Got mercury?
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| The Renewable-Energy Scam |
| 2009-06-28 |
| New legislation would force Americans to buy costlier electricity. It’s a tried-and-true way to make money off costly, inferior products: Get the government to force the public to buy them. This is exactly what is happening with renewable electricity. The House and Senate are both considering renewable-electricity “standards.” These standards require that utilities generate or purchase a certain percentage of electricity from renewable-energy sources. Electricity customers, not the utilities, pay for the higher costs and the inferior quality of renewables. On Friday, the House is expected to consider the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also known as Waxman-Markey. This 1,000-page bill contains the House’s version of a renewable-electricity mandate. By 2020, states would be required to generate or purchase 15 percent of their electricity from renewable-energy sources. Governors whose states are unable to meet this standard could petition the federal government to reduce the mandate to 12 percent. ... Another problem with Waxman-Markey is that while wind power, solar, and some biomass are included, hydropower and nuclear power are excluded. Hydropower is a renewable and fairly effective source of electricity — its exclusion makes no sense. The exclusion of nuclear power, while not surprising, shows how disingenuous this push for “renewable” electricity really is. The European Union characterizes nuclear power as a renewable energy source for the purposes of its fuel-source mandates. It's scammerific! |
| Posted by:ed |
| #8 CrazyFool sums it up. It is just another Chicago politician scam to buy loyalty and power to the dems. They will get all the loyalty that money will buy, they will stay in power, and they will be on top.............when the whole thing collapses. And more than that I will not say. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-06-28 13:38 |
| #7 Of course it will still wreck the economy. Route billions of dollars to democrat-friendly people. And have a net cost of millions of jobs and millions of people becoming dependent on the government. Which are the real goals of this legislation. So to Obama, Queen Nancy, Reid, and the others this would be a success. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-06-28 13:00 |
| #6 I have been hearing about renewable energy sources for at least 35 years. Even when subsidized by government as it has been for the entire 35 years it is not once, not even for six months, been used on a scale to be called reliable or efficient. And in the intervening time I kept hearing about how improvements in "technology" will enable renewable energy sources to become "viable." Well, technology has advanced and government subsidies to renewable energy sources has accelerated, and all by itself without government involvement, energy is more efficient, but not from renewable energy sources. Well, now that the green weenies have captured a pliant legislature the resulting politics has determined that By Gawd come hell or $500.00+ a month energy bills, we will have renewable energy, regardless of the ultimate cost, even if it destroys a nation's prosperity. How about E85 fuel, ethanol spiked gas? In Oklahoma you can see two filling stations, one right across the street from the other. One with higher prices with just as many people lining up to fill up, as with the lower priced gas. Why? Because one company, not a government subsidy, has determined, correctly, the non-ethanol gas even at a higher price is a better value and can be marketed more effectively than lower priced ethanol gas, which is heavily subsidized by government. So, let us recap: Renewable energy sources government subsidies to get it into the market? Check. Fail. Multi-tiered, government imposed energy pricing structures? Was tried in the late 70s. Fail. More expensive energy to reduce consumption? Was also tried in the late 70s. Fail. Ethanol, his time heavily underwritten by Washington? Epic fail. This "plan" will fail too. |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-06-28 12:37 |
| #5 Got mercury? |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-06-28 11:26 |
| #4 We have 250 years of coal |
| Posted by: ed 2009-06-28 10:08 |
| #3 Only the Japanese and Russians operate breeder power reactors (1 each?) though the Japanese are serious about breeders. The US and French reactors have been shut down. The US has no need for "renewable" electricity. We have 25 years of coal and several times that in shale, all of it domestic production. Renewables are a method where the politically connected renew their bank accounts by siphoning taxpayer dollars. Too bad the Greens have their head so far up their ass to realize they are enriching Capitalists (with a big C). My only caveat would be to move to nukes for electricity. Use to coal to make liquid fuels in the short and medium term as transportation moves to electricity and get the hell off the Black Tar that is strangling our economy and enriching genocidal enemies. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-06-28 10:07 |
| #2 Renewable-Energy source: breeder reactor? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-06-28 09:22 |
| #1 'Renewable' energy sources are not competitive NOW, but after some combination of increased cost of the fossil fuels and increased efficiency of the renewables they presumably will compete. The problem is the (probably correct) fear that current costs will reach a point where they suddenly and rapidly escalate and availability declines MUCH faster than the renewable infrastructure can be built. Chances are that as a stable (and profitable through subsidy) market for renewables develops the technology will advance. Whether 'now' is the optimal time to boost the transistion is beyond my ability to tell, but clearly the supply of fossil fuel is finite, so such a transition must happen some time. Better to force it 'too soon' than too late - do it while we have the energy sources to do it with, rather than waiting until after we have eaten all the seed corn. Yeah, it'll be corrupt and inefficient, as all political things are (so shoot the crooks.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-06-28 09:19 |