Discussion:
Green power, not fossil fuels, would collapse without subsidies
Add Reply
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 19:18:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If left up to Adam Smith's invisible hand, derelict wind and solar farms
would litter the landscape.

For every buck coal and nuke gets in subsidy, wind gets five bucks and
solar twenty bucks.

Stop all subsidies and let the market sort it out. If that ever
happened, greenies would have to admit they lied their gobs off.

Musk can't even sell a Tesla without massive govt aid.

***

For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even
include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable
energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of
their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other
industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?

http://www.gopusa.com/its-green-power-not-fossil-fuels-that-would-collapse-without-subsidies/
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-08 22:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
If left up to Adam Smith's invisible hand, derelict wind and solar farms
would litter the landscape.
For every buck coal and nuke gets in subsidy, wind gets five bucks and
solar twenty bucks.
Stop all subsidies and let the market sort it out. If that ever
happened, greenies would have to admit they lied their gobs off.
Musk can't even sell a Tesla without massive govt aid.
***
For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even
include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable
energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of
their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other
industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?
http://www.gopusa.com/its-green-power-not-fossil-fuels-that-would-collapse-without-subsidies/
How much did putin subsidize the nuclear industry?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 23:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
If left up to Adam Smith's invisible hand, derelict wind and solar farms
would litter the landscape.
For every buck coal and nuke gets in subsidy, wind gets five bucks and
solar twenty bucks.
Stop all subsidies and let the market sort it out. If that ever
happened, greenies would have to admit they lied their gobs off.
Musk can't even sell a Tesla without massive govt aid.
***
For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even
include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable
energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of
their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other
industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?
http://www.gopusa.com/its-green-power-not-fossil-fuels-that-would-collapse-without-subsidies/
How much did putin subsidize the nuclear industry?
That's relevant because... <insert kook-babble here>
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-08 23:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
If left up to Adam Smith's invisible hand, derelict wind and solar farms
would litter the landscape.
For every buck coal and nuke gets in subsidy, wind gets five bucks and
solar twenty bucks.
Stop all subsidies and let the market sort it out. If that ever
happened, greenies would have to admit they lied their gobs off.
Musk can't even sell a Tesla without massive govt aid.
***
For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even
include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable
energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of
their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other
industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?
http://www.gopusa.com/its-green-power-not-fossil-fuels-that-would-collapse-without-subsidies/
How much did putin subsidize the nuclear industry?
That's relevant because...
Do ya think that HUGE $ number is part of your so called comparison? (insert running troll chompers trying to hide from the facts)

And remember, the program that converted old nuclear missiles into power plant fuel?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 23:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
If left up to Adam Smith's invisible hand, derelict wind and solar farms
would litter the landscape.
For every buck coal and nuke gets in subsidy, wind gets five bucks and
solar twenty bucks.
Stop all subsidies and let the market sort it out. If that ever
happened, greenies would have to admit they lied their gobs off.
Musk can't even sell a Tesla without massive govt aid.
***
For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even
include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable
energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of
their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other
industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?
http://www.gopusa.com/its-green-power-not-fossil-fuels-that-would-collapse-without-subsidies/
How much did putin subsidize the nuclear industry?
That's relevant because...
Do ya think that HUGE $ number is part of your so called comparison? (insert running troll chompers trying to hide from the facts)
Russia has what to do with energy subsidies in Merka?

<insert kook-babble here>
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
And remember, the program that converted old nuclear missiles into power plant fuel?
What about it?

<insert kook-babble here>
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-08 23:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
If left up to Adam Smith's invisible hand, derelict wind and solar farms
would litter the landscape.
For every buck coal and nuke gets in subsidy, wind gets five bucks and
solar twenty bucks.
Stop all subsidies and let the market sort it out. If that ever
happened, greenies would have to admit they lied their gobs off.
Musk can't even sell a Tesla without massive govt aid.
***
For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even
include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable
energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of
their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other
industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?
http://www.gopusa.com/its-green-power-not-fossil-fuels-that-would-collapse-without-subsidies/
How much did putin subsidize the nuclear industry?
That's relevant because...
Do ya think that HUGE $ number is part of your so called comparison? (insert running troll chompers trying to hide from the facts)
Russia has what to do with energy subsidies in Merka?
Without subsidies nuclear would be dead
Post by Chom Noamsky
<insert kook-babble here>
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
And remember, the program that converted old nuclear missiles into power plant fuel?
What about it?
Subsidized fuel
Post by Chom Noamsky
<insert kook-babble here>
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 23:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Russia has what to do with energy subsidies in Merka?
Without subsidies nuclear would be dead
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
And remember, the program that converted old nuclear missiles into power plant fuel?
What about it?
Subsidized fuel
"For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20."
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-08 23:42:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Russia has what to do with energy subsidies in Merka?
Without subsidies nuclear would be dead
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
And remember, the program that converted old nuclear missiles into power plant fuel?
What about it?
Subsidized fuel
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Post by Chom Noamsky
"For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20."
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 00:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.

But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.

Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-09 00:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 02:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Is there something about the following that confuses you?

"For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20."
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-09 02:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Is there something about the following that confuses you?
Setting aside your bullshit description of what was "coincidental" it amazes me that fake budget hawks like you dont like to consider the massive subsidies already embedded in the fuel sources you prefer.
Post by Chom Noamsky
"For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets
almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20."
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 02:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Is there something about the following that confuses you?
Setting aside your bullshit description of what was "coincidental" it amazes me that fake budget hawks like you dont like to consider the massive subsidies already embedded in the fuel sources you prefer.
If someone throws their garbage in a bin, and it ends up powering a
thermal generation plant in Sweden, they are subsidizing Sweden's
garbage power industry?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-09 02:42:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Is there something about the following that confuses you?
Setting aside your bullshit description of what was "coincidental" it amazes me that fake budget hawks like you dont like to consider the massive subsidies already embedded in the fuel sources you prefer.
If someone throws their garbage in a bin
Not really a valid analogy as the russians desperately needed the money it was a win win because the U.S. totally benefited with basement bargain prices for fuel and we followed up on the old phrase "trust but verify". Both countries spent a huge amount of money arming those missiles to call it garbage is a dumb ass statement on your part.

But it does show how desperate you.
Post by Chom Noamsky
and it ends up powering a
thermal generation plant in Sweden, they are subsidizing Sweden's
garbage power industry?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 03:25:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Is there something about the following that confuses you?
Setting aside your bullshit description of what was "coincidental" it amazes me that fake budget hawks like you dont like to consider the massive subsidies already embedded in the fuel sources you prefer.
If someone throws their garbage in a bin
Not really a valid analogy
Totally valid analogy.

Sweden is taking advantage of unwanted material to generate power, just
like Merka took advantage of unwanted material to generate power.

Exploiting unwanted material for fuel can never be considered a subsidy,
just an incidental benefit.

as the russians desperately needed the money it was a win win because
the U.S. totally benefited with basement bargain prices for fuel and we
followed up on the old phrase "trust but verify". Both countries spent
a huge amount of money arming those missiles to call it garbage is a
dumb ass statement on your part.

Except I didn't call surplus nuclear material garbage, kook.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-11-09 03:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Megatons to megawatts was a total subsidy, dont get me wrong getting warheads out of circulation is a good thing (we are stuck with the shit as it was already made so why not use it for energy).
Megatons to Megawatts was an agreement to purchase low-enriched uranium
fuel from Russia, which was converted from warhead material. The key
word in that phrase was "purchase". Russia recovered some of its
investment in weapons-grade material and the U.S. got a cheap supply of
fuel.
But the point that escapes your kook-noggin is the fact that even if the
U.S. industry benefited from cheap Russian fuel, it was purely
coincidental and not intended as an economic prop.
You are kidding right, at the time it was a huge boost to both sides russia needed the money BADLY and the u.s. benefited because we paid bottom dollar for it (hint subsidized by the arms race)
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden generates power from burning garbage, so according to your
kook-logic, people supplying the garbage are subsidizing the
garbage-power industry.
So you are saying the nuclear arms race is a pile of shit, cool, but that dont change the fact the nuclear industry was subsidized by the megatons to megawatts program
Is there something about the following that confuses you?
Setting aside your bullshit description of what was "coincidental" it amazes me that fake budget hawks like you dont like to consider the massive subsidies already embedded in the fuel sources you prefer.
If someone throws their garbage in a bin
Not really a valid analogy
Totally valid analogy.
The term "unwanted" is relative to the sellers desires, yet market value for nuclear bomb material would seem to have lots of specific labor hours using highly specialized machinery engineers.
Post by Chom Noamsky
Sweden is taking advantage of unwanted material to generate power, just
like Merka took advantage of unwanted material to generate power.
Megatons to megawatts utilized the subsidized labor etc. terming it unwanted does not lower market value, supply and demand come on idiot
Post by Chom Noamsky
Exploiting unwanted material for fuel can never be considered a subsidy,
just an incidental benefit.
you are dumb if you believe your above statement rebuts the fact megatons to megawatts was a subsidy for the nuclear industry
Post by Chom Noamsky
as the russians desperately needed the money it was a win win because
the U.S. totally benefited with basement bargain prices for fuel and we
followed up on the old phrase "trust but verify". Both countries spent
a huge amount of money arming those missiles to call it garbage is a
dumb ass statement on your part.
Except I didn't call surplus nuclear material garbage, kook.
So you are saying you think market value for garbage is the same as nuclear fuel, got i ass wipe.
Loading...