I guess that the government can pick "investments, funds, assignined spending or crony capitalism" better than the private sector and market driven "venture capital". The government has no risk...the market does. What makes you think that venture capitalists are going to toss good money down a hole.

Don't use the tired old talking point that the Chinese are manipulating and subsidizing their industries. Duh! What rock have you been living under? What about the Obama administration subsidizing wind and solar to the tune of $39 billion from the Dept. of Energy. At $5 billion a piece for a nuclear power plant, we could have built almost 8 nuke plants with a zero carbon footprint. They certainly would produce more multiple amounts of clean energy than all solar and windmills combined. You think that's a good use of taxpayers money "subsidizing" those boondoggles. By the way, go back and look at the Clear Air Act of 1984 (the EPA's own & current law without BS regulations) and see if carbon dioxide is on the list of regulated gases. Stop the EPA from dreaming up more onerous regulations that keep moving the bar higher and keep the Power Companies and good paying jobs disappear.

Here's one that will make you think...VP Cheney and Bush issued grants to a much wider range of renewable energy R&D to privately "vetted non-political" industries to let the market decide where the next "affordable" energy will come from. If you are old enough to remember, cheap labor was not the only reason that companies moved their jobs overseas. A "very critical" reason was the lack of cheap energy. Ask yourself, moving dirty foundries to the border towns of Mexico really clean up U.S. air? Ask Texas if air pollution has boundaries. After the government bailed out GM, the new owners (UAW) of GM built an engine plant (with dirty air and foundries) to Mexico at the staggering price of $353 million, not including the loss of jobs. Look up how many "subsidized", by tax credits, windmills that are either inoperable or cannibalized that there are currently in the U.S. (I give you the answer: 14,800). Do you realize that in the Altimont Pass in California (largest wind farm in the U.S.) the wind blows so hard that they have had to stop most of them from running, as many of the windmills have burned completely up, including the blades because the brakes (if you were aware that they had them) on the windmills have failed and the generators have super heated and started uncontrollable fires. If you want cheaper energy and cleaner air than you have on the east coast and _itch about the dirty air, then move, and turnout all of the lights behind you, only if your mommy will let you.

__________________
flymehomenow

1983 300 SD

DAMN I read about that place in the tolken trilogies---Thats BAGEND!

We don't even need a constitution if we use "provide for the general welfare" as the justification.

It's all good.

If Bush did it then it's okay for Obama to do it!

Whats the real truth about "clean Coal"....
















The answer my friend, is blowin in thu wind.

The answer is blowin in the wind.

You guys have short memories.
The trans ~Alaskan pipe line is a good example.
It was tied in red (green actually) tape about environmental problems for some time & then a cold winter & the oil crisis & suddenly all was approved.
A cold backside is a good motivator when it comes to energy policy on your side of the pond.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

^^ The last 5 minutes of "Three Days of the Condor". No clearer truth was ever spoken about our dependancy on petroleum. Including coal, hard and soft. If people shiver in the dark, they won't ask about who owns it or what it does to the environment. The myths will come after the source is secured and fires are in the hearths.

Thing is, we don't have to freeze in the dark for lack of oil or coal. We could be finishing a new nuclear power plant every year in five years. It's pretty sad that the French are less cowardly than our radiophobic little NIMBY's in that respect. Getting rid of fossil fuels is an engineering problem at this point, not new science.

Yes to nukies. Suggest that we need a spectrum of sources, not a single source. Including wind, solar, coal, gas, hydroelectric, etc. Let the market play its game, else we get Solyndra.

Disagree -- Solyndra was unproven (and fragile) technology. Subsidizing conversion to proven forms of non-fossil energy doesn't carry the same level of risk.

If it's proven then it doesn't need subsidizing.

Disagreed -- dirty technologies may be cheaper than even proven clean ones. Subsidies can help reduce the price difference in the short term. As the cleaner technology comes into greater use, it will become cheaper due to economies of scale. Subsidies provide a "push" towards modernization, which then becomes a self-sustaining process.

Interesting coal burner situation........

S.S. Badger starts season; ferry owners ask EPA for five-year extension on coal ash dicharges | MLive.com

Possibly the last of its kind.

__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE

If a product provides what the consumer wants and a price he is willing to pay, it is successful. Doesn't matter whether YOU or I like it or don't like it.

If we want to modify that connection between product and consumer we must have a better product at the same price or the same product at a better price. If we do not do that then we call upon the coercive power of government to aid us in our venture of influencing the market.

What happens? Well, we could ...
1. Give money to a competitor, a subsidy. This holds prices down in the market making the new product available to consumers. Who provides the gov with money to subsidize an industry? For how long?

2. Impose a tax or burdensome regulations on the unwanted industry. This causes a rise in prices which allows the competitor to compete. Who pays the higher prices? Is it a fair burden -- does it hit wealthy and poor proportionately or does it hit the poor harder? If it hits the poor harder, shouldn't we give relief to the poor? Do it for the children. Who pays for that relief?

3. Remove taxes from the favored industry. Who makes up the revenue loss? How?

Nope, let the market run. Regulate reasonably -- nobody wants dirty air and water. Those West Virginia mountains look ridiculous. Stop it.

Nukes would be good--we agree on that.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags