment to help capture the oil in the gulf tells me that Obama wants this to be the biggest catastrophy that it can be so he can use it to push his idiotic energy plans and block drilling.
The whole thing just pisses me off!!!
Obama's goal is to increase fuel/energy prices to FORCE green energy upon the U.S. Of course, under his plan there will be a big dip in the economy and green technology is not ready to take over from oil.
I agree that nuclear and nat. gas should be the immediate shift. But the Dems are against nuclear and are fighting nat. gas development. Then there is the infrastructure problem. There isn't any.
In the mean time the only responsible action is to open more areas to oil drilling - including Anwar. However, the government has dropped the ball on ensuring that deep water drilling is fail-safe. And not allowing the proper foreign equipment to help capture the oil in the gulf tells me that Obama wants this to be the biggest catastrophy that it can be so he can use it to push his idiotic energy plans and block drilling.
The whole thing just pisses me off!!!
