Tilting at Wind Turbines: Should the Government Subsidize Renewable Energy?
Switching from conventional sources of electricity like coal and natural gas to renewables like wind and solar, our elected leaders tell us, will reduce pollution, advance renewable technology and spark a green jobs revolution. Is renewable energy really a green pathway to a brighter economic future? Or is it nothing more than a heavily subsidized impossible dream? To learn more, we spoke with Cal State Fullerton economist Robert Michaels and Mark Tholke, an executive at enXco. Approximately 6.5 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning. Go to reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.
New better, safer, cheaper, more efficient designs of Nuclear Reactors collect dust for almost 50 years because of government regulations. For example Lithium Fluoride (molten salt) Thorium Reactor concept.
It was designed by the father of todays reactors (water cooled fast breeders) as much safer and more efficient variant. It was discarded initially because it can’t be used to produce A bombs material.
Smaller, safer, cheaper fuel, much more efficient and it was tested on prototype level.
Hi, I am C.J. Mella and I was looking for green products info and I found your group. As an expert, I want to know if you recommended this product that a friend sends me wwwideasforbetterebookscom/green-products/ for someone like me who like it. Thank you!
I only go for what is best for the public.
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal “Remote Sensing” has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
Tax credits and subsidies are basically the same, the problem with subsidies is who gets them and why. There is a lot of difference between giving a subsidy for a taxpayer to improve their home and help create a sustainable self productive residential environment and subsidizing say a wind farm for a commercial energy plant, who will then turn around and charge the very taxpayers (essentially for life) for the power produced.
All commercial energy projects should be self financed.
@hyaenidae: “Laughably pedantic. What a joke.”
Hmmm, apparently you found that mirror.
@hyaenidae: “What escapes you is that the two are forever intertwined as emergent properties of complex societies.”
Spoken like a true anti-capitalist who knows not the first thing about, ahem, capitalism. Once again, do make some attempt to keep up with the adults?
A hypocritical argument for one who likes to rail on the demerits of ideology. What escapes you is that the two are forever intertwined as emergent properties of complex societies. Viewing them as distinct meant you’ll always yearn for “if the government would only …”, or “if the market could only…”; a neatly ordered scenario that doesn’t exist. They’re forever linked as dual properties of our individual and collective will.
Got substance?
Laughably pedantic. What a joke. And here I thought you’d be a worthy adversary. Nevermind.
@hyaenidae: “Where am I being hypocritical?”
Where aren’t you might be the better question. Succinctly, please find some semblance of a mind before continuing. Thanks so much.
@hyaenidae: “Show me.”
Got a mirror?
Show me.
“insistence upon substance that isn’t there is itself fallacious.” More gibberish.
Since “hypocrisy seems my style,” point out this stylistic flair of mine. Where am I being hypocritical? Or, is this just more of the same from you?
@hyaenidae: “So now you admit you’re using fallacy. You put yourself out here as some kind of philosophical boxer, and all I see are featherweight techniques.”
You’re funny Bumpkins (like a lizard doing push-ups), yet insistence upon substance that isn’t there is itself fallacious. (But then, hypocrisy seems your style.) Do try and keep up with adults? Thanks so much. Mmmm-K, thanks, bye.
@hyaenidae: “I mis-spoke.”
…And often too.
Yes, but what additional costs (“externalities”) might we be paying in health care for respiratory illnesses near coal-fired plants, or in the effects from mercury from coal byproducts in our food chain? And what of the externalities from the mining like cleanup from toxic tailings? Not to mention the ecological effects from some types of mining like mountaintop removal in parts of PA and WV?
So now you admit you’re using fallacy. I don’t care about your petty insults, it’s your style that’s boring. You put yourself out here as some kind of philosophical boxer, and all I see are featherweight techniques. I’ve yet to see a substantive rebuttal. And when I call you on your weak argumentative techniques, the best you’ve got is “grow some skin” ? Yawn.
I mis-spoke. It’s not exactly that we see what we want to see, but that we tend to see what we believe to be true.
Don’t take my word for it, there are numerous studies that support this: Kelly 1950; Pronin, Lin and Ross 2002. Pronin, Gilovich and Ross 2004.
@hyaenidae: “Implying that I’m some vagrant without the qualifications to make such judgments: ad hominem.”
Well, if the shoe fits… Hello Cinderella! Other than that you might want to grow some skin, and resist reading what you evidently want to see. (Phantoms don’t lurk around every corner, irrespective your delusions.)
Guess again, I never stated (NOT EVEN REMOTELY) that capitalism has failed. Because, ahem, capitalism hasn’t failed albeit the system of governance has; two distinct issues that clearly escape you.
@hyaenidae: “I’m being literal.”
Ok, if you say so.
But you’re using metaphor. I’m being literal. Studies have shown this (don’t have citations here, but google it). In fact, I would argue that it’s this very real psychological phenomenon which augments our having our metaphorical “eyes closed.”
“I never stated capitalism failed, not even remotely.” But you have. You’ve said we’re a capitalist society, where an unfettered market increases efficiency and prosperity. And, you agreed that we’re enduring a global financial crisis and global food shortage. All this after 40 years of increasing corporate de-regulation. So, you said we’re capitalist, and agreed those failures happened. As such you’ve more-than-remotely said capitalist system has had failures.
Take your own advice and learn the definition of ad hominem fallacy, like when you said “I always find it amusing when street bum lectures millionaire,” and “such requires the grasp of a flea.” Implying that I’m some vagrant without the qualifications to make such judgments: ad hominem. Stating that I don’t have the mental capacity to grasp the concepts in question: ad hominem. Your logic prowess: fail.
So far you spout useless platitudes with little real argument.