HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What if solar got the sam...

Wed May 23, 2012, 07:38 PM

What if solar got the same subsidies as fossil fuels? Well...





Tip of the hat to The Pragmatic Progressive: https://www.facebook.com/PragProgPage

25 replies, 5725 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply What if solar got the same subsidies as fossil fuels? Well... (Original post)
stevedeshazer May 2012 OP
stevedeshazer May 2012 #1
Motown_Johnny May 2012 #22
stevedeshazer May 2012 #25
alittlelark May 2012 #2
Lucky Luciano May 2012 #3
Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #15
fascisthunter May 2012 #4
freshwest May 2012 #9
qb May 2012 #5
TheWraith May 2012 #7
RobertEarl May 2012 #11
TheWraith May 2012 #20
Motown_Johnny May 2012 #23
bvar22 May 2012 #18
TheWraith May 2012 #19
bvar22 May 2012 #21
Rosa Luxemburg May 2012 #6
TheWraith May 2012 #8
cheapdate May 2012 #10
stevedeshazer May 2012 #13
stevedeshazer May 2012 #12
uponit7771 May 2012 #17
Dont call me Shirley May 2012 #14
lsewpershad May 2012 #16
badtoworse May 2012 #24

Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 07:54 PM

1. The next time some Republican nut starts blabbering about Solyndra, toss this grenade back.

I really despise that particular meme. I sent this to my rightie coworker who tries to argue this crap with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Reply #1)

Thu May 24, 2012, 06:03 PM

22. You do know Solyndra was a Bush deal... right?

 


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/


^snip^

Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story

By Stephen Lacey and Climate Guest Blogger on Sep 13, 2011 at 11:10 am
by Stephen Lacey and Richard Caperton

It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.

You’d never know from the media coverage that:

The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.

The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.

The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #22)

Thu May 24, 2012, 07:59 PM

25. I did not know that!

Thanks, Johnny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:10 PM

2. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:11 PM

3. Saw a headline earlier that said Goldman was going to invest $40B in "Clean Energies." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #3)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:54 PM

15. Oh my side, in what clean coal and nuclear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:12 PM

4. It's easy to understand... it's not done due to profits

 

for those invested in fossil fuels. May all investors live in a bubble of smog; they deserve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #4)

Wed May 23, 2012, 09:04 PM

9. If they could charge for every photon of light coming from the Sun, they'd be all for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:30 PM

5. Just imagine if we gave solar the nuclear subsidies too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qb (Reply #5)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:33 PM

7. Solar currently gets more subsidies than nuclear. A lot more. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #7)

Wed May 23, 2012, 09:43 PM

11. If true

 

It is only because they haven't built one nuke plant in the US in thirty years. No reason for a subsidy when there is no growth. Duh~

However, if one nuke plant here does like Fukushima, the subsidy to that nuke plant will be the biggest pile of subsidy, ever. Did i say "if"? I meant when.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #11)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:35 PM

20. Not really.

The complete cost of Fukushima--an event which is basically impossible here due to a conspicuous lack of tsunamis--is still less money than goes into fossil fuels in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #20)

Thu May 24, 2012, 06:09 PM

23. Tsunami are not impossible and earthquakes are fairly common

 


so the idea that a Fukushima like event is "basically impossible here" is naive.


Besides, Three Mile Island already happened and "The China Syndrome" was based on an actual event in/near Detroit.


It can happen here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #7)

Thu May 24, 2012, 03:43 PM

18. The American TaxPayer WILL get stuck for the costs of...

...decommissioning these plants,
and the ongoing problem of What in the Holy Hell will we do with the contaminated WASTE?

I Gare-ON-Tee!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #18)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:32 PM

19. No. Each plant has a reserve fund fully covering its decommissioning, by federal law.

Also, spent fuel rods aren't a problem for Europe because they recycle them. We're simply too cheap to do that since it's less expensive to store them and buy fresh uranium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #19)

Thu May 24, 2012, 05:55 PM

21. I KNOW what the LAW says,

I also KNOW how things work in 21st Century America.
If you believe that "they" won't find a way to weasel out of paying these costs
and abscond with the cash in the decommissioning accounts,
or that Wall Street won't "lose" it somewhere,
or that (SURPRISE) the actual cost of decommissioning turns out to be
MORE than "anyone could have suspected",
I have some swamp land near Fukushima you can buy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:32 PM

6. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Wed May 23, 2012, 08:35 PM

8. This is a LITTLE misleading...

For one thing, it counts only subsidies directed at solar power, and none at wind or hydro, both of which have much stronger deployment in the US, since they're far superior economically to solar power.

It also doesn't note that Germany's use of coal-fired electricity is extensive and growing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #8)

Wed May 23, 2012, 09:35 PM

10. I'm also not entirely comfortable with fudging the facts,

But the general point is essentially valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheapdate (Reply #10)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:18 PM

13. Where da fudge?

I'm glad you agree that my point is valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #8)

Wed May 23, 2012, 10:14 PM

12. I'm quite comfortable taking this line, given what we are up against.

The Republican machine is ginning up a campaign to smear alternative energy. We have to counter it. All are fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #8)

Thu May 24, 2012, 02:54 PM

17. That it doesn't point at other sources is irrelvant, it's not like the oil subsidies

...don't point towards carbon capture either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Thu May 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

14. Please, Mr President, please!

We are sick and tired of and from the small-minded oil billionaires, who think they have the god given right to poison to our environment and bodies and work to keep people enslaved. These "stupid" people, as Eisenhower called them, need to be arrested tried convicted and punished for their crimes against humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Thu May 24, 2012, 02:11 PM

16. Hmmmmmm

Something to think about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevedeshazer (Original post)

Thu May 24, 2012, 07:03 PM

24. How much are the subsidies worth on a unit basis?

 

That is only meaningful way to compare

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread