Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 111

Thread: Adieu, Paris

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Company Town
    Posts
    29,863
    QuoteOriginally Posted by barnbird View Post
    How much subsidy do you think Elon Musk is getting every year ?
    Tesla/Solarcity (now essentially one company) have received a total of $4.9 billion in federal and state tax subsidies of various sorts. I think that goes back to 2006.

    SpaceX has contracts with NASA and DoD (in addition to commercial clients), but those are SAA or fixed cost FAR contracts in which he's paid for specified services. I think SpaceX has gotten a few tax breaks for local and state authorities for launch pad construction, but pretty minor stuff, and nothing out of the ordinary for a company of that size.

    I think Musk really and truly believes what he's saying about climate change policy. But it's also true that one of his companies is benefiting handsomely from policy outcomes driven by Paris, and therefore, so is he.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    21,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    Tesla/Solarcity (now essentially one company) have received a total of $4.9 billion in federal and state tax subsidies of various sorts. I think that goes back to 2006.

    SpaceX has contracts with NASA and DoD (in addition to commercial clients), but those are SAA or fixed cost FAR contracts in which he's paid for specified services. I think SpaceX has gotten a few tax breaks for local and state authorities for launch pad construction, but pretty minor stuff, and nothing out of the ordinary for a company of that size.

    I think Musk really and truly believes what he's saying about climate change policy. But it's also true that one of his companies is benefiting handsomely from policy outcomes driven by Paris, and therefore, so is he.
    I ran up a list of those receiving big subsidies and find GE as one of many and they have a very large presence in China making solar driven turbines.l
    Last edited by barnbird; 06-02-2017 at 03:34 PM.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  3. #53
    GOOCH's Avatar
    GOOCH is offlineReal OG: "Original Gooch"
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nacogdoches, TX
    Posts
    12,567
    QuoteOriginally Posted by paulie walnuts View Post

    "But yeah, let's just not have a government. That'll work out well."

    [is a]

    Complete non sequitur.
    Fixed it for ya. D.GOOCH
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bham, WA
    Posts
    5,196
    QuoteOriginally Posted by barnbird View Post
    I ran up a list of those receiving big subsidies and find GE as one of many and they have a very large presence in China making solar driven turbines.l
    What's a solar driven turbine? Like a steam turbine in a concentrated solar plant?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    21,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by barnbird View Post
    I ran up a list of those receiving big subsidies and find GE as one of many and they have a very large presence in China making solar driven turbines.l
    I meant Turbine engines for use in solar windmills sorry for the typo.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,292

    I don't know

    QuoteOriginally Posted by Inspector Gadget View Post
    The Dem(wit) talking points responses have been laughable. The First was the sky is falling which is not true and no one believes. The second is that renewables are actually cheaper and make economic sense. I can't answer to the truethfullness or the falsehood of that but the logic doesn't fly. If true, why do you need the Paris agreement at all? Why do you need the govt to even play a role? There is also a 3rd talking point which is that 191 countries are onboard so this must be a good thing. Of course they are on board. 90% of them receive subsidies, why wouldn't they be? The last is that we are abdicating our position as world leaders. Sorry, leaders don't follow the crowd. Leaders also know when to let others block the wind so they can pass them at the finish line.

    In the end, the Dem(wits) have been so anti everything Trump that even if they had a legitimate argument no one would listen to them.
    which gets more subsidies OIL or renewables

    if you factor in the military expenditures to keep the Middle East oil on the free market
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    Let's end federal taxation and subsidies of energy. You in?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by FOGHAT View Post
    which gets more subsidies OIL or renewables

    if you factor in the military expenditures to keep the Middle East oil on the free market
    So you support increasing domestic energy production?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Company Town
    Posts
    29,863
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    So you support increasing domestic energy production?
    You know, I hear that nuclear power plants don't require foreign energy imports and produce zero carbon emissions.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    21,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    You know, I hear that nuclear power plants don't require foreign energy imports and produce zero carbon emissions.
    Yes but then there is not much money for the scalpers.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    You know, I hear that nuclear power plants don't require foreign energy imports and produce zero carbon emissions.
    But remember, they're the party of science, not irrational fear.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    21,488
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/6bc92d9...n-climate.html Who's buying ?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by barnbird View Post
    I meant Turbine engines for use in solar windmills sorry for the typo.
    And.....what exactly IS a "turbine engine for use in solar windmills", Square Head? Lets start with....what the hell is a solar windmill?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,292
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    You know, I hear that nuclear power plants don't require foreign energy imports and produce zero carbon emissions.
    If there is a plausible nuclear waste solution, I have no objection to nuclear.
    If they just want to pile it down by the river, ...

    The trillions of sunk public costs in the oil industry will probably never be matched for any other energy.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,176
    QuoteOriginally Posted by FOGHAT View Post
    If there is a plausible nuclear waste solution, I have no objection to nuclear.
    If they just want to pile it down by the river, ...

    The trillions of sunk public costs in the oil industry will probably never be matched for any other energy.
    Waste disposal is my objection as well. I am not convinced Nuclear is economical when waste disposal and shutdown costs are fsctored in.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by CheapSeats View Post
    But remember, they're the party of science, not irrational fear.
    Wben the science 'fits' the sacred liberal agenda
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    663
    QuoteOriginally Posted by LOB View Post
    What is it that Conservatives conserve again? To hear that Trump backed out and will get a better deal, is a joke. Trump won't put in the effort. It appears being born rich requires way less work than being President.
    What was the Paris accords supposed to conserve since the 2 biggest polluters could continue to increase their pollution output?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by iufaninillinois View Post
    What was the Paris accords supposed to conserve since the 2 biggest polluters could continue to increase their pollution output?
    Not only that, due to US energy emissions are down 14%. Of course that is partly due to the 2008 downturn and to an even greater extent fracking increasing NG production.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Company Town
    Posts
    29,863
    QuoteOriginally Posted by Inspector Gadget View Post
    Waste disposal is my objection as well. I am not convinced Nuclear is economical when waste disposal and shutdown costs are fsctored in.
    That's what Yucca Mountain is for.

    We're pretty good at nuclear waste disposal now.

    Again: If carbon emissions are the top priority, it's irrational to rule out nuclear as a key energy option.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Company Town
    Posts
    29,863
    QuoteOriginally Posted by iufaninillinois View Post
    What was the Paris accords supposed to conserve since the 2 biggest polluters could continue to increase their pollution output?
    Some suspect it's a giant wealth transfer scheme away from the developed world.

    But most likely the main reason is that the organizers were desperate for buy in from India and China. And they knew this was the only way they'd get it.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Collinsville
    Posts
    15,048
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    But most likely the main reason is that the organizers were desperate for buy in from India and China. And they knew this was the only way they'd get it.
    Yes, bargaining from weakness is the recipe for success we've come to expect from the party that brought us Joe Kennedy.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    That's what Yucca Mountain is for.

    We're pretty good at nuclear waste disposal now.

    Again: If carbon emissions are the top priority, it's irrational to rule out nuclear as a key energy option.
    It's a war on market capitalism. It really has nothing to do with the environment.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    20,608
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    It's a war on market capitalism. It really has nothing to do with the environment.
    Fukashima called.

    They said Fukashima you.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Company Town
    Posts
    29,863
    QuoteOriginally Posted by paulie walnuts View Post
    Fukashima called.

    They said Fukashima you.
    Japanese reactors are actually quite safe, and built to be robust for earthquakes. And Fukashima's reactors survived the earthquake in 2011 without difficulty.

    What caused the meltdown was the tsunami, which knocked out the pumps for the cooling system, the switchgear and generators. Which suggests that building reactors on the coastline of a tectonically highly active area may not be a smart idea. Fortunately, that's not an issue for the United States, save for a limited stretch of the California coast.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    It's a war on market capitalism. It really has nothing to do with the environment.
    LMFAO...!!!
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  26. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Vail Co
    Posts
    5,468
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    Japanese reactors are actually quite safe, and built to be robust for earthquakes. And Fukashima's reactors survived the earthquake in 2011 without difficulty.

    What caused the meltdown was the tsunami, which knocked out the pumps for the cooling system, the switchgear and generators. Which suggests that building reactors on the coastline of a tectonically highly active area may not be a smart idea. Fortunately, that's not an issue for the United States, save for a limited stretch of the California coast.
    Quite safe except until the melt down uncontrollably. I think the on going disaster in Japan is very good reason to abandon them all together.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  27. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    West Chester PA
    Posts
    6,241
    QuoteOriginally Posted by LOB View Post
    Quite safe except until the melt down uncontrollably. I think the on going disaster in Japan is very good reason to abandon them all together.
    So you are all in with coal?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  28. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,670
    QuoteOriginally Posted by LOB View Post
    Quite safe except until the melt down uncontrollably. I think the on going disaster in Japan is very good reason to abandon them all together.
    NO.NO.NO.

    Nuclear, to be blunt is the only option. You want to cut carbon emissions while having some sort of economy that isn't stone age for 7 billion people - then nuclear reactors are the answer. And to be blunt, they are the only one.

    Rich is right with Yucca. It would work for centuries.

    It is reactions like this that caused me to leave the dem party.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  29. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by 6-4-3 View Post
    NO.NO.NO.

    Nuclear, to be blunt is the only option. You want to cut carbon emissions while having some sort of economy that isn't stone age for 7 billion people - then nuclear reactors are the answer. And to be blunt, they are the only one.

    Rich is right with Yucca. It would work for centuries.

    It is reactions like this that caused me to leave the dem party.
    It's reactions akin to LOB's that expose the Democrats as the statist totalitarian "de-growthers" that they are.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  30. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by 6-4-3 View Post
    NO.NO.NO.

    Nuclear, to be blunt is the only option. You want to cut carbon emissions while having some sort of economy that isn't stone age for 7 billion people - then nuclear reactors are the answer. And to be blunt, they are the only one.

    Rich is right with Yucca. It would work for centuries.

    It is reactions like this that caused me to leave the dem party.

    Natural gas is clearly a short to mid term solution while non-toxic renewable energy sources are perfected. We should be suspicious of other sources that have the ability, with one screw up, to make the dinosaur extinction event look like a day at Disney Land.....no?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  31. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bham, WA
    Posts
    5,196
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Natural gas is clearly a short to mid term solution while non-toxic renewable energy sources are perfected. We should be suspicious of other sources that have the ability, with one screw up, to make the dinosaur extinction event look like a day at Disney Land.....no?
    Natural gas is not toxic. A flammable asphyxiant, yes, toxic, no.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  32. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by maest View Post
    Natural gas is not toxic. A flammable asphyxiant, yes, toxic, no.
    Thanks. Should have said "non-CO2 emitting"....
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  33. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    19,160
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Thanks. Should have said "non-CO2 emitting"....
    you mean non-CO emitting, right?

    If you want to get rid of the CO2 emissions you should start by holding your breath.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  34. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    21,488
    QuoteOriginally Posted by TCB 6-4-3 View Post
    you mean non-CO emitting, right?

    If you want to get rid of the CO2 emissions you should start by holding your breath.
    + 1000
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  35. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by TCB 6-4-3 View Post
    you mean non-CO emitting, right?

    If you want to get rid of the CO2 emissions you should start by holding your breath.

    Ha ha....good enough!
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  36. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by maest View Post
    Natural gas is not toxic. A flammable asphyxiant, yes, toxic, no.
    And, yet another key piece of evidence that the statist totalitarians are actually "de-growthers" - not environmentalists at all.

    Saving the environment is secondary to their destruction of western market capitalism.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  37. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    19,160
    Coal-fired power is most certainly an issue, but to complain about coal power plants is really whistling past the grave yard. it's a relatively small piece of the carbon pie. Automobile emission are really where the US has to do better, somehow. That's where technological improvements would have the greatest impact.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  38. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Vail Co
    Posts
    5,468
    QuoteOriginally Posted by OzzieFan View Post
    So you are all in with coal?
    They don't donate enough to my campaign coffers
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  39. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by TCB 6-4-3 View Post
    Coal-fired power is most certainly an issue, but to complain about coal power plants is really whistling past the grave yard. it's a relatively small piece of the carbon pie. Automobile emission are really where the US has to do better, somehow. That's where technological improvements would have the greatest impact.
    In the meantime, let's just throw all the coal miners out of work. It's in their best interests anyway.

    -Barack Obama - Paulie Nutsack
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  40. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by TCB 6-4-3 View Post
    Coal-fired power is most certainly an issue, but to complain about coal power plants is really whistling past the grave yard. it's a relatively small piece of the carbon pie. Automobile emission are really where the US has to do better, somehow. That's where technological improvements would have the greatest impact.
    Actually, diesel powered shipping is the single greatest pollutant source in the transportation sector. One large container ship equaling many millions of cars. Energy production, of course, is the word's largest GHG emitter.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  41. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    Actually, diesel powered shipping is the single greatest pollutant source in the transportation sector. One large container ship equaling many millions of cars. Energy production, of course, is the word's largest GHG emitter.
    Yes, yes, that "word" emits some gas.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  42. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Company Town
    Posts
    29,863
    QuoteOriginally Posted by LOB View Post
    I think the on going disaster in Japan is very good reason to abandon them all together.
    It's an extraordinary situation. And an avoidable one.

    Again, no energy source has zero negative externalities. Solar cells have toxic byproducts in manufacture. Wind farms are unsightly and are brutal on avian life. Hydroelectric....well, you get the idea.

    If the real priority is reducing emissions, nuclear has none. Done prudently, it can be a way to buy time until cost effective renewables are available at sufficient cost and scale.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  43. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Land of fruits and nuts
    Posts
    21,488
    If we can send men to the Moon and back surely someone can develop a safe system operating such a valuable tool.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  44. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by The Iguana View Post
    It's an extraordinary situation. And an avoidable one.

    Again, no energy source has zero negative externalities. Solar cells have toxic byproducts in manufacture. Wind farms are unsightly and are brutal on avian life. Hydroelectric....well, you get the idea.

    If the real priority is reducing emissions, nuclear has none. Done prudently, it can be a way to buy time until cost effective renewables are available at sufficient cost and scale.
    Yeah, but that would only matter if the people sounding the alarm were serious about emissions - rather than statist totalitarian "de-growthers" in green garb.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  45. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    19,396
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    Yeah, but that would only matter if the people sounding the alarm were serious about emissions - rather than statist totalitarian "de-growthers" in green garb.
    I will believe it is a crisis when the people screaming that it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  46. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    Yes, yes, that "word" emits some gas.
    SUCH the linquist! Too bad you can't spell "Al Qaeda", moron.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  47. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Rock Hill
    Posts
    81,484
    QuoteOriginally Posted by RHinSD View Post
    SUCH the linquist! Too bad you can't spell "Al Qaeda", moron.
    Why not produce that post, dumbshit
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  48. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by John D View Post
    Why not produce that post, dumbshit
    WHY??????? You know you can't spell....I know you can't spell.....and no one else cares. It's just sorta our private little joke, eh?
    Last edited by RHinSD; 06-07-2017 at 12:49 AM.
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  49. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,723
    QuoteOriginally Posted by barnbird View Post
    If we can send men to the Moon and back surely someone can develop a safe system operating such a valuable tool.
    Speaking of (non)valuable "tools"......have YOU ever thought about going to the moon, Barnie?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

  50. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,176
    QuoteOriginally Posted by barnbird View Post
    If we can send men to the Moon and back surely someone can develop a safe system operating such a valuable tool.
    How many rocket explosions have there been? Are you willing to risk that many nuclear melt downs?
    Register or log in to view signatures!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •