E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOn the campaign trail in Colorado Thursday President Obama assailed Mitt Romney for opposing the tax break for wind energy production, saying the presumptive nominee would put tens of thousands of jobs at risk by letting them expire.
“At a moment when homegrown energy, renewable energy, is creating new jobs in states like Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits for wind energy producers,” Obama said.
“Think about what that would mean for a community like Pueblo. The wind industry supports about 5,000 jobs across this state. Without those tax credits, 37,000 American jobs, including potentially hundreds of jobs right here, would be at risk.”
Recommended: Finger in the wind: Obama pushes Romney's opposition to tax credit
Wind energy now supplies about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, up from 1.3 percent in 2008.
A spokesman for Romney's Iowa campaign said last week that Romney “will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits."
Romney’s stance on the wind energy tax break puts him at odds with Republican senators such as Jerry Moran of Kansas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa. It was Grassley who pushed for the wind tax credit when it was created in 1992.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd previews his interviews with various retiring Senators. Each touch upon some crucial issues that face their party and our country.
But Romney won applause from one GOP House member, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, who has proposed a bill to abolish all energy tax breaks. “The Solyndra scandal has demonstrated that taxpayers must no longer be forced to subsidize these industries,” Pompeo said last week. “When the government bets on these energy technologies, it typically selects the most unaffordable energy leading to unnecessarily higher energy prices for all Americans.”
Solyndra, a California solar-panel manufacturing firm that got a $535 million federal loan guarantee, filed for bankruptcy last year. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has acknowledged that the $535 million isn’t likely to be recovered.
Beyond the campaign rhetoric and the question of whether Romney’s anti-wind tax credit stance will hurt him in two wind-energy loving battleground states (Colorado and Iowa), there’s a serious economic debate here.
It hinges on the classic question: what activities and industries, if any, should the government require taxpayers to subsidize? Is it ever possible to have a “level playing field” so that consumers can choose the energy source that’s most cost effective?
And when Congress creates and preserves tax breaks for favored industries, does it also perpetuate the entrenched culture of lobbyists and special interests seeking favors from Congress?
In this case, every few years the wind energy industry and its lobbyists must urge Congress to give the tax break another lease on life before it expires. Lobbyist filings show that the American Wind Energy Association spent $1.1 million in the first half of this year on lobbying Congress.
Related: GOP wields report on Solyndra as cudgel against Obama
The group has hired lobbyists such as Juleanna Glover of the Ashcroft Group, former Louisiana Republican Rep. Jim McCrery of Capitol Counsel, and Elmendorf Ryan’s Steve Elmendorf, an aide to Dick Gephardt when he was House Democratic leader.
A pragmatist would say there’s nothing new here: the wind industry is just getting in on a subsidy game that other energy industries have played for decades.
As a Congressional Budget Office report noted in March, “Tax preferences for energy were first established in 1916, and until 2005 they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2006, the cost of energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share was aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun….”
That CBO report said energy-related tax breaks cost $20 billion in 2011 and 68 percent of them went to renewable energy, while only 15 percent went to fossil fuels.
Under current law, for a wind facility that starts operating by the end of this year, the owners can claim a 2.2 cent tax credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced. The tax credit is good for a 10-year period.
In a bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week, the wind production tax credit was extended through 2013 but it was also modified in a significant way, said energy industry consultant and blogger Geoffrey Styles.
The Finance Committee bill would make wind energy facilities eligible for the tax preference if the construction of such facilities or property begins before Jan. 1, 2014. “This will sweep in many more projects,” said Styles. “It has the effect of being much more than a one-year extension” since as long as a project gets started – not completed -- before Jan. 1, 2014, it would be eligible for the tax break.
According to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the proposal would cost $12 billion in lost revenue over ten years.
Energy economist William Pizer, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the Treasury Department from 2008 to 2011 and now teaches at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, said the tax break is less than ideal energy policy for a variety of reasons.
One is the inefficiency of a subsidy compared to higher tax on more polluting energy sources such as coal and oil. And he said frequently some of the benefit of the tax-break flows to “tax equity partners” who are brought in to join with the actual wind energy project company.
And noting that the wind energy credit has expired three times since 1992 (with Congress ultimately reviving it each time), he said, “The boom-and-bust cycle has been problematic for the industry.”
Recommended: Tension between Romney and conservative stalwarts resurfaces
When analysts at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington looked at the wind and other renewable energy tax breaks that were part of the 2009 stimulus bill, they said, “In general, these subsidies are less cost-effective than price increases” which Congress could impose through higher taxes on fuels such as coal.
The Tax Policy Center added that, “Such subsidies are very hard to remove once they have outlived their usefulness, since they develop powerful constituencies.”
In a blog post last week, Styles noted that during the 20 years in which the renewable energy production tax credit “has been escalating annually with inflation -- from 1.5¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to the present level of 2.2 ¢/kWh -- the cost of wind turbines and (the cost of) their output has fallen significantly.” During that same period, wind energy capacity in the United States grew by 30 times.
So, Styles said, “in effect, we're subsidizing today's relatively mature onshore wind technology by a larger proportion than we did when it was in its infancy. That makes no sense, especially in the current environment.”
One factor which might call into question the competitiveness of wind energy in the marketplace is the new abundance of domestically produced natural gas in the United States.
But Ellen Carey, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association said, “One of the reasons the U.S. is able to enjoy this new abundant source of low priced natural gas was the multi-decade government support of the Section 29 production tax credit for unconventional gas. The production tax credit for wind energy ensures we build a diverse and stable portfolio of energy and do not over rely on a single energy source which exposes us to potential volatility.”
Leave a Comment:
No matter what the subsidy, someone benefits.
That is how Congress does business, it hands out benefits to its friends, and then when the benefits are threatened, Congress and the people who benefit pitch a fit.
This is the reason we are in debt up to our eyeballs, we spend money on everything without caring where the money comes from.
We can debate the merits of this or that subsidy all we want, the net is there are too many of them. Doesn't mean they all have to end, it means we need to spend less on them. Maybe cut them back, maybe end some, but we have to spend less.
That isnt a right wing or left wing idea. The government spends $1.30 for every $1 it takes in.
Republicans keep demonizing green energy while giving hand outs to the oil industry.
America needs green energy jobs here, not in China who is investing 3 times more money in green energy.
A spokesman for Romney's Iowa campaign said last week that Romney “will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits."
This is the kind of dogma that is just wrong. Free enterprise is good, but free enterprise is not always the solution.
If we let "all sources of energy compete on their merits" then nothing will change. Of course wind and solar will lose. But, so will mankind.
Sometimes government needs to help jumpstart new industries. This is not communism or socialism, it is GOOD COMMON SENSE.
Quoting Eric, above.
There's a really good reason for that friend. The oil, coal and natural gas industries are tied into the "old boy" network of politicians. Huge political donations and well-monied industry lobbyists keep it that way. Lots of money up for grabs.
Renewable energy companies are the new kids on the block. And while money is to be made (for the politicians, that is) from this industry as well, the truth is the politicians are so deep in the pockets of coal/gas/oil that they don't want to kill the golden goose. Also, advocates/lobbyists for coal/gas/oil are more organized, and have had more practice milking the system.
Lastly, coal/gas/oil producers perceive (right or wrong) that subsidies for renewable energy will take money from their pockets.
To the latter I say: TOUGH! They need to roll with the times and realize that renewables are here to stay, and should consider diversifying in order to:
A) Stay profitable
B) Make an effort to ensure this planet will still be habitable for their children, their children's children, and so on.
I have to assume that it was fine for oil companies to get these benefits..they still get huge tax write offs....their complaint is from a profit basis....For this country to become energy dependent on no one we have to develope all workable energy sources....big oil has a problem with that..as do many republicans who own lots of stock in big oil..and who also receive big checks from their lobbyist. In other words..big oil does not want any kind of competition from any source...if this nation is not to help put new companies then cut all funds going to any company..big oil or not...stop all lobbying completely..lets really level the playing field.
First off, Big Oil is putting money into solar and wind power. Second off if you read the article wind and solar are receiving more money than Big Oil companies. Third off where do you think they get the material to build these huge wind turbines and to make the solar panels? I will make it easy for you, they dig them up just like everything else.
The question becomes what is best for our country? Why do we constantly use tax dollars to prop up things that do not make sense? A wind farm without the means of transporting the energy is not Green. We also need a place to store the energy for when we need it. Peak wind power is in the spring, fall and at night. All three are at low power consumption. Solar at least has peak energy creation when we have peak demand.
Creating jobs that just take more tax dollars to maintain is not a real job. If the only way they can stay in business is with subsidies than it is not a business, it is a economic drain.
Saying the big oil puts money into solar and wind is like saying Mcdonald's puts money into veggie snacks. Yes the do, but its not their focus.
Yep, Mr. Obama wants to CONTINUE his "Go Green" agenda by providing paybacks to HIS campaign supporters and special interest friends.
Meanwhile, back in the REAL WORLD.....how many Mr. Obama "Go Green" initiatives have FAILED and cost the taxpayers $$$ ? You have a computer, do your research.
Here are SOME to get you started:
Eric
Off course it is not their focus, but they do and have invested in both technologies. Besides it is not true green energy. Green energy would be neutral at every level.
Are you willing to go without power when the wind is not blowing or when the sun is not shinning? Think about how much that would cost?
It clear, If romney, get elected, more tax credits will go to thw rich oil co. and 0 to ault. energy. What he has proclaimed soooo many times, is that breaks for the rich, is all he cares about! I my self run on this system and have done so for over 20,yrs. The ekectric compony, still is trying to draw be back to pay for what I produce for free. Now thay want to but, some of this power from people like me. Problem" thay will not give cash back, but send yoy no bill for electric bill, but bill you for the meter, thay have to put on your system, so thay can obtain this power????. and if you can produce more, thay will pay you,$.05 on the kwh, and charge as much as $.60+ to their customers. And romney is for them to continue. Ha,Ha Do thay think we are fools?
But there will be no negative impact when Obama raises taxes on those making over 250K, and there are a lot more jobs at risk by that maneuver then that of tax breaks for wind energy...only 2% of Americas energy comes from wind.
I wish they'd put more money into nuclear. Gen IV reactors are safe and efficient. They could be the real backbone of our energy grid if we'd invest in them.
We have more coal than the rest of the world.... why don't we have scientist figuring out how to use coal energy?
I'm tired of my tax money subsidizing whatever pet project politician A comes up with. I'm all for government subsidizing research and putting trade barriers in place to level the playing field with foreign companies, but I don't want to spend my taxes supplementing the incomes of specific companies/industries. This is true for green energy, fossil fuel energy, etc.
Subnormal. You make some good points. Lots of good points in here. I think if we would go all out for wind and solar, we can use them during the day when use is the highest, then fall back onto gas, oil, coal, at night. That seems to be the most effective way to do this for now, until the Tec. catches up with storage of the power. We need better ways of transporting the power. Alum. wire and copper is not the best way. Underground with something new we can develop. Think of all the jobs this would create. But we need to do it right here, Not send our idles to Japan or China or India. There Governments will help them take our Idles and make the products. Out government needs to do that and keep those jobs right here. All of this would be very good for America and Americans. But not so good for big oil and Coal.
What do you think happens to the oil that gets dug up? I will make it easy for you. It gets burnt.
What do you think happens to the material used to build the huge wind turbines and solar panels? It stays in the huge turbine or solar panel. Once you have created it, it stays putting out electricity.
Have you ever heard of storage systems?
Excellent post my2cent$
President Obama wants to do to other Industries what he did to the Auto Industry.
Today the government holds GM stock that has devalued $27 Billion and the former GMAC (Now Ally) owes us $15 Billion.
For you Libbies, that is $42 BILLION.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/10/us-autos-bailout-treasury-idUSBRE86913F20120710
Trust me, we can't afford to let Obama "save" any more Industries.
The government needs to get out of the subsidy business, which is a lot of the reason we are in this terrible shape. Politicians have been using our tax dollars for political gains, and putting the success or failure of emerging industries on the backs of taxpayers. Where there is a market there is innovation, and the government should get out of the way.
For the one that thinks we need trade barriers to level the playing field, just remember they work both ways. As soon as the US starts adding tariffs to imports of products so will the countries we are picking on. If you really want to have an impact, just stop buying inferior products from foreign countries. But until both the government and the unions get out of the way, don't expect US manufacturing to expand any time soon.
to subnormal
Subsdies to oil and gas industry in 2010 was $409B
Subsidies to green eneregy industry in 2010 was $66B
You think anything has changed int two years?
My problem with green energy policies and other environmental "protection" measures is that in many cases the goals aren't environmental protection at all but remaking the world according to the wants of socialist and communist eggheads. Some of the goals of those enlightened Statists are as follows: poor folks forced out of single family dwellings in the 'burbs into high rise cubicles in center cities and out of their personal transportation onto mass transit, ending the flight to the suburbs so cities can maintain a robust tax base along with keeping an eye on those "unwashed masses" with video surveillance to implement their Orwellian dream world of ALL Statists (which includes many "conservatives" who may have different ideas about how to and what to do once they get there but also want the government to impose their extremist views on society) .
The CARS (Cash for Clunkers) was technically a success, and was actually the model that all $timula$$ spending should have followed in one important respect, targeted spending with very specific goals. Too bad the idiotic mandate to destroy cars traded in meant that the poor already suffering from the Great Recession got a slap in the face from higher prices for used cars AND salvage parts for existing used cars, inflationary measures that made the program an overall FAILURE by further hurting those most affected by the Great Recession (the working poor, particularly those in suburban areas with limited coverage from local mass transit).
The real problem with many green energy policies is there is NO consideration for the effects that such socialist utopian policies are going to have on those least able to insulate themselves from Govco. stupidity, the working poor and lower middle class (a couple of more years of these policies and there will be no more of the latter).
A current example of the effects of such green geniusry can be seen at your local gas station. No new refineries have been built in the U.S. in over THIRTY YEARS thanks to the opposition of environmental groups, meaning the supply of refined product is at risk any time one of our aging refineries has a breakdown, fire or other setback that causes it to cease production.
Another round of $4 a gallon gas is hitting the West Coast and will have a devastating effect on a region still struggling but unlikely to change their ways, because those who would vote for representatives smart enough to vote to end stupidity like corn based ethanol have ALREADY left and moved to areas that actually welcome new business and don't seek to suck every penny out of the pockets of business owners.
The single biggest failure of "green" energy policies can be witnessed at both the pumps and your local grocer as a result of the idiotic mandates for corn sourced ethanol, an EPIC FAILURE of a biofuel that does NOTHING to increase fuel supplies (it takes as much fuel to manufacture it as it saves a STUNNING example of environmental indifference in the name of going green) or protect the environment but has done plenty to harm the economy.
I support reasonable efforts to protect the environment and will always support limits on toxic emissions, but current AGW agenda measures do little to accomplish EITHER but plenty to harm the world's economy, something I hope is not intentional but simply wrong !!!
In the first half of 2012, Germany got 26% of its energy from renewables ("green"). Hmm... think this might have something to do with their relative success among the European economies?
[For you Libbies, that is $42 BILLION.]
Gee WhiteCollarCriminal...we still haven't heard a peep from you on just how YOU benefitted from the auto bailouts...wonder why...you're an auto "interior designer", right?
Oh I know...you've been working on your "thank you" note to President Obama, right?
Sure you have...
White Collar Auto: Because Americans can never have too may cup holders...
Tax credits for wind generated energy are going to affect the outcome of the election?????.....Bwahahaha! Get real loyal Obama media hacks; in the words of a prominent Democrat, "It's the economy, stupid"!
The same could be said about not allowing the pipeline or shutting down new Gulf drilling permits hehe. This kind of politicking is merely goat feed. Pointless drivel
COinFl
Maybe this is the reason that Spain is in such TERRIBLE ECONOMIS shape.
Beginning next year, Spain will halt new feed-in-tariff (FIT) contracts for renewable energy. Feed-in-tariffs are used to accelerate renewable investment by providing long-term contracts that pay the owners of these projects above-market rates for the electricity produced. Because renewable technologies generally cost more than conventional fossil fuel technologies, the government guarantees that renewable firms get the higher cost for their technologies. Consequently, utilities or consumers or both pay more for electricity. Similar policies have been proposed in the United States.
Spain is changing its position on renewable energy FIT contracts due to fiscal challenges and lower credit ratings. The electricity system deficit due to the higher cost of electricity is over 24 billion Euros and that amount is growing. To put this in context, this is $520 per Spaniard.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/04/09/spain-halts-feed-in-tariffs-for-renewable-energy/
Republican politicians will never back any alternative energy source including wind. The bribes and payments to their secret off shore bank accounts from oil companies and oil lobbyists would stop if they ever put the country first and started supporting new energy sources. The corruption and greed in todays Republican/Tea Party is stunning. Cue the troll attack.
@Subnormal,
Most of Mexico is off the grid. They all have solar and wind along with their dish for satellite so they can watch soccer. They have battery packs that store the energy for night.
Green energy would cut the demand on oil, which is what we need.
All I can think is Republicans are heavily invested by oil companies and need to do their bidding.
Republicans remember oil will last forever we need to do nothing. We need to remove anything to do with clean air. We want to be just like China where you can't see across the street sometimes. You keep talking about getting rid of our dependence on foreign oil. How are you going to do it if you are against everything
Yeah, like ending the oil company subsidies. Let's start there.
Hey Mickey, don't waste too much time trying to get White Collar to confront his hypocrisy. If he works for the auto industry in the United States he should be on his knees worshiping Barack Hussein Obama.
He knows it too,....and it eats at him. Every effin' day. :o) Delicious!!
All I know is that we need to push past dinosaurs like White Collar Auto and cultivate ANY alternative energy methods. I for one would enthusiastically embrace any alternative energy technology that uses ground up Republicans as a fuel source. Just pitch em' all into a giant tree shredder or wood chipper. Just like in that movie "Fargo".
wind energy is just a lot of hot air!!!
[The same could be said about not allowing the pipeline or shutting down new Gulf drilling permits...]
Uh, no it can't...see...Obama did not stop the XL Pipeline They simply started construction it in another spot, and;
"...shutting down new Gulf drilling permits", which was a temporary measure, and permitting has resumed, and only affected about 1% of the wells in the Gulf, while allowing the other wells to continue to produce oil...
While we may be entitled to our own opinions, we are NOT entitled to our own facts...
but LEMME JUST GUESS!!!!
Mittens wil of course keep the billions of dollars we subsidize to big oil, WHILE theyre making record profits and charging us the highest rates since bush!
f u mitt. we know who you owe.
when are republicans gonna get it through their heads that whether you love big oil and make money off gas and coal and offshore drilling or not, that it is a FINITE resource that demand is sooner or later going to overtake supply and worldwide demand wil price it out of everyone but the uber richs reach? or is that the plan all along?
wind and solar energy are FREE after the initial investment is made, which yes, is a lot, but how many more deep water horizons do you want?
fracking? "we PROMISE it will be safe!!!" except you know, how EVERY town they try it in ends up with glycol in the drinking water!
how is this acceptable to even republicans?
god forbid we disagree on politics, but we all HAVE to have clean drinking water!
at SOME POINT profit becomes less important than human life, even to a republican. it just HAS to.
Funny, is how they fail to mention how many of the parts used for the wind turbines are made over-seas. These mills are not only ugly, they waste areas that could be used for others thing. I would much rather see a pump-jack, or a large field of watermelons, :-)
Kornfed: Funny, I don't recall crude oil being classified as renewable or homegrown. Fossil fuels won't last forever, but wind and solar will. Buy the way....the oil was coming from Canada, not the U.S., and would only have produced 1,000 temporary jobs for construction of the pipeline. The republican governors and farmers are the ones who asked for more time for studies, not Obama.
Green energy, airlines, auto industry, banking industry...... if it can't make a profit and sustain on it's own, then it should not be subsidised so that it CAN make a profit because my taxes are high enough from investing in CRAP that don't work !! and the CEO's get MILLIONS !!
You can drum up all the phony garbage that you want about big oil and republicans hating green energy, I really don't care. Big oil couldn't care less about wind power. Electricity and petroleum are different industries.
Don't let the smoke and mirrors fool you. Wind and solar power can supplement existing generation, but they cannot replace reliable baseload generation like coal and nuclear, because they are not reliable. If you have even a basic understanding of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, you'll come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, there are a lot of useful idiots who apparently believe that ideology will overcome laws of physics, if they just believe hard enough.
Wrong. Where'd you hear that? If electric utilities didn't get tax breaks AND charge more money for wind power than coal or nuclear, AND have useful idiots who agree to voluntarily pay more on their power bill to support it, the utilities would not be able to pay the operating costs of the wind and solar farms and they would shut them down. You think that once the wind turbine is up in the air, there's no operating costs? Dream on, pal.
Romney and GOP mantra--- Energy jobs can only be created by fossil fuel industry. In addition, fossil fuels industry NEEDS the 4 billion per year we give them. Thanks GOD/ALLAH/BUDDHA/KRISHNA etc. that we ALREADY have a "level" playing field.
Mittens for a better (only for corporations and the top 1% ofcourse) America!!!!!
Another thing we can thank Reagan for -- Aside from supply-side voodoo economics, he destroyed programs for alternative energy in it's infancy, allowing China a head start.
Romney, who cares how stupid he is, he can't get past GO until we see at least 8 years tax returns!
the laws of physics do not explain what happens when oil and coal run out. do not explain despots and wars because our energy sources happen to be under their soil. do not explain how we survive being slowly poisoned and heated to death.
what youre saying is "its too difficult i dont wanna try so ill just keep on doing this other thing!"
tough.
the demand in china and india alone will soon see to none of us being able to afford it anyhow.
ill take ideology over stubborness any day.
"
JackieK, independent
Kornfed: Funny, I don't recall crude oil being classified as renewable or homegrown. Fossil fuels won't last forever, but wind and solar will. Buy the way....the oil was coming from Canada, not the U.S., and would only have produced 1,000 temporary jobs for construction of the pipeline. The republican governors and farmers are the ones who asked for more time for studies, not Obama"
hey, why look for facts when you ALREADY KNOW YOU HATE OBAMA?
just pile it on.
Ah, gotta love the bumper sticker mentality....
Better bumper sticker:
"Obama is full of HOT AIR "
You do realize that someone using solar panels or a wind turbine that generates more energy then they need get money back from the electric company. Who do you think is doing the most bad mouthing about solar energy and who do you think is putting money in congress's back pocket.
Since I was gone for a couple of hours, we will start over.
The raw materials come from other countries for batteries, the magnetics used for wind turbines, electric cars and solar panels. All of these items are dug out of the ground.
The only real number that I found for big oil was 20 billion dollars, it was not listed as either tax breaks or subsidies. Big oil and gas pay way more than that in taxes here and around the world. If you are going to complain about profit, are you going to give them money when they are running at a loss? At least they can make a profit!
Wind turbines use oil and grease to run, so we still need oil for that. They need to be built, which also takes oil, they need to be transported, which takes oil. It is not free power after they are built, I have worked with wind turbine farms. I have researched how they maintain them. The new ones that have the 300ft masts take a crew of 3 all day to service, that is only one part of the service that they require. There is a different crew that has to clean them. Both of these take power and oil to do. They also kill wild life, birds and bats, which is not good for the enviroment. Some of the upper level wind turbine designs might be good because they avoid those problems since they are so high up in the air. We would be much better served having solar power stations in orbit beaming energy down than using wind or solar power. Geothermal also causes some problems.
What we really need to do is look at the advantages and disadvantages of all forms of energy.
I think that it was Eric who said that in Mexico they charge batteries. We do not live like the people in Mexico. I have looked at a storage system for a house, it takes power at night or solar or what ever and stores it until you use it. This system was over $20,000.00. Not really a feasible method of lowering you energy bills.
The average house has a service rated at 24kw. Do some research and see how much a solar panel system would cost to meet that rating.
There are over 200,000 miles of main power cables in the United states. This number is just for the high voltage main lines, I could not pin down a figure for the total, other than somebody saying it was 70,000,000 million miles, which could be true. We do not have the technology to cheaply put all of these power lines under ground. I did my last house and that cost 2,000.00 for 75ft.
The problem that we have is energy storage and transport. Gas, Oil and natural gas are by far the best way to transport energy. Power lines are lose 6-8% of the energy from the power plant.
here is a link, good reading for you.
http://www04.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/c71c66c1f02e6575c125711f004660e6/64cee3203250d1b7c12572c8003b2b48/$FILE/Energy+efficiency+in+the+power+grid.pdf
Lady Cat,
I would love to talk to somebody who is really generating enough energy to sell back to the power company!
Do you know such a person?
People talk about it all the time, but when I ask them questions they do not seem to want to talk about it.
Republicans love to kick that Solyndra dog. What has China's production of solar panels done to Solyndra's value? And what are the conservative buddy corporations, like Bain Capitol, getting in return to hurt industry's, like Solyndra, that compete in the Global Market? I'm talking about all conservative corporate conglomerates. And some right their in Silicon Valley, California. Deeper thought. What has Big Oil done to make this up and coming industry bow to the King? What has TYCO of California done since Solyndra is competing with their industry of energy?
GOP House member, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, who has proposed a bill to abolish all energy tax breaks. “The Solyndra scandal has demonstrated that taxpayers must no longer be forced to subsidize these industries,” However, he voted in favor of farm subsidies and oil subsidies. In case some jackass wants to argue, farming corn produces ethanol. So what gives? Hypocrite or convenience on Mike Pompeo's part?
subnormal, One of my building does on occasion generate excess energy beyond its own use. The billing is definitely interesting. So what is your question?
Love all the misinformed comments. Most "green jobs" are overseas. Why - Gov. regulations and cost structure has made it cost prohibitive to build equipment here. Then there are those who don't want these wind mills and solar farms in there back yards ( the Kennedy's in Martha's Vineyard, the environmentalists in CA.)
When I got my Solar Panels I made sure they were made here, most people get the cheapest they can find.
Ladycat - Most Utilities do not give you money for power you send back to the grid, they generally give you a credit which is applied against any power you use.
Subnormal - I generate enough depending on the month and/or weather conditions to send energy back to the grid, but as I said above I don't get money just energy credit, applied against my usage. What is good is that I don't give the power co. much money.
The blatant hatred of Republicans that I see whenever any post is slightly political is ridiculous. I don't care for either party,nor am I affiliated with one, but this "I hate you because you are Republican and can't think for myself" posting are retarded. Open your mind & think & learn things, not just what you or the media wants you to hear. I built solar panels and home turbines on my home not to pay other people. I am also invested well into petroleum because it does make good profits & that paid for the natural energy producers on my home. If that now makes me a bad person (to you) because I make money using my brain, sorry, please move to a country in Africa or central America as they could use your superior intellect to prosper.
Byron
This shows the high of a level of misinformation promoted by the left and the industries that build these things.
These don't stay their forever. Every product has a life cycle, a design life. The turbines require maintenance, the turbines will have to be repaired and replaced periodically just like any other man made system. If the parts are not recyclable, they go in a landfill. Those propellers break.
I don't have the life expectancy but I would hope it would be in the 30 - 40 year range, but I suspect they are more like 10 years tops before major overhauls. Naturalists are offended by the windmills .
Payback on solar panels is 7 - 8 years. Paybacks rarely include the interest cost if you borrow the money either, so the actual payback may be over 10 years. But from day one the cell performance begins to degrade. Normal life expectancy is 10 years, and they can remain functionally useful for 18 - 20 years. Then they have to be replaced.
Let's not forget the carnage of the birds in the sky's. Each one of these monsters kill hundred of our feathered friends each year!
Even though solar panels appear harmless their are issue surrounding them also. Enough of them will effect your local climate, including reflecting more heat directly back to the atmosphere and if panels are installed over ground, care has to be insure that the run-off from storms does not cause erosion. Also when fields of these are installed, the water runs off so quickly, less water is absorbed into the earth in your area, causing the water table to get lower. That's okay O.K. I guess because drought is another sign that the climate is getting hotter because of CO2,
Don't read scientific articles or watch scientific shows and believe everything you read in pro-global warming and anti-global warming. They are omitting plenty of facts and ignoring plenty of factors that otherwise disprove their "theories".
BTW: I do support wind and solar power. Like anything else, they have their place provided they are not used to excess and in the end create immediate harm to life and our environment than the long term problems they seek to prevent.
We could easily solve the problem of wind energy. All we have to do is hookup our wind collectors to each and every politician of every party. We would have a plethora of wind.
Why don't all of you oil haters stop driving your cars and we'll see how far you get.
JDMBO3 chimes in with the " Ultimate " Pubh retort . = change your habits or be quiet . Some of us are trying to limit ourselves. The rest of you folks will not help us . THERE IS NO such thing as "clean Coal "
Just the Solyndra Theft alone, would pay these 37000 would be workers $48000 a year, for 3 yrs to stay at home and sit on their orces. Isn't that the American way?
[THERE IS NO such thing as "clean Coal "]
"Clean Coal"...sort of like being "a little pregnant"...
Exactly Mickey .
Wind energy may be suitable for some states as a aternate energy on a temporary basis, but if the "greenies" think that we can just stop the oil, coal, gas industries and switch over, they're living in a vacuum...in n dakota theres a pile of wind farms, but about 20% of the big towers are not evewn working because it costs to much to fix them, so we got 300' bird perches....If the industry would start on the small scale for individual homeowners or small developments and work the bugs out at that level first, then people may start looking seriously at wind energy as a secondary energy form...but making it our sole source...well, lets just say your blowing hot air...
Maybe if they were make a bird crap collection system under those 300' bird perches they could generate enough methane gas to make those turbines turn. Then the greenies could say they invented perpetual energy.
Slodon -- In Germany, much of the solar energy comes from private, individual investment in solar panels put on houses, in yards, etc. It is becoming part of the culture that you are "not really a man" if you don't know how to do this yourself. See, no government subsidy required. It's just a difference between thinking in the short-term, or being willing to invest for a return in the long term. It's just a different way of thinking. Something, I'm sad to say, our country could use more of as in promoting infrastructure investment.
DB Akron -- I haven't noticed any extra runoff from my yard, but then again, my soil is all sand and water soaks right in, no matter how hard the rain. I'm sure it doesn't matter if the rain water is diverted a few feet before going into the ground; its must be getting to the water table just the same.
Lady Cat -- I wish it were so (that I could sell excess energy back to the power grid), but where I live it is not allowed. I don't understand this at all. Why shouldn't I be able to sell a beneficial product that I have produced? Whatever happened to the land of opportunity; the home of the free?
To all others -- I know the return on investment takes a long time. But its not that long if you make your own panels, like I do. It's my hobby. Some people buy expensive bass boats, or collect guns, or just blow money on stupid things. I dream of the day when I will be able to retire comfortably by selling energy "back to the grid". I'd just putz around the back yard, keeping things in check, pulling in the money. We might not need to subsidize solar energy, but we should not discourage it either.
COinFL Power Company: I like the sound of that!
Here is a really simple reason to develop wind energy. The Chinese will do it and if we don't our costs of manufacturing will continue to increase, while theirs goes down. So when we don't develop technolgy we lose, very simple. We lose. Get over it, oil is not an answer.
Lady Cat - you're wrong.
Net metering - your utility company will only credit you back the amount of electricity you used.
They WON'T buy the power from you. You are FORCED to give it to them for nothing.
That's how it works in Montana, at any rate.
Pretty clever system, dontcha think?
If the business can't survive without subsidies, then it is not a viable business. Don't subsidize any of the energy companies. Let oil, coal, nuclear, and green energies operate without subsidies. Remove much of the outrageously onerous environmental restrictions and let them all compete. We all know which of the energy energy companies will survive. Green energy won't be one of them.
Here's a true story, make of it what you will.
My family and I were returning from a trip to california around 1990. We saw lots of wind turbines as we travelled from bakersfield to barstow. We stopped at a cafe to eat and saw some fellows that I thought were probably outdoor workers. I told them that I had seen the windmills, was impressed but wondered why, that about 25% of them, were broke down?
They laughed, and said that the windmills did not earn enough money producing electricity to pay for their repairs.
Damn these politicians in Washington! How dare they use taxpayer money to subsidize the inter-state canal system, the settlement of the frontier, the railroads, the inter-state highway system, leases for foresting and for cattle grazing, right of way grants for coal and iron mining and for oil and gas drilling! How dare the government underwrite the costs of medical and technological research done by not-for-profit institutions and then license commercial development of these new technologies to for profit enterprises! SOCIALISM IS THE SCOURGE OF HUMANITY!
Lady Cat - Meow! The power company does not pay me in cash for my extra power, but they do give me credit towards my next bill. In my state, I still have to pay a minumum of $10 and another $10 to be connected to the grid, but $20 a month is a lot better than $200 to $260 every month.
I keep my AC at a cool 68 degrees and thanks to my solar panels, it cost me only $20 a month.
but still, lets ignore the main issue here. Nobama says tax breaks (credits same thing as a tax break) create/save jobs for the wind industry? what about the production industry? auto? small buisness that clear over 200 thou? how can it be this only works with Nobama's green, and not the rest of buisness?
caught the bag being 2 faced again! lol... if i were Rom.. i would run like the devil with this slip of the agenda.
So on the one hand Obama complains about 'subsidies' for energy companies, and then he turns around and says 'we need subsidies'.
Talk about speaking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
Hmmmmm, seems Mr. Tom Curry, the author, as do most of the Poindexter Liberals, keeps forgetting to explain WHY most of our $535 million isn't likely to be recovered.
Lemme splain it to all you Libbies.
Solyndra liquidated their facility and equipment last year but taxpayers won’t see a dime of that money. The Energy Department decided to subordinate taxpayers to Solyndra’s private investors. These private (read crony) investors recouped $75 million of their investment the taxpayers should have gotten first.
A Treasury official who testified in front of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee last year said they had NEVER before seen taxpayers subordinated to private investors in repaying a government loan. The Energy Department helped refinance Solyndra’s loans that gave priority to private investors.
So we invested $535 million in the company and the most they will recover is less than $75 million. A CBS affiliate in San Francisco reported that Solyndra workers were seen throwing away millions of glass tubes, which could have still been used, into dumpsters. The German manufacturer (interesting we’re buying components from an offshore company, isn’t it?) was owed $8 million. They won’t see a penny of any money either.
Tom Curry also seems to forget how Solyndra’s CEO and CFO promised not to plead the 5th Amendment if they were given an extra week to prepare for the Congressional hearings. A week later, shockingly they pled the 5th Amendment. How excited do you think the White House was, with public interest in this sweetheart loan, for them to decline to answer in public as it may place them in legal jeopardy? Those 27 invocations of the 5th Amendment should make a nice montage for the RNC at some time in this election cycle.
With all this the pathetic Liberals are more concerned with what Mitt Romney did with his money rather than what Barrack Hussein, or anyone in government for that matter, does with their money.
It must be so humiliating knowing they are the reason this embarrassment of a president is trespassing in our White House just because they believed in Hopey Changey.
New industry, and new jobs, are pretty much always created by government investment, either through direct capital or tax subsidies. Think about this. The biggest job creators in the US economy are the personal computer industry, associated software industry and the internet. None of these would have existed without US government investment. Marc Andriessen, the founder of Netscape, which started the WWW revolution has said that internet browsers would not have existed without government backing. He said, "private industry would never have done this."
Government investment needs to be forward thinking, not backward. It makes sense to invest in clean energy. If Reagan hadn't cancelled those investments in the 1980s, the US would lead the world in solar and wind power (and unemployment would probably be around 5%). Instead Reagan and Republicans give away money to the outdated oil industry, which has never had to pay for the damage it's done. Who's providing more of a boost to our economy now? Oil or High Tech?
GREEN ENERGY is a huge misnomer. Every form of energy has it good, bad, and downright ugly points.
To believe everything (or actually anything) that comes out of ANY politicians mouth (regardless of party) is also akin to living with your head buried in the sand. People need to do the research for themselves.
CORN-BASED ETHANOL is a dismal failure. And anyone who is still on that bandwagon is either from the corn-belt or pandering to the voters of a corn producing state. Corn is THIRSTY - it requires far more water to grow and at the rate that the AQUIFERS are being depleted - shudder the consequences. It also requires tons of FERTILIZERS - and where do you suppose that eventually ends up?! Every acre of land planted in corn, is one less acre that is planted in every OTHER field crop. And every bushel of corn that is greedily gobbled up for Ethanol, is one less that goes to feed the masses!! Meanwhile, Americans continue to fill up their gas guzzlers, while patting themselves on the back for being "GREEN". (However, to further add insult to injury, many States are now imposing an ADDITIONAL TAX on electric hybrids because they aren't getting enough REVENUE from these "fuel efficient vehicles." isn't that a kick in the rear)
BigAl Las Vegas
BigAL - hate to burst your bubble, but who do you suppose is one of the biggest opponents of a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts?! (And it ain't the Romney clan.) It's the ole classic case of "not in my backyard", and yes it even applies to the Kennedy's. (As an aside, the CA refinery that went up in flames was originally built in 1902! Regardless of how you feel about oil, that's really scary.)
But back to WIND ENERGY. When the demand for energy is lower, the turbines are turned off. When a windmill is sitting idle, it is still generating maintenance costs and overhead, but it is not producing any profit. In addition as another poster pointed out, most of the monster turbines are NOT home-grown (and you should hope that the ones near you are from Sweden and not China!!)
Another issue for most environmentalists, is the thousands of raptors (including Bald & Golden Eagles, owls, other birds, and bats) which are killed or injured by the blades. When hydro-electric power was first introduced decades ago, it was hailed as the GOLDEN goose of (what we would now call GREEN) energy. We now know that, the DAMS have decimated the salmon industry on the West Coast. So to blindly believe that wind energy (or ANY alternative energy) is totally GREEN just because our politicians "told us so" is sadly uninformed.
Yet, smaller windmills and/or solar panels for INDIVIDUAL homes or even neighborhoods should be strongly considered. (Unfortunately, one such forwarding thinking individual -IIRC in Spokane, WA- found himself sued by his homeowners association for an "unapproved structure"!! Even though his didn't even look like the "traditional windmill".) So if the Government wants to hand out CASH, why not give it out to help HOMEOWNERS directly invest in alternative energy sources?!
Every form of energy has trade-offs. For every action taken by mankind, there are counter-actions. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to better understand the various consequences of each and every ALTERNATIVE, before blindly jumping on the "bandwagons" ...
Swallow post 1:61 The Chinese will develop Wind energy? NEWS FLASH!!! The Chinese are selling us this stuff, the things we make are the towers and some of those are shipped here.
Its true that the Chines are cashing in on US wind power.
Its true that wind power is inefficient, costly, requires millions of acres.
In its present stage of technology it will never be a adequate alternative.
Its a eyesore. millions of acres to generate less then one hydro turbine, there has got to be a better way, wind power is a joke on the American people. I can understand investing in the development of something that will work but those windmills are not the answer, we should not be wasting money on a lame program that can not possibly solve our needs. the answer might be in wind but not by using those hideous windmills, you could cover 1/2 of the US with those things and still not produce enough electricity to meet our power needs. even if you put one on top of every building in NY City and filled Central park it would not be enough to power the city, so why waste money on a program that will never do what its intended to do, lets find a workable system before we invest billions of dollars into it, Obama is investing in lemons. almost as bad as his venture into Solar power. its not cost effective.
Its also not as Eco friendly as people are led to believe.
so what you are saying is... even tho every body knew even before Ronnie was pres, we needed to break from fuel the government is supposed to pay some one to use their brain. you said it your self, as have MANY others, we have gone from initiative (creating our own ideas and making them work) to incentive (some one paying us to get off our asses to do it). i think if Green was a money maker, we would not need incentive, because intiative would as always prevail.
instead some moron presents an idea to government (sales pitch) for money to invest into an idea, to create or make something better. if it pans out as cost effective (we all have yet to see that day), much less work or have some future promise 50 yrs down the road after costing more than actual savings long term would be a miracle of government wise choices, and worthy of an award.
till then i guess we can all squabble as to what the best way for the government to pi$$ our $$ down the drain on crap it really shouldnt be will continue. regaurdless of party affiliation.
America needs to stand on its own 2 feet, and take the crutch out from everyone who has been help up with welfare, SSI, and so on, that never dropped a dime into the system, but seem able to collect.
if there was a law that if one was unable to be productive, and failed to make an attempt to do so, should be taken to a field and left as fertiliser for the next crop. at least then SOME good will come of the mass human waste we seem to bring into the world with no regaurd to what the future may hold, outside of our own concerns. as long as we breed, we need.... and those we breed need more... its a vicious cycle that if continued on its present course, will be our own demise.
fyi... for 528 million, an idiot could put the right people together to design an efficient solar panel.
Eric-913730 "Republicans keep demonizing green energy while giving hand outs to the oil industry."
I think just about everyone supports common sense 'green energy', but not if it costs more than traditional sources. With just enough money for the basics, consumers don't want to pay even more for energy just because it's called 'green'. Why is giving 'subsidies' to one energy company better than giving it to another - they should all 'stand on their own two feet' and let the marketplace pick the winners and losers - not have the government 'game the system' to favor some campaign contributors - like happened with SOLYNDRA.
Also, with regard to those supposed 'handouts' to the oil companies, consider this;
Perhaps you should consider checking the actual facts instead of listening to Obama's rhetoric. Here's a link to an article by MSN Money (yes, that left-wing source) that shows that the top 3 oil companies paid an amazing 43% in taxes on their income (compared with the top regular corporate rate of about 35%) - So where are the so-called 'subsidies'? Their average after-tax income was $27 Billion on $330 Billion in sales, for a profit margin of only 8.1%.
Then compare that with Obama's buddy at Microsoft/Gates, who only paid a tax rate of 15.9% and had an after-tax income of $24 Billion on only $72 Billion of sales, for a profit margin of about 33% - 4 times as high as the oil companies.
So who's REALLY not paying 'their fair share', and who's taking advantage of 'subsidy loopholes'?
Here's the link;
http://money.msn.com/investment-advice/the-12-highest-corporate-tax-bills
Those pesky facts certainly get in the way of a nice 'spin' don't they?
@Roy,
ease up man! you cant point out actual facts in such a huge colum, they freak out and collapse you, or start calling names, lol.... you need to grease them into it, cause they dont like ruff.
The problem is that Obama has increased our debt by more than any president in U.S. history! In fact, in less than 3 ½ years he has increased the debt at double the rate Bush increased debt over his entire 8 year term. Obama is absolutely out of control and has totally refused to follow the recommendations of his own democratic deficit-reduction commission! Think about that for a minute. As a result of his socialist agenda and reckless fiscal policy, Obama ratcheted up America's Debt to GDP ratio at an unthinkable rate placing America in a very similar position to that of the PIGS countries of Portugal, Ireland and Italy.
Anyone with even a scintilla of intellectual acumen need only glimpse at the impact "Obama style socialism" has had in Europe to bear witness to America's future under Obama. On the verge of defaulting on government debts, people are living under crushing austerity measures. Countless jobs have been wiped out; the official unemployment rate is 15-21%. Salaries have been cut to the bone. Pensions and health benefits have been slashed. Tourism industry is a shambles. Tens of thousands of workers have taken to the streets to protest a problem they thought they'd never see in their lifetime! In picturesque plazas, beggars outnumber tourists and protesters outnumber beggars. In front of Parliament, riot police stand watch to protect big spending socialist lawmakers from angry mobs.
It is this kind of chaos that lies in wait should Obama be reelected! Even if clear thinking Americans unseat him, the damage he has done will require an austerity pill and a good dose of Cod liver oil to ease the pain! God help America! Obama has built his house on shifting sand and when the winds of the "most reckless fiscal policy in American history" blow, he and his godless house will surely fall!
Jon-1321288
small buisness, and creative buisness does not need a HAND OUT to make product. these places used to be able to go to the bank, get a loan to exspand, and be held accountable for payments, as well if they were to create new product. NObama changed that by locking down banks. NOT for investing in stocks... but investing in SMALL BUISNESS! this not only plays a part in exspanding, but many other things, EVEN OUR WAGES.
my trade, i see layoffs when construction, and production is down. i am in the steel trade, and huge part of industry. since 2000, we have been making a lot of our steel structures, and machinery with steel from other parts of the world, more than our own. even tho we a leading nation in steel usage, recycle our own, we still use more from over seas. because it is cheaper to obtain than here due to all around inflation. not a lot of people realise as well, in compairison to imports, we dont buy much of our own product. this also, from inflation.
inflation is like some virus you can not kill, unless you kill the host 1st, (the economy), and then left with the task of reviving the host, and getting back into the recovery stage. we as any nation who was eating out of the hands of others, have caught this... virus. it hits every branch of the economy as well. (this virus is actually called greed) being the government is the heart of the economy, it is felt there 1st, and then it starts to drain of the life force, (the taxpayer) spreading as the host (economy) grows weaker.
the limbs of economy, not realising they are sick, and possibly not thinking right because of this virus already having reaching another epicenter the brain causing a type of wasting plaque (defict), that feeds wrong information to the host (economy) thinking this can be over come, if i draw more to keep going from the life force, and eventually will get back to health.
So the host in turn thinking it will be better, if it instead goes back to eating (producing) that by starving it, and just letting it run its course (like we have been for decades if not centuries) decideds it is ok because the host was healthy and robust, it will be again, its just a bug. but because it gets weaker, and doesnt see past the plaque getting thicker, it keeps feeding more and more from the what there is left of the life force, untill it fizzles out. (fizz being an understament looking at Greece)
point is, we all want to make money and be rich some day, or at least comfortable. but we need money to do it just like the next guy. but there is the majority who want it just a little better than the next guy, because they feel they earned it. perhaps that / those people have, and at times i certainly do. sad to say, untill the bottom flops out on a global scale, completely, and we resort back to sticks and stones to trade.... who knows. all i can say is, money eventually will be worthless, and the cons of government will want to go virtual money just to save face for a few more yrs or so.... and economy will be no more.
even if they go RFID, and some other hi-tech, it still comes down to one thing...
you will not get something for nothing unless you steal it. THEN you will see the change we, and all the other "entitlement" nations at eachothers throats for a scrap of bread, because the wont have the knowlege to make their own.
@Eric-913730
Yeah, green energy is such a success in China that they "only" have to build one new coal fired power plant every WEEK to keep up with their demand. Sure sounds like a green energy success story to me. /sarcasm
China spend so much on green energy because they see a huge market full of suckers to dump their products on. Guess who that might be.
@Swallow-2813582
Yeah because investing a ton of money doing it ourselves is much smarter than simply buying it from the Chinese at half the cost. Oh wait.
Well then it is time to cut subsidies to oil companies. They are the last one who need it. They have been sucking cash out of our economy while pocketing records profits for ages.
Bill and Elaine, both of you have valid points and I agree with you. seems like if we spend $1.30 for every $1.00 we take in then we need to cut the oil subsidies - completely and totally. They are not a dependent intentity and we should not be dependent upont them for anything.
The taxpayer ultimately pays the bill, not matter what. If we do not pay subsidies, we will pay more at the gas pump. I just don't believe in subsidizing something that is completely unnecessary, such as wind power, especially when other sources of energy are already developed (natural gas for one) and in plentiful supply. Estimates today say that we have enough natural gas resources to last at least 200 years. During that period of time, more efficient methods of storing wind generated power can be developed.
We need all forms of energy right now. We need to support alternative energy sources. We don't have to pick winners and losers, but we need to invest in the technology.
Elaine, correct.
I mean, even the Romney team says "all energy sources should stand on their merits"
Then why does oil need a $20B injection every year???
Eddo, that is some seriously backward thinking.
You have to plan for the future and that means developing new technologies to break yourself of dependence on the current technology. Oil is a dirty technology that we could definitely do without. It has served us well in the past, but that is where we should leave it. Natural gas is cleaner, but has its own drawbacks. Winds only drawback is the initial cost of putting up the wind turbines, which will operate for decades with no emissions or negative side effects. Actually, it has been proven that the fields that they put them in actually have better crop yields because the blades of the turbine drive nitrogen rich air into the soil.
Iowa Guy,
You are incorrect in that the only cost of a wind turbine is the initial installation. They require constant maintenance both electrically and mechanically.
Drive nitrogen rich soil into the air? I will certianly try to find that information in a search, but that really has to be stretching it.
..
Easy solution for the industry.... STOP ATTACKING everything they do..... get the EPA off them and let them do what they need to get done.....
And why is the federal government SELLING leases? Doesn't that just raise the cost of drilling?
Conservatives will support wind turbines and solar technology just as soon as they can figure out a way to charge for the wind and the sun. In the meantime, to hell with the planet, they won't have to deal with the consequences. They have bitched and moaned about the EPA since it's inception, (maybe the only good thing Nixon ever did). We've heard all the BS arguments before, all lies intended to keep the status quo. You can't have clean air (false), you can have higher mileage vehicles (false), you can't stop acid rain (false), you can't have energy efficient appliances(you get the point), renewable energy won't amount to much, all lies brought to you by the good people from Koch Industries, and the Bush Cheney cartel (thank-you for smoking....I mean burning oil). Wars will not be fought over solar energy, it's here, it's viable without subsidy, yet unlike Germany, who set about with a goal of 20% renewable energy by 2010 (they're at 25%), we will never set meaningful energy policy, because the Republicans (and some Dems) are owned, lock, stock and barrel by the oil industry. Meanwhile they are exploiting their energy monopoly, by manipulating (read gouging) the American public. We are giving our enemies, using our petro-dollars (this constitutes the largest transfer of wealth in human history), the means to attack and control us. Of course with record profits from the oil companies, don't expect that to change anytime soon. If industry were allowed to do whatever they want we'd probably already be dead, the earth would have thrown us off as an annoying virus.
This is the REPUBLICAN baby don't touch the oil company's profits or talk bad about them. The oil companys have the REPUBLICANS in their back pocket
They pay the most in taxes stupid!!!!
"The taxpayer ultimately pays the bill, not matter what. If we do not pay subsidies, we will pay more at the gas pump. I just don't believe in subsidizing something that is completely unnecessary, such as wind power, especially when other sources of energy are already developed (natural gas for one) and in plentiful supply. Estimates today say that we have enough natural gas resources to last at least 200 years. During that period of time, more efficient methods of storing wind generated power can be developed"
but if you say no to developing them now, while you know DARN WELL that they pollute, WHEN?
lemme guess, after you're dead and you dont have to be the one to worry about it right?
therin lies the problem.
kick the can down the road till.... forever.
suffer now, suffer later, but it might be les if you do it now.
the earth is NOT a credit card with interest
"CHARGER12
This is the REPUBLICAN baby don't touch the oil company's profits or talk bad about them. The oil companys have the REPUBLICANS in their back pocket"
be honest.. the democrats too. the first thing we need is a way to eliminate ANY politician getting a red cent from big oil. until that day, make no mistake, not a THING will change.
Green energy is a good thing that our government has turned to S#!T.. Beyond that you have state and local officials looking to cash in jacking up construction costs with useless studies and red tape.. There is a group of investors that has wanted to put a 300 turbine wind farm in Lake Erie off the coast of Cleveland and points east of there along the lake shore.. Every politician has their hand out wanting free electric and who knows what else.. Why have we not seen criminal charges against those involved in Solyndra?? Why the heck did the government offer stimulus money for people buying foreign made cars?? If the Fed is subsidising wind farms why are they being built with foreign made equipment?? And why the heck is Obama attacking Romney on him paying 14% federal tax..That's 2.8 million dollars paid, this Robin Hood thing is a$$inine when we give oil tycoons billions don't you think.. IDIOTS in Washington are just sniffing for pocket money at every turn.. The only way to break this cycle is to impeach and jail all officials that are not working for the public interest and if the next guy does not fall into line impeach and jail him or her as well.................
Solyndra got government money and they still couldn't compete with the Chinese on solar panels. Now we have slapped tariffs on these Chinese solar panels. How much of our total energy needs can affordable green energy meet ?
Pat
You are grossly misinformed about the Koch's. Yes, Koch industry makes money in energy, transportation, but that just part of what they do. They also are a leader in building industrial systems to comply with environmental regulations.
The only reason they are "demonic" is because they support republicans and not democrats.
Subsidies are killing this country....just look at what farmers get, i know one person who gets thousands of dollars in subsidies to raise bees, because they pollinate crops...he's made hundreds of thousands of dollars on moving his bees around the country to pollinate crops....ethanol subsidies, what a joke...our food prices increase, because we're taking our food and making fuel out of it, and using more energy to make it than what it delivers....crazy world...
Too many people are ignoring non-water geothermal.
Hey Eddo dude. If it is a subsidy we all pay for it. If it is charged at the pump then only people who use it have to pay it. Right now I suspect the oil and coal people are working their pencils pretty hard because their threat is going to come as a result of people moving away from oil and coal. Hydropower is solar energy and it is by far the least expensive power producer. (ok, you see sun evaporates sea water then it rains and snows in the mountains and comes down the river as falling water which is run throug a turbine generator and makes power then does it all over again). The Northwest US used to have a corner on hydro but the rest of the country demanded their share so it now goes into the grid. We really do need to sorta pull together on this soon as we are adding so many people to this planet that it is having it's problems handling them.
Roadrunner, hey we have some points of agreement. But as to your fingerpointing: Have you asked your republican representative why he signed an oath to some guy that has no interest in you as a constituent whatsoever? I think it is treasonous to have signed such an oath and flat not even asked me!!! His only oath should be to his constitution and his constituents. I suspect that if people actually have the guts to go against their ideology and fire their congressional reps this Nov we might be able to start some change. We can take the money out of their pockets but it means firing our rep not hoping somebody will fire theirs. Get rid of a bunch this fall.
Obama has no clothes on this issue. He is in bed with ETHANOL, the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on America. Corn belongs in food not in gas tanks, but he bought votes with huge subsidies to mid west farmers. It's called buying votes.
Who got the most $ from BIG OIL in 2008 by a huge %, yes his name is Obama.
Who could have had half of all 18 wheelers on CNG by now, but didn't, which would have created 10's of 1000's of jobs all over this country, right again, Obama.
Obama is a fraud, and you fools buy his bull. Wind is only a small part of the solution, get your rose colored glasses off. Natural gas IS the answer.
actually NObama put a hold on drilling that could have by now, relieved at the pump, all the way to the bedroom. BP was a dem's dream come true. they were able to freeze land assets that were able to bring the cost of oil down, meaning cost at the pump cheaper, transportation for goods would have declined considerably to the point of instead of paying more in the store, due to high gas costs to get product there for you to buy, would have decreased.
simple math if it costs more to send it, you charge more to sell it to cover the cost. in part 1 reson lets say my coffee brand went from $5-$6, is now almost $12 on sale from 4 yrs ago.
That and NObama printing his own cash at hand does nothing to help matters either.
@swallow...
how do you think your goods get to the stores? FUEL. if you pay more for fuel, you pay more to get product to the store, and the store.suppliers cover the difference with the consumer... that would be you, and the rest of us.
People use the term subsidies pretty loosely, go ahead cut those subsidies then you can pay $10.00 a gallon instead of $4.00. oils the only Co's that are paying over 40% of there profits to Obama, compared to 12 to 18% buy other corporations, trust that Uncle Sam is doing quite well on his oil profits. Give Obama 4 more years and he will give you a sore butt.
don't worry about the $1.30 spent on every $1.00 taken in,Obama has printing presses, instead worry about your savings losing $0.33 cents on the dollar every time the presses run. why don't I hear complaints about people having to pay $90.00 for a program to protect their computers from a virus that was created by the same Co that sells you the protection? The problem is most Americans know they are getting screwed but can't figure out who's doing it, its the one pointing his finger at every one else!its the oldest most childish trick in the book, and only a idiot would buy it. the government is diverting your attention from the real problem, dividing us up and manipulating us and that is just plain wrong.
What happened to the program Bush started to develop hydrogen fuel? that and methane is the way to go. hydrogen can be made from salt water, there's no shortage of that the byproduct is oxygen, it burns clean can be used in a internal combustion engine, once its spent it turns back into water, you can make the stuff yourself, there is no reason for us to not be energy efficient, independent and clean, no reason.
@D Buck,
because hydro fuel would be too economical, and ez to produce.
that doesnt mean we cant make our own, so to speak. there is a thing one can make if they have just SOME skills, called a hydrogen booster. the system DOES work, i made a few for myself, just that in winter, it will freeze, and has to be removed unless another additive is added.
you can make one with a simple trip to the hardware store. i dont notice much on short trips, but longer ones you can. i made a cheap low powered one, (low amp) and it cut my usage on the hywy by about 20%-25%. basically a few miles to the gallon. being i had a 4cyl with this unit at the time, when i flipped the switch there was a slight engine increase until the MAP, and TPS made their adjments (2-3 sec on an 84 model), and even a ever so slight increase in power.
there was even a big run a few yrs back, just before NObama was elected as to the fuel saving bennies, and the media went dead on it for some reason. and i know it wasnt because they didnt work. i now for fact they do, the cost to have some one such as the only place in WI to do it for you is costly, but like i said, if you are handy, you can make your own.
@Swallow-2813582
Using that logic ALL power, with the exception of nuclear, is solar power since all of the energy contained in all of the fossil fuels came directly from the sun.
@Eric-913730
Government investing in unproven technology is the same thing as picking winners and losers! Duh!
What about the thousands of jobs the Keystone Pipeline would have created that O would not allow. Just another hypocrite in an empty suit.
What thousands of jobs? More like a few hundred temporary jobs filled mostly by Canadians.
Keystone will create most jobs through spill clean up and environmental remediation.
Oh..those 2 thousand temporary jobs to ship oil that isn't ours to other parts of the world......(rolls eyes).
It has been shown that the Keystone pipeline job claim is false. It will only create jobs in the short term while the pipeline is built and then only a few jobs will be created to maintain it.
I am also with those that are upset that they whole point of the pipeline is to ship the oil overseas. If they were going to keep it here they would build refineries in more the densely populated northern states for easier distribution.
Obama is just shouting off his mouth again. All Romney said was that when the tax credits expire, or before then, the entire situation should be reviewed and rethought.
Obama is saying: "I don't give a s**t whether the credits are good or bad, if Romney wants to review them, then they must be good." The man is proving himself to be an a** and a liar.
Obama blew Solyndra and another solar energy plant to the tune of over $1,000,000,000. Blocked the pipeline depriving many thousands of jobs and a great energy and economic resource for us, but when Romney says that he wants to intelligently look into a policy, Obama freaks.
Maybe if Obama allowed someone, other than himself (he has no expertise) to look into his plans we won't be out a Billion, we would have a pipeline and have employment.
Mr. Obama. since I do not know how to weld I am not going to try to build a skyscraper, nor tell some one else how to do it. I'll get an engineer. Maybe you should follow my lead.
Sorry, had to come back again:
Obama's statements resemble the lies he told the elderly Social Security recipients that Romney would cut their benefits. (referring to the Ryan Plan). It was a total outright lie as the Ryan Plan would not effect anyone presently on Social Security or anyone over the age of 55. NOT BY ONE PENNY. A lie and a scare tactic to some of the most vulnerable.
Now, he is telling the windmill workers that they will be out of their jobs because Romney is going to review the tax credit plan. Another out right lie. Romney's not, and never will shut down windmills. Another scare tactic.
I am 65 and I have never seen so many blatant lies thrown around by a President, except maybe "I never had sex with that woman".
What Ryan says and what would happen are not equal~ Why should he be in control of 2.8 trillion dollars of prepaid retirement for the elderly. None of his business! Get it out of the general fund and keep his hands off it!
Gil, some of us seniors care about the people who will be seniors as well as those who already are. I, personally care if Social Security and Medicare are available to my children and grandchildren too. I even care that it is available for YOU whenever you get older. I would never vote for Medicare vouchers for anyone, even if it doesn't affect me. I would not be alive if I didn't have Medicare and I know many others who due to the economy are not making enough money to pay whatever the vouchers wouldn't cover. You may think that bad policy is fine as long as it doesn't affect you, but some of us don't want bad policy for anyone.
President Barack Obama plans to announce in Cushing, Oklahoma, on Thursday that his administration will expedite the permit for the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline, a source familiar with the president's announcement told CNN
Dumboma is an Idiot...We all know this by now... Nov 2012
"Wheat, Colorado
Keystone will create most jobs through spill clean up and environmental remediation".
the TRUEST statement in the thread. but remember, they dont care. t isnt happening to THEM.. and even if it DOES, it isnt hapening YET, so who cares, there is money to be made... by a few.. at the cost of the rest of us.
thats the republican mantra right?
Yep the pipeline is a joke on us and all it will do is drive local prices higher.. Why the heck doesn't Canada build a refinery or two and ship finished product?? Because it would drive prices down.. It is all about big oil making the price of all petroleum products go up so they can squeeze us even more.. Big Oil has blocked electric car technology at every turn and needs to be slapped with billions in fines for antitrust and monopoly/fraud charges.. The energy industry as a whole has jambed up the roll out of home use green energy products and keep the price of solar and wind just out of the reach of the average home owner.. There are a bunch of patents that will never see the light of day because these corporate monsters have locked the technology away.. Things that would put them out of business and put hundreds of dollars a month back in the pockets of the struggling masses.. This can never be allowed...............
Actually, it will cost jobs in the long term. Less people required to get oil to the coast after it's put into a pipeline. Not to mention, an increase in fuel prices since there wont be a glut of oil in that region anymore.
The only real benefactors are Canada and the global market.
Sounds like you're upset that they didn't just plop it right next to the nations most vital aquifers. Damn any impact studies or the potential contamination of the water source that gives our bread basket life.
Your problem, is that you are a lineal thinker. Someone fills your head with lies and you keep following it like gospel.
Like I said, over time, people will see a loss of employment because of this pipeline. Hell, did you even bother to think of all the small businesses that will suffer as a result of this? Less people needed to get the oil to the coast results in less people helping the economies of the cities and towns that would have had seen more business prior to the pipeline.
Bottom line is, we are allowing another country to pipe oil across our country to the coast to be placed on the global market. Explain to me how being another countries conveyor belt, only to have to deal with the fallout from a pipeline rupture, ever be seen as a good thing?
When you only think short term, you might as well not bother thinking at all.
Says the person that has to call people names to communicate.
Eric
The US portion of the pipeline would generate directly 11,000 Jobs. The Permanent jobs would be between 2000 - 2500 jobs. These numbers are well known because this pipeline is about 4 times longer than the Alaska pipeline.
As for those doubters about us doing the processing. Believe it or not, Canadian regulations to get a project built is several times harder than in the US. They are plenty glad to hand that off to someone else.
Wrong eric, take a trip to n. dakota or eastern montana, theres license plates from every state....when i went to alaska in 74 for the pipeline, they hired 1,475 labor positions in one day, not to mention the carpenters, pipefitters, welders, truck drivers....the keystone is longer and could be a boon to every state it goes through...
NYMike,
You are wrong. First our docks, boat repairs, refineries workers (yes refinery workers since some of the oil would be processed, because some byproducts of oil is wanted), etc. would benefit from this. More ships would be coming to our ports. Also local ports would be able to tax these ships that pick up the oil.
The pipe line would not effect small business, but might effect some rail roads some, but the EPA has done more damage to small business and the rail road then the pipe line would do.
You also need to look up and see all the pipelines are already here in the lower 48 states.
As for wind turbines, they are great if you but whole bunch together. I have seen were they cut a mountain top off (just like coal companies do) and but one on top off it then after three years they have to lock it down because it is to expensive to repair. But that person got their money from the government and the company went bankrupt.
HeartLight3:
The question is not whether, you or I, or most of the American people want Social Security and Medicare. The question is: How are we going to pay for it. I would like to fly to New York, take in a show and have a lobster and caviar dinner. Unfortunately I do not have the money to do so.
Right now, as money comes into Social Security today, it is gone tomorrow. No one questions that it will get worse as the baby boomers continuing retiring and longevity increases. Do you want to further increase the eligibility age? Or would you prefer to increase the tax burden on your children and grandchildren so that they can support you, in a futile attempt to keep a program alive which is destined to go bankrupt before those children and grandchildren are eligible for it?
When Social Security was set up it envisioned a Social Security Trust Fund that would invest funds it collected by way of the FICA tax. The combination of the two were to create a self-perpetuating annuity for the elderly, at little expense to the younger generations. LBJ and the Democrats needed money to fund the "great society", among other things, but were fearful of the unpopular idea of raising taxes. So they didn't raise taxes, they gave us all a break, and instead raided the Social Security Trust Fund of its money, in exchange for non-negotiable bonds (that is like my writing an IOU to myself - I only pay it if I want to pay it). The Social Security obligations had now changed from being paid through the self-sustaining annuity to, in effect, being paid for from the Treasury using taxpayer money as the government it collected it. That is why the maximum income contribution rate has increased steadily over the years.
I trust you can see why it cannot survive. A majority of taxpayers under the age of 55, presently do not expect to get anything out of Social Security. They expect it to to go broke, which it will, and do not see the FICA tax as being a contribution to their retirement (which is true). FICA does nothing for them, it only subsidizes us.
I don't like to go back into ancient history, to place blame for our current problems. But the fact is that the Democrats and LBJ couldn't leave a good thing alone. If they had we would be OK today. But we are not OK today and have to face the fact that change is mandatory unless you want your children and grandchildren to see only what is written in a history book.
I will close with stating, as I have done many times, that anyone who says that the Ryan plan will take one penny away from those presently on Social Security or deny Social Security benefits to those presently 55 or older is a damned outright liar.
Am I endorsing the Ryan Plan, no, I think it has to be seriously considered and other options reviewed. I do not know where anyone other than the President has said it is etched in stone. Has the President suggested any, positive changes to it? Has he even read it? What is the President's plan to save Social Security? I have not heard it, have you?
And finally, I really got a kick out of the Presidents suddenly changing what we have known as FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) for years into the "wage tax" so it would appear that reducing the "wage tax" his gift to the American Taxpayer and not a reduction to Social Security funding.
Enough said!
from the blue collar working class in wisconsin i have been all my life outside of when i was in the military. i found a skilled trade before i was 21 and stuck with it. i work every day i have a job to go to, and when i didnt, i did my best to make money honestly to get by till then.
unlike the present squatter in cheif, both Rom, and Ryan have a proven WORKING RECORD.
they have my vote.
@Eric-913730
Yes Eric, THAT oil. That oil that is going to get shipped to other parts of the world whether we get a piece of the action or not. (rolls eyes)
btw, you do realize Canada is our biggest foreign supplier of the oil we use right?
Hey, how about all the thousands of jobs that Solyndra created for solar panels? Change you can believe in! Yep, changed that half a bil from the taxpayers pockets to several of Obama's backers!
There should be no taxpayers money wasted on these energy scams - if solar cells, wind generators or ethanol can show a profit, then they can grow. Same thing for oil, gas and coal - make it on your own without taxpayers carrying you.
Republicans have to demonize green energy as they are beholden to big oil.
Imagine an America where solar and wind are on every house.
Other than the silly rant on Solyndra, I agree with WychDoctor. If you don't want subsidies for new emerging technologies then there should be no subsidies for the oil industry either.
Eric,
Will you agree that there is a finite amount of taxes?
No I do not want to cut down the trees in my yard so I can have a huge solar panel array and or a big wind turbine on top of my house.
Besides how is that going to work when we are all living in multifamily dwellings?
dont see why you complain about oil getting releif..
oil is to big to fail........sounds like obamas logic with GM..
Subnormal, some of the subsidies could be used for research and development of smaller, more efficient solar panels or wind turbines. I thought that was the idea. New industries are subsidized until they start making profits on their own and then they are discontinued. (The discontinuation process seems to be the part that needs to be improved.)
A little research shows that Solydra applied for the loan in 2005 and was approved for it in 2008. Since the loan went out in 2009 it's all Obama's fault since this was clearly a case of Obama's crony capitalism. He must have Mitt's ability to retroactively go back in time and change things.
Heatlight,
There are several good technologies for solar panels, the best one i saw was for high rise buildings, it would collect the light to the edge of the window where solar panels or receptors would be installed. High rise buildings have a huge solar foot print. That would make sense to me. In a new building that could be built into the cost of construction.
The miss information is what i get frustrated with. People on here make it sound like you put a 3x4 foot solar panel on your house and you are good to go. I would need about 2000 square feet of solar panels to power half my house. I have a 1100 ft foundation rambler. I do not have 2000 square ft on my roof with a southern exposure. Even if i added it to my garage i would not have enough. Plus i am lucky enough to have mature trees on my property.
You want to save power, turn off your lights, I have also put all of my tv's on power strips, which i turn off when not using. just the power strips have cut my energy usage by 25%. Also if you make sure that things that are not used all the time are unplugged you could save another 10-15%.
kENSOLAR,
It was turned down by the Bush administration. Approved under President Obama. Solyndra that is.
Eric, now you have the right idea, make a solar or wind energy available that WORKS for the average household and you will have something. but these mega projects are a bust and only line someones pocket....republicans don't demonize green energy, they just see the pitfalls of trying to switch over when the technology or infrastructure won't handle it....
Eric: @b 4.1
In a blog post last week, Styles noted that during the 20 years in which the renewable energy production tax credit “has been escalating annually with inflation -- from 1.5¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to the present level of 2.2 ¢/kWh -- the cost of wind turbines and (the cost of) their output has fallen significantly.” During that same period, wind energy capacity in the United States grew by 30 times.
So, Styles said, “in effect, we're subsidizing today's relatively mature onshore wind technology by a larger proportion than we did when it was in its infancy. That makes no sense, especially in the current environment.”
Do you have any problem with that? Or, do you not understand it?
They are still putting up wind turbines twenty miles from my home and after they were approved our electric company raised rates.
I dont know why any energy production wich should make money?needs tax payers to help pay for it.
I like NG as long as they monitor and make sure any fracking dosent use chemicals that damage water supplys.
Smaller nuclear plants with modern designs are a good idea.I also would like to see Thorium developed as an energy.
New trucks of any kind should be required to run on NG and have commercial plates.
Green energy about bankrupt Spain,we should learn from theyre mistakes.
@Eric-913730
Yes, imagine an American where we pay twice as much for half the energy. (rolls eyes again)
I am glad that wind power increased. Thats a start!!
start for what?
Moving more of Americas energy needs to renewable energy.
Obama administration wants 20% of all energy needs for this country by 2030 to be generated by wind power. 1% was generated by wind in 2008 and almost 4% in 2012. Offshore wind power has the potential to generate billions of megawatts. I say that's a good start....
The state with the highest concentration of wind energy potential is Michigan.
Ironically, Republicans have lowered renewable energy targets there till they are the nation's lowest (10%). Offshore Great Lakes wind potential could power Chicago and Detroit and Milwaukee, Buffalo.
alex
I wonder why Teddy Kennedy fought so hard to keep that Wind From from being built off the Hyannis Port, Cape Cod?
Do you realize how LARGE a Wind Farm would have to be to generate BILLIONS of MEGAWATTS?? Here is a hint. The LARGEST Wind Farm proposed in the US is 30 SQUARE MILES in area. It will produce a max of 845 KW. Now how many square miles of ocean are you willing to set aside for wind farms to produce "BILLIONS OF MEGAWATTS"? I'll let you do the math.
What a hoot, you people don't have clue about solar or wind power it's so clear. The Amish of northern indiana have been using solar and wind for many years now. And their out their scraping snow off the solar panel so that they'l generate a whole 24 volts for their store of batteries in the basement. And when the wind blows it also create 24 volt. A TV, computer, video games, freeze, refrierator, you name it electric, they eat a lot of 24 volts real quik. That's why the Amish have wood stoves and use very little electricity. I have a number of Amish freinds and i checked all this out last year thinking i wanted panels on my business. Just not worth it right now. Never will be!! Nuclear, coal & gas. The big wind mills over lake michigan kill way to many bird on some of the latest studies done from this last year. You want peta after you? I don't think so!! And please Eric give us details on all the Chinese wind and solar going up over there. My understanding it wasn't turning out as well as was advertised by alternative energy freaks from the US who had them convinced it was the thing to do. Their not as gulible as the Americans. Reality plays a much more important part in Chinese thinking when compared to american newsmedia hype stories.
slodon Where the heck did you get those numbers?? The new turbines like the one at Lincon Electric in Ohio can make 5 megawatts each..
They have been trying to get a 300 turbine farm off the coast of Cleveland for 10 years but the politicians have blocked it at every turn.. This proposed farm would make more power than Perry and Toledo nuclear plants combined at 1/4 the cost and no chance of a Fukashima? event or waste disposal problem.. This would be thousands of jobs making steel and turbine components along with construction jobs.. That is as long as it all was not outsourced to China..............
slodon,
is that peak power or an average?
I am also sure that you mean 845mw watts. The larger wind turbines by themselves are over 1mw.
you are still talking about 600 to 800 wind turbines, that are 300 plus ft tall.
i am sure that it would really be a fun place to be on a windy day.
roadrunner, gopisextinct.
there is for sure no leakage of oil from these windturbines, since they are in the water there is no chance that a boat would hit it or anything.
How about we clean up the power plants we are using right now first? That would have the biggest bang for the buck.
Just think about it twice the power at half the emissions???
I am also sure that the wind turbines in the ocean has nothing to do with whales beaching themselves?
Roadrunner....The upkeep on a wind farm that size would bankrupt the business or state that installed it...and as for huge farms off the coasts of this country, what about the storms that wreak havoc on our power grids now, what about a huirricane slipping up along the gulf coasts, or along atlantic coasts....again the solution is small scale systems that WORK, and use in conjunction with gas, coal, and oil....this mega watt stuff is in the future....
Here in arizona we have the Palo Verde nuclear plant,i read it would take 3 million wind turbines to equal one of its four reactors.
I think small modern easier to build nuclear plants are a good idea.I read where the proposed moon base would have used Thorium,it sounds preety good and needs to be developed for earth.
@Pissedoffperson
You're gald? Sounds more like you're clueless. Or do you actually think paying nearly 90 times as much per KwH produced in subsidies compared to what we spend on Oil is actually a good thing? And if so why?
http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/which-energy-source-receives-the-largest-subsidy/
lololololol Okay Bagger Im clueless!! lololololol
How about outlawing subsidy payments to all? Aren't we entrepreneurs out to run our own businesses and succeed on our own. The taxpayer should not allow Congress to be spending our money any way they want, giving it to friends and lobbyists. It's time to re-evaluate what taxpayer dollars are for. I thought for the last 40 years that we were paying for infrastructure. Yeah right. Time for some real change. To Congress.
You don't get it. We create our businesses all on our own without any hand outs from the federal government. Subsidies are a myth. They don't really exist.
Iowa guy,
no you have it wrong, nobody creates business by themselves, it is the government that allows them to succeed, no hard work involved, no personal capital. Nothing too it.
start it and they will come!!!!!!!!!!
I like how the liberals use the word subsidies when it comes to tax breaks for oil companies. If they are so concerned about those "subsidies", how come they continue to provide funding on useless Green energy. Green energy costs more to create than it produces. Oil driven energy continues to be a cheaper way to go and yet liberals continue to push a failed agenda. Here in Colorado we have 13 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia does alone. Obama is actually the job killer. He has stopped keystone and a host of other oil producing jobs that would generate real income for this Country.
Because anyone with half a brain realizes that we have to break our dependency on oil and sooner rather than later.
If you can't figure out I won't explain it to you. You are obviously in the pocket of big oil anyway.
It is only cheaper when you consider initial costs. When you consider how damaging global warming has been (look at the drought and damaged corn/wheat this year) and will be in the future it is clearly not cheaper.
flabbergasted...
Anthony,
What type of economy do you want?
Let me ask you this, if we have a sudden cooling are you going to support us driving big huge SUVs to warm the planet back up?
Iowa Guy,
Do you know that our proven reserves has increased over the last 10 years? That the shale oil by itself is well over a trillion barrels of oil?
I have heard about running out of oil my whole life. You know what it will not even peak before i die.
My city is so dirty that there are hawks on 1 out of 10 light poles along the freeway. There are wild turkeys living within the city limits. Heck we even had a bald eagle perched on a branch near one of our city lakes. We have foxes and coyotes hanging out. Blue herons, white herons, yep it is so dirty that none of them are here. I also forgot to mention all the deer that are around.
The place to start in clean energy is to clean up the power plants that we are using now. How is it cleaner to replace something or try to replace something that you still need?
We need to balance the cost with replacement. What good is having a zero emission car that nobody can afford? If we take the car that we are using and make it cleaner and affordable sell more of them and get the dirty cars off the road we are way further ahead than what we are doing now.
One car from the 1980 put out as much emissions as 200-500 cars from 2012.
We need to list the largest polluters and work on them one at a time. We do not need to start a whole new industry to be cleaner, that causes a new set of problems.
I haven't seen any comments on passive solar energy. Granted that would not supply all the energy we need (At least not yet.), but it would contribute significantly to our needs, if we would use it to the fullest. When building it into new construction it would be relatively cheap and easy. Retrofiting would cost more, but it would be a one time only expense. BTW, water power has almost gone the way of the horse, yet it also is relatively cheap.
Iowa guy, come on explain it to me, why do we have to break our dependance on oil, coal, gas?...why in the heck do you think it was put there? someday we'll get to solar and wind energy alternative, but we'll never be off of the other three, theres too many areas where solar and wind won't be enough to support people living there....you should get out of iowa once in awhile and see that the world isn't flat....
Coyotehunter, it wasn't "put" there. It took millions of years to create that oil and we can't produce it. So someday we'll have to go to an alternative, what's wrong with doing that now, exactly?
You're probably one of those people who waits until the blizzard hits before you try and go by a shovel and food. When if you just had one ahead of time...
Oh, and Iowa isn't flat, and has some of the best graduation rates in the country. (In 2001, we were #1). You should try pulling your head out of your ass and going there sometime
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo_t2.htm
Lanche,
You need to research the hype a bit closer. Suadi Arabia has 13 times more oil than all US reserves.
There is hype going around that "1.5 trillion barrels of oil exist in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming." But that is just an estimate and little exploration has been done. It is nothing like a proven reserve. With current technology it is debatable that even 10% of this is recoverable. And even more importantly it isn't crude oil, it is oil shale. By using enormous amounts of energy, you can extract something similar to crude oil out of oil shale, but it is nothing like Saudi crude. All "oil" isn't the same thing by any means. But I'm sure you know that. (actaully I very much doubt that)
You obviously read some Republican talking points but didn't research it very well. But just use your head, if there actually was that much recoverable crude oil in Colorado, it would have already been at least half tapped out.
Is there a future in shale oil? Sure if we stay committed to oil we will be forced to try to use it. But keep in mind that if we today replaced all our crude both domestic and imported, with shale oil, we'd be paying about $30/gallon for gasolene. If we were forced to use shale oil for our current demand usage, you'd be considering mounting a wind turbine on the roof of your car!
Shale oil cannot be just pumped out of the ground. It is far more complex to extract the "oil" from shale than even extracting oil from oil sands. They don't pump that out either, they mine it and then have to separate it from the sand. Oil sands are pretty shallow, the shale oil formations are even harder to get too. There is some experimental technology being developed to extract the shale oil from in place in the formation by injecting enormous amounts of heat and chemicals into the rock formations. There's a few ideas that seem to hold some promise, but even at that, the amount recoverable is very low and the process isn't even energy nuetral yet.
In reality, making bio-deisel from seaweed offers far more promise that shale oil. That is not to say that exploring the possibilities of shale oil doesn't make sense, but one needs to realize the physics involved. It is only viable at a very high cost. The oil sands in Canada and the super deep wells in the gulf are really only viable sources as long as the price is high. If crude prices get down to about $80/barrel, these sources are no longer so attractive. If people think we are going to have cheap gas again by tapping into these type sources, they are sadly mistaken.
But investigating and exploring these things even at non-efficient costs does make some sense, just like producing electricity from solar and wind make sense because as technologies improve, costs go down and as the traditional energy sources get higher in price, the economics begin to make sense. The whole idea of renewables is that the reserves never get depleted. So effciencies gained through technological improvement don't get offset by an ever decreasing supply. The easy oil is all but gone. Other sources exist but they aren't easy and they aren't cheap.
Look at natural gas produced by fracking. This has temporarily produced a glut of supply so prices are dropping. Now they want to export it so they can keep the prices high by reducing the available supply! That idea is misguided for so many reasons. But virtually any fossil fuel will follow a similar economic model. Personally, I don't think it is all that smart to gear up for shale oil. We probably ought to dabble in the technology, but leave the reserves mostly untouched so we have something in reserve in the future. The time is now to transition away from fossil fuels, but it simply won't happen on its own using the free market model to drive it. Most of Europe and even the Chinese know this. China is probably spending more on alternative energy than anyone else. It's for the simple reason that they know what the future will bring and they have every intention of continuing to grow their energy consumption. We are already on the verge of being left behind. As long as we continue to be blinded by the hype of the oil and fossil fuel industries we will stay addicted to their products and will pay whatever price they charge. They will always make profit, you can be sure of that. The higher the price, the more attractive the "exotic" non-traditional sources become. The trouble is that when we go after the hard stuff, not only does it cost more but the environemental risks grow dramatically.
Iowa guy and any of the rest of you green Einstiens, here is some info you might ponder: Most of the commercial-scale wind turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3.5 Million installed. Wind turbines have significant economies of scale. Smaller farm or residential scale turbines cost less overall, but are more expensive per kilowatt of energy producing capacity. Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity. That means a 10 kilowatt machine (the size needed to power an average home) might cost $35,000-$50,000 per year. I know I can't afford that utility bill.
I wonder how wind, solor, or electric powered semi truck will fare on a coast to coast run. Can one of these green vehicles tow your boat to the lake or take the family camper to the mountains on the weekend? The majority of Americans want their RVs, SUVs, and ATVs and green energy isn't going to cut it. If all the big city folks that never leave the urban jungle want to drive Smart Cars I'm all for it, but don't force it on the rest of us.
No Apologies,
Well you are using some figures incorrectly. The average household may have a 10kw service but in reality the usage is far less. In 2010, the average household electrical usage was 958 kilowatthours per month. There are on average, 720 hours in a month. That means the average "anytime" usage is about 1.3 kilowatts. In Tennesee, where power is cheap, they have the highest average usage and that is about 1392 kilowatthours/month or and averge of 1.9 kilowatts continuous. Virtually nobody ever trips out their main feeder breaker because they are using that much power. Even on the most peak load situations, most residential homes draw nowhere near that. The contiguous US average rate is about 10 cents/kilowatthour. The average US bill is around $100/month. If you used 10kw on average, your bill would be about $720/month.
Power generation capacity is not designed to everyone's service capacity. It is based on demand data. If one is going to go "off grid", you would need to have the generating capacity to cover your peak demands. In reality, a generator with about 6 kw continuous output with another 2 kw surge capacity, will handle just about any household in the country quite comfortably. You can get by pretty well with less if you use some common sense about your power usage. But we're not talking about everybody going off grid.
Area demand loads can vary pretty widely and it depends too if there are a lot of high demand commercial and industrial customers. For the utility companies, the key is having readily available reserve capacity above the "base load". They do this in several ways, one is having excess generating capacity and another is buying it off the grid from other utility companies. Today, with the now readily available relatively cheap natural gas, having reserve capacity in the form of natural gas turbines is a good way to go. They can be brought on line far quicker than traditional coal fired generation. Gas turbines paired with wind and solar can be a pretty efficient way to go.
The big issue with utility companies is managing that demand. As consumers, we generally don't think much about demand, we just want to turn something on when we want it. We could be far more efficient if we did some simple things. The lower we can make our peak demands, the less capacity that is needed to support us. If you have ever been off grid by choice or having to operate on a back-up generator because of major utility problems, you quickly learn how to do this. Next generation smart appliances can make this demand management even easier when connected to a smart grid.
Most residential customers don't pay based on demand but strictly total usage. Many large industrial user have a demand component to their bills. Often they pay far less for base load kilowatthour usage, but pay a premium for demand load. Some rural electric co-ops have had some of these concepts around for years. An example is that some will supply a free electric water heater provided they are allowed to control it. Usually, during the middle of the day when demands tend to be high, and there is really no good reason to be keeping your water hot when you aren't using it. So the power company can shut it off reducing the total system demand and then turning it back on when system demand drops. With some companies, they only use this feature during the middle of the day so a customer never even notices, even when they use hot water because a few degrees lower temperature is pretty easily compensated for.
The point is that a lot can be pretty easily be done to reduce demand loads. Wind and solar aren't a great fit for total power generation, but can work very well towards supplying base load. There has been talk about applying some demand component to residential customers billing rates. Once everyone understood how it works, they would quickly learn to be more efficient. It also would make small home solar installations more attractive. A 2 kw solar installation won't power your whole house all the time, but because they work best at mid-day, they could greater reduce or even eliminate any utility company generated power usage during peak periods. If you were charged more in peak periods, these would quickly pay for themselves. Additionally, if you had excess capacity being fed back to the grid during peak periods, it would be worth more. For all this to work effectively, a lot of structural changes in billing practices would need to be made but the principles are sound right now.
Wind and solar definitely have a place in the big scheme of things and as the technolgies improve, the intitial cost of investment will drop. You can't analyze it from the standpoint of a stand alone user, but need to see how it all fits in the big picture.
'A REAL debate?" Typical media spin. This is NO "debate." Keep supporting mega-wealthy oil companies, increase global warming, increasae pollution increasw record profits, ruin the air, allow countries with oil reserves to pull us into wars, or to do what they want with their people....
Or, clean air, clean energy, NEW jobs for the future, less dependence on others, cleaner environment, happier people, less FILTH....
Debate?
Sure Louis,
I am for a cleaner planet, the truth is our country even using the evil gas powered cars is way cleaner than when I was growing up.
How is trading one dependency for another going to help? Where do you think most if not all of the material for batteries come from? Where does a lot of our copper come from? If we are going to be truly independent that means that we will have to use our own resources for everything.
We will not have happier people if we do not have jobs for them.
How much cleaner do you want the environment to be? Cars tail pipe emissions are getting close to being cleaner than the air that is taken in.
Louie...like subnormal says, where does the copper and materials come from to build all your wind and solar projects...this isn't lost on the big companies or our government either, why do youn think were hanging onto a thread in afghanistan?...it has huge deposits of untapped materials for building BATTERIES, which we will need in our homes, cars, businesses....you have to look at the big picture, not just one little corner of this world...one thing for certain, we can debate this till our fingers fall off and nothings going to change.....
A tax break for this, and a tax break for that. Since the top 5% pay most of the income taxes in the US, who do you think gets all these tax breaks? Next thing you know, Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary ...
The top 5% have 95% of the money!
Obama State run Media on the Campaign trail.
with all the hot air blowing in congress you'd think someone could convert that in to electricity. That's all they are good for, hot air.
People keep talking about the subsidies for oil and gas like the production tax credit wind energy enjoys is the same thing. A tax credit is a direct reduction of a firm's tax liability--dollar for dollar. I looked at various internet sources to see what tax credits oil and gas get. They get a credit for foreign taxes. The only other credit I found was one that does not apply when oil prices are over $30/bbl. The oil and gas industries have a lot of expenses they can deduct from their revenues--tax breaks as they are commonly called. They get accelerated depreciation on some facilities but then so do the wind and solar developers.
The difference between a tax break and a tax credit is that to get the break one needs ongoing expenses--one has to spend money on services, purchases, fuel and feedstock etc. All these expenses translate to jobs within the companies, their suppliers, and their contractors. The jobs generate income tax revenues. The purchase of services, supplies etc generate corporate income taxes for the federal government and for state and local government in some cases. The monetary transactions generate sales taxes for state and local governments. PTCs do not.
Lastly, the wind generators sucking these taxpayer dollars are not competing with oil and gas. They compete with other generators who do not get PTCs, accelerated depreciation and such. These generators also get some tax deductions but they have to have ongoing expenses to get those--ongoing expenses that create jobs, income taxes, sales taxes etc. That is where the major negative impact of green energy subsidies is felt--a lack of investment in newer, cleaner burning, more efficient fossil fueled generation which also recreates jobs. Only problem is wind and solar require 100% backup from either fossil-fired or nuclear power to prevent power shortages. So, the industry is keeping older, dirtier-burning, less efficient power facilities online as backup for wind and solar.
The tax department needs a restructuring.
It should be a "pay as you go plan" with no deductions.
It is too difficult.
If you spend $1.00, .10 cents is tax.. if you spend $10.00, $1.00 is tax, and so on.
Just 1 tax for all branches.
Corporate and private alike.
Why the Hell should the Government be subsidizing anything with Tax payers money?
If it isn't economically viable on its own it isn't going to be after being subsidized for umpteen years. If it was economically viable private investors would be jumping all over it and wouldn't need government support.
We have been "Investing in Green Energy" since the Oil Embargo in the Mid 80's, almost 30 years now.
If it cant stand on its own by now it never will be able to.
Oil has a hidden cost associated with global warming (just look at the damage to corn and wheat this year)
Just because you yourself do not pay that price, does not make it okay for you to ruin a farmers livelihood.
Anthony,
Really, the only reason we are having a drought is oil?
How about talking about the Issues that actually affect people lives every day?
Gas prices in my area just hit $3.85 a gallon and the price of Gas is going up every day.
david thats cheap..in oregon it is 4.25$
David..,..gas prices are going up due to refineries having to be shut down; refinery in California had a fire, needs to be refurbished. Also, global market speculation is the driving force. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need to rely so much on crude oil so the price wasn't as volatile.
America has an abundance of fossil-fuels, wouldn't it be nice if Obama and the enviro-nazi's allowed more development of these resources, the price of gallon of gas would drop to levels not seen since the Bush Administration and the middle-class and poor would have a little extra cash. Think what the $500 billion that we send to the Middle East every year were to be used in productive activities like upgrading our infrastructure, instead of theirs. Volitility is strictly a result of political games.
Every time someone burps the price of oil goes up(well something like that,any exscuse) Now we have are all built up for a war with iran,what do you think well happen after the first day of battle? It could be a total disaster for our country.Its a bad idea,funny both Obama and Romney seem pro war.Ron Paul is the only adult and veteran on this subject.
I like oil and the life style we get from it,lets use it and push for private industry to come up with alternatives that work.I read the TA and Petro truck stops are putting in NG fuel pumps.I often wonder if we cant just use our own oil and pull out of the world market,OPEC dosent help the USA,well our money goes to other countrys.
Yep we need to keep those tax breaks going because of the jobs that would be lost.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40565987/ns/business-going_green/t/wind-their-backs-powerful-democrats-help-chinese-energy-firm-chase-stimulus-money/#.UCVIT6M2fNk
Agreed, Noah. Why in the world we are buying Chinese material and allowing companies to hire Chinese workers to build US projects on US soil is beyond me. Seems to me that Oblameo has a vested interest in ruining this country's ability to care for itself.
We have companies here in the US that build wind generators and towers IN THIS COUNTRY. My wife and I own stock in 2 of them. Why not give us a break and buy US for this industry as well as many others?
Here's a simple compromise.
If Romney and some Republicans want to end the subsidies to energy companies like the Wind Tax Credit, just also end it for the Oil Industry at the same time.
Wind is a cheap renewable energy source that costs less than putting up an oil rig and will last decades longer.
We need to be investing in renewable, and in this case green, energy before we find ourselves in a crisis and at the mercy of the middle east oil baron nations.
Do I like the idea of our government just giving away money to any industry? No. But if they are going to do it I would hope that they would at least invest in technology for the future instead of the technology of the past.
I have no problem with ending all subsidies and tax breaks.
What I have a problem with is the Government spending billions of dollars of our money and not getting anything in return.
If the Government wants to invest in a company or industry then do it just like the private sector you give them a loan and they have to pay it all back with interest and you get a royalty so the investment keeps on paying.
If your going to go running to the "Bank of Washington" for help to borrow taxpayers money yo damn well better be prepared to pay the taxpayers back and then some.
No more firggin "Solyndras"!
David,
Wind turbines are technology of the past. They have been around since 1992, what have we really gained by it?
Wind energy is not cheap.If it was cheap why wouldn't there be hundreds of thousands if not millions of turbines all over the country?
Coal is our cheapest form of energy and we have next to an unlimited supply of it, yet we let the EPA regulate coal plants out of existence.
If the rest of the world is poluting like crazy, why should we penalize ourself in the form of higher prices?
Come on, guys, think about it. Yes wind has been around since 1992. It has grown every year since then. Yes the price is still higher than other generation methods, but the price drops every year. As oil continues to peak higher each year and global warming (if it really exsists) continues, we will be glad to have alternative energy sources. Unless, of course, you are a bunch of Luddites and think we can just burn wood and use candles to power our air conditioners and run our computers.
Fixed it for you.
Ok, one more time Wind is not cheap and it cluters the landscape.
Most of the commercial-scale wind turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3.5 Million installed. Wind turbines have significant economies of scale. Smaller farm or residential scale turbines cost less overall, but are more expensive per kilowatt of energy producing capacity. Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity. That means a 10 kilowatt machine (the size needed to power an average home) might cost $35,000-$50,000 per year.
The CORRECT green energy solution to go after is carbon-neutral, sulfur-free, portable, locally distributable, and infinitely, globally, scalable, Oil-from-Algae (OFA).
OFA produces non-polluting sulfur-free oil of all types, with little refining.
OFA has 8x the output of the next closest biofuel.
If you add up all the costs and "hidden costs" expended on nuclear construction, maintenance, nuclear mining, nuclear rod storage, oil refining, oil drilling, oil wars, oil pollution, fracking and fracking pollution, coal mining & pollution, health adverse effects from all of those, money spent on ethanol corn subsidies, money wasted on alternative vehicles, wind, solar, etc. etc., OFA WILL turn out to be a true BARGAIN.
OFA turns smokestack CO2 emissions into a COMMODITY, since it needs CO2 infusion to grow the algae.
OFA can put desert wasteland and seawater to optimal use.
An area the size of the state of Maine is estimated to supply ALL U.S. energy needs.
40% of electrical energy is "thrown away" in line-loss.
OFA local generation, in towns or individual houses, will recuperate that, which is ANOTHER cost avoided. In addition, home-generation can remove MANY homes from the grid, avoiding all of that maintenance, unsightly power lines, etc.
A building the size of a two car garage can produce 2.5 barrels of oil per DAY - more than enough for ALL energy needs for a large family.
isn't OPA what greeks yell at weddings and similar celebrations?
I'm for electrical generation from ocean tides and currents. Let gravity do the work. The hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest is a fine example of water at work. In the Plain States, where wind is abundant, use wind. Use solar energy where there is sun. One solution fits all problems isn't the way to go.
If you fly over Iowa, you see the wind farms in conjunction with cropland. You can readily tie aquaculture to tidal current electrical generation, greenhouses to solar power generation. The problem isn't the science, it's the economics of hooking up to the grid. I noticed in these posts the use of coal power. Not one mention of the tonnage of coal which is floated down the Mississippi River... that's water power plus coal power.
There should be a science debate between Obama and Romney, and then the public can determine the merits of their basic education before adopting their economic policies.
These are intentionally diversionary articles to divert your attention from the big picture.
We need a President that all the corrupt politicians despise and abhor... like a Ron Paul. Then, if the American people forcefully remove the existing corrupt oppressive government, we'll have a Statesman in place that could build a government from the bottom up...one more resembling the one our Forefathers had originally intended for us.
That's my solution! Our problem is that too many of us still believe in and support the corrupt 'Washington Establishment' and it's two-party monopoly.
As long as the all mighty dollar continues to be the only vote that matters you will never have politicians who aren't beholden to their donors.
That's right, the guy who's DC career spans back to 1976 isn't part of the Washington Establishment because he's made a career of voting no and not accomplishing one single thing.
That sounds like the kind of guy I want as president.
I love the people here arguing that developing green energy is to expensive or to hard. Yep, anything worth doing is always easy.
That is sarcasm btw. Since you clearly aren't smart enough to figure out it.
Ending a tax break is increasing taxes. Willard, You just phucked Grover
The wackado right wingers don't know if they're for tax cuts or against green energy.
Which lobby are more important to them oil or fiscal conservatives????
Very strange premise by MSNBC. You have the Chu telling people the 500 plus million will not be paid back or very unlikely.
Alternative engery is a great idea and when that process is found, the creators will become part of the 1 percent. Then they will be enemies of the Libs.
T. Boone Pickins, one of the most succesful energy entrapenuers, was a big backer of wind energy several years ago, until he lost a WHOLE bunch of money in this area.
You want to invest in R&D through grants? Fine, maybe. But financially backing these green energy nightmares is ridiculous.
I guess Obama has a big money bundler who either has or wants to start a windmill company
Pickens lost that money becuase the recent glut of natural gas drove the price down from $7-$8 down to $2-$3.
Pickens is now supporting the use of natural gas.
bailing out all of these companys,,solyendra,,,fannie,,,freddie,,ect is now known to be normal...no diffrent than tax breaks..
is the government gonna bail me out if i lose my job?will they pay my mortgage?
am i to big to fail? or is it that kick backs from the big companies is why they get help??/
Maybe if you lost your job you would qualify for unemployment? Yes, they would probably bail you out, at least for awhile.
You seem to forget it was Bush who started the bail outs! You'll need to ask Romney and then you'll get two flip flopped answers the man can't make up his mind.
Obama has sent out 30 times the bailout money as anyone. In fact he was spent more than ALL the Presidents before him...Clear back to Washington. ALL of them put together have not spend as much and he has done all this in less than 4 years......He's Good!
But Obama is spending it much wiser than Bush! lalalalala! And he isn't dependent upon Koch industries to tell him how to run the country! But Romney would be!