Solar Subsidy Mayhem!

I wonder why you don't think it's a viable tech.. Have you studied what a concentrated solar array can do? NASA seems to think they work just dandy. Maybe the key lies more in engineering efficient electronic devices, I don't know.

But AE isn't just solar and wind. I like the tidal and algea stuff being born.

Anyway, it is clear as day that we can't continue to burden our children and grandchildren with the system we have grown up with. And when one day you have children and grandkids,there 'll come a time when you may be willing to sacrifice a greater share .

If you believe you will be wiser in your old age, you may think like me., in that I'll take a hit now because all the crap that happened on my watch.Last post, sorry. gopher.

of @ Jul 02, 2008 23:04:13 PM

Actually, I don't mind my opinion being checked. I don't admit I have the answers (after all if I did, I wouldn't be making $35K a year). What I am saying that why should solar get a subsidy if it has not proven itself as a viable technology? All we the taxpayer would be doing is throwing money into a blackhole that benefits the solar industry, without putting out anything in return. That's not smart policy, not smart economics, not smart sense.

Besides, why should solar be favored over other forms of alternative energy?

Chris of AZ @ Jul 02, 2008 22:05:41 PM

Look.Christ, I'm merely saying that things are cyclical. And that subsidies for AE have a place as things are. To prevent a catistrophic mess.

Our country was based on a check and balance system for the very reason that people who allow only one opinion shouldn't have the only say. There is always room to listen.

Nothing scares me more than a person who thinks his opinion should go unchecked. gopher

of @ Jul 02, 2008 19:46:48 PM

That was me.gopher.

of PA @ Jul 02, 2008 19:12:36 PM

Well, whoever you are, you obviously don't know how to read.

Oil DOESN'T need subsidies. So do away with them. If solar were a viable alternative, then it wouldn't need subsidies for R&D. Oil innovates without them. If you hear an oil exec telling you that they are needed, they are only lobbying Congress to give them taxpayer largesse. They don't need.

Unfortunately, as far as your argument about alternatives looking good at the moment, you are far from the truth. Even at today's prices, as a form of energy, oil is still more efficient and cheaper than any alternative fuel can be. And guess what happens when you are no longer able to afford oil? You cut back on R&D budgets because you can't raise the capital to even do the most basic things (such as driving to work, operating machinery, powering buildings, etc.).

Farmers were always selling to other farmers. What does the finance industry have to do with this, other than providing the financing for the deals?

My idea that big business straightens out everything is far more sound than your idea that government can solve everything. Tell me, what was the last thing that government has run successfully, other than the military, which now appears they weren't even doing that as efficiently as they could? By the way, the largest employer in this country is the private sector, not the public sector, so big business has produced more benefits, tangible and intangible, than government can ever produce.

Chris of AZ @ Jul 02, 2008 18:42:46 PM

Well Chris, I guess we agree. Let's bash the solar industry for wanting the same treatment as big oil.They both use the same reason: R&D.

Point may be moot soon anyway, as oil goes up...solar,wind,etc. closes as a cheaper alternative. A few solars will break through next year.

By the way, those farmers were selling not to other farmers, but to developers until it was dicovered that the finance industry was NOT regulated.

Your idea that big business straightens everything out seems handed down. It's a cyclical idea that is in a downturn in the last years. Needs correction.Witness Haliburton and Blackwater, Oil and Finance.

of @ Jul 02, 2008 17:36:19 PM

"Would that hold true for farmers, railroads, and big oil?"

Absolutely. Oil can definitely make it on its own without subsidies ($18 billion in subsidies compared to $100 billion in total profits. You be the judge). Farmers who aren't fed from the trough and can't compete will have to fold or sell to farmers that can (which, even with subsidies, happens and does so). The railroad was gutted by the federal government with massive regulation and bureaucracies that the only thing that railroad can do now is transport goods across the country and run as a failed government entity (Amtrak). Which, by the way, would definitely be out of business if the government did not give them subsidies.

Dave, read Michael Barone's piece on the function of lobbyists in this country. Let's remember something: it's absolutely legal for lobbyists to petition government on behalf of their clients and if government did not create so many regulations restricting business in this country there wouldn't be a need for companies to spend money on lobbyists to spare them from said regulations.

Chris of AZ @ Jul 02, 2008 15:10:32 PM

Most America are unaware of the process

Farmers, railroads, and big oil hire lobbyist to "fuel" politician. Then politicians create bills, which in-turn direct funds to subsidize their industries. It really quite simple, but, the spin to make Americans believe it's a good thing is quite complicated. It's a good thing our news organization tell us the truth....right???

Dave L. of CA @ Jul 01, 2008 19:33:46 PM