brenthutch

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/19/ticker-boulevard-environmentalists-against-solar/# https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article222260280.html https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html Yep

Just how do you think the Greenies want to reduce our energy usage??? By MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE. When you make production and distribution more difficult (placing federal lands off limits, banning fracking, stopping pipelines, and placing burdensome regulation) you cause prices to rise and demand to drop. No backpedal, just clarification on a point that should be obvious. BTW that is not just for fossil fuels, the Greenies are against nuclear, large scale solar, hydro, wind, and the transmission lines required to get electricity from the areas of production to where it is used. Bill you should know this living in SoCal.

Wendy, I have no narrative, unless one considers reality a narrative. We both agree that market based solutions are best. You should do your homework before invoking the evils of DDT. Your last comment was unnecessary. It contributes nothing of value. Have a great weekend!

The way one reduces usage/demand of something is to increase the price. You are making a distinction without a difference.

I’m pretty sure you won’t have to look far to find more Greenies who think we need to reduce our energy usage.

Does reduce, reuse, recycle ring a bell? I just got done reading an article where an environmentalist was lamenting about how the abundant, cheap, geothermal and hydro power in Iceland led to its conspicuous consumption. He concluded ALL energy must be expensive, which would reduce its use and improve sustainability. So yes the author’s point is valid

Did you even read it? I guess if FOX said two plus two equals four, you would deny it. You need to get beyond the ad hominem and focus on the content. You might even learn something.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/27/we-shouldnt-be-surprised-renewables-make-energy-expensive-since-thats-always-been-the-greens-goal/

Yes, you are correct, renewables only make sense in an environment where all other forms of energy are skyrocketing. We are in full agreement. With regard to military spending; were there fewer deaths before Pax Americana? (Eagerly awaiting a response to that one)

The Japanese are https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/700877189/japan-is-betting-big-on-the-future-of-hydrogen-cars

In State College our public transportation runs on it. No soot. Just water vapor and plant food out of the exhaust pipe.

Good thing I was talking about the cheaper fossil fuel....natural gas!

I’m ok with universities getting grants to conduct basic research. Some day, many decades from now, the supply of fossil fuels will begin to tighten and prices will rise. We then can transition to whatever state-of-the-art, energy supply makes sense. The premature adaptation of renewables has resulted in skyrocketing energy prices wherever it has been widely implemented. Diverting taxpayer money from roads and schools into the pockets Elon Musk and company in the name of “saving the planet” is just bad policy, in my opinion.

And as soon as they do I will be all in! (It’s called economics)

It’s $185 right now

I’m just pointing out that Musk is not the infallible visionary that many folks thought him to be. No dis on him, just his lemmings.

Shelley? We had to read her in high school.

https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-says-hyperloop-tunnel-is-now-just-a-normal-1835024474

The world will keep changing as we all age.

No, I would argue Tesla is not viable...which was my original point.

No, I am just stating the simple truth that, on a whole, oil and gas contribute to the tax base while renewables are a drain. If you have facts to the contrary I would be glad to hear them. BTW who said anything about coal?

My original point was that Tesla was a flash in the pan, that would likely not be around in five years. Apparently, you would argue, if Tesla is sold off or is reorganized into a company that makes soap or tampons, it is still Tesla and you would claim victory. Now THAT is pedantic

Renewables are a tax drain while oil and gas contribute billions to the coffers of state, local and federal government. BTW there is a BIG difference between letting companies and share holders keep a bit more of THEIR money and reducing the kickbacks of taxpayer dollars going to wind and solar companies

When you got into solar, it was your personal choice for something you wanted. It is no different than me spending $$$ on a coral reef tank system. Your money, your choice. Then, as you point out “prices started to come down,” you then go on to make an economic argument for solar. You mentioned the trade war as a reason for the recent increase in the price of solar. You overlooked the other reason, the federal tax credit is disappearing. I am sure that in the People’s Republic of California, where solar power is mandated, demand (artificial) will continue to grow. We shall see what happens in the rest of the country when governmental market distortions are removed. As we are witnessing with Tesla, it won’t be pretty.