Industrial wind farm decommissioned after only 20 years.

Mister-Jr

cadman said:

Mister-Jr said:

MACD said:

" Exxon will buy 500 megawatts of wind and solar power in the Permian Basin, the fastest growing U.S. oil field. It is the largest ever renewable power contract signed by an oil company, according to Bloomberg NEF. "

Exxon, which was sued by investors who alleged the company downplayed risks of global warming, is turning to clean energy as it becomes cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels. The wind and solar farms are being built in a region where electricity demand is soaring as oil production grows.

All of the oil companies are turning to clean energy. They want to be around in 100 years. They will rely on oil for the next 50 years or more though and then be ready to sell whatever is next. 

You know more about it than me.  I think oil usage for ICE may not last for 50 years. 

AaronCannon

Turbines wouldnt even have to be 10 miles out, they'd blend in less than 3 i bet. And if they kill seagulls, win-win.

fins4me

cadman said:

What should be subsidized?

Probably very little.  The govt should  not use taxpayers money to pick winners. The free market should be allowed to sort things out nationally and there should be a coordinated and offensive trade policy in place internationally that is designed to benefit American business and producers. 

mplspug

Anyone who is surprised by oil companies doing R&D and purchasing wind and solar doesn't know how businesses work.

Mister-Jr

mplspug said:

Anyone who is surprised by oil companies doing R&D and purchasing wind and solar doesn't know how businesses work.

Wharton? Booth?

kellercl

Mister-Jr said:

mplspug said:

Anyone who is surprised by oil companies doing R&D and purchasing wind and solar doesn't know how businesses work.

Wharton? Booth?

Common sense.  He is correct.  

dave44

AaronCannon said:

Turbines wouldnt even have to be 10 miles out, they'd blend in less than 3 i bet. And if they kill seagulls, win-win.

Well we have plenty of seagulls, but 3 miles isn’t nearly far enough. How far out are you before you see land? These are much taller than sand dunes.

NewberryJeff

dave44 said:

AaronCannon said:

Turbines wouldnt even have to be 10 miles out, they'd blend in less than 3 i bet. And if they kill seagulls, win-win.

Well we have plenty of seagulls, but 3 miles isn’t nearly far enough. How far out are you before you see land? These are much taller than sand dunes.

Hide them behind the drilling platforms?

dave44

NewberryJeff said:

dave44 said:

AaronCannon said:

Turbines wouldnt even have to be 10 miles out, they'd blend in less than 3 i bet. And if they kill seagulls, win-win.

Well we have plenty of seagulls, but 3 miles isn’t nearly far enough. How far out are you before you see land? These are much taller than sand dunes.

Hide them behind the drilling platforms?

I can deal with that, at least I know we will get something out of them.

AaronCannon

Land covers alot of horizon, sailboat masts are better comparison.

nuevowavo

fins4me said:

cadman said:

What should be subsidized?

Probably very little.  The govt should  not use taxpayers money to pick winners. The free market should be allowed to sort things out nationally and there should be a coordinated and offensive trade policy in place internationally that is designed to benefit American business and producers. 

If the government had not subsidized the creation  of the Arpanet, there would be no platform to connect you with us Florida fishermen.

And the trade policy you advocate is the antithesis of a free market, unless you believe that the government should pick corporate winners to the detriment of the American consumer.

Big Battery

nuevowavo said:

fins4me said:

cadman said:

What should be subsidized?

Probably very little.  The govt should  not use taxpayers money to pick winners. The free market should be allowed to sort things out nationally and there should be a coordinated and offensive trade policy in place internationally that is designed to benefit American business and producers. 

If the government had not subsidized the creation  of the Arpanet, there would be no platform to connect you with us Florida fishermen.

And the trade policy you advocate is the antithesis of a free market, unless you believe that the government should pick corporate winners to the detriment of the American consumer.

It is really a position of ignorance to make a claim that without the government things would not be invented. In fact Govco projects cause a brain drain on the private sector.

Tarponator

Except he never made that claim, except in your mind.

Mister-Jr

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Monday the United States will end subsidies for electric cars and other items including renewable energy sources.

Asked about actions planned after General Motors announced U.S. plant closings and layoffs last week, Kudlow said he expected subsidies for buying electric cars will end in 2020 or 2021. Kudlow said the Trump administration will end other subsidies, including on “renewables.”

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos/u-s-to-end-subsidies-for-electric-cars-renewables-white-house-idUSKBN1O22D4

fins4me

Mister-Jr said:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Monday the United States will end subsidies for electric cars and other items including renewable energy sources.

Asked about actions planned after General Motors announced U.S. plant closings and layoffs last week, Kudlow said he expected subsidies for buying electric cars will end in 2020 or 2021. Kudlow said the Trump administration will end other subsidies, including on “renewables.”

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-autos/u-s-to-end-subsidies-for-electric-cars-renewables-white-house-idUSKBN1O22D4

Good news,,,, and way overdue. 

Mister-Jr

fins4me said:

Good news,,,, and way overdue. 

You realize, of course, that just's just another idle threat, he doesn't control spending.  

ferris1248

The subsidies will end because it's in the original bill.

"The tax credits are capped by Congress at 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer, after which the subsidy phases out. GM has said it expects to hit the threshold by the end of 2018, which means under the current law, its tax credit scheme would end in 2020. Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) said in July it had hit the threshold. Other automakers may not hit the cap for several years.

Experts say the White House cannot change the cap unilaterally. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened to eliminate subsidies for GM in retaliation for the company’s decision."

Big Battery

Tarponator said:

Except he never made that claim, except in your mind.

Maybe you could diagram the sentence and prove it..

surfman

ferris1248 said:

The subsidies will end because it's in the original bill.

"The tax credits are capped by Congress at 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer, after which the subsidy phases out. GM has said it expects to hit the threshold by the end of 2018, which means under the current law, its tax credit scheme would end in 2020. Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) said in July it had hit the threshold. Other automakers may not hit the cap for several years.

Experts say the White House cannot change the cap unilaterally. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened to eliminate subsidies for GM in retaliation for the company’s decision."

Yea,  but the media will still blame him over and over again until the people believe it.

nuevowavo

Big Battery said:

nuevowavo said:

fins4me said:

cadman said:

What should be subsidized?

Probably very little.  The govt should  not use taxpayers money to pick winners. The free market should be allowed to sort things out nationally and there should be a coordinated and offensive trade policy in place internationally that is designed to benefit American business and producers. 

If the government had not subsidized the creation  of the Arpanet, there would be no platform to connect you with us Florida fishermen.

And the trade policy you advocate is the antithesis of a free market, unless you believe that the government should pick corporate winners to the detriment of the American consumer.

It is really a position of ignorance to make a claim that without the government things would not be invented. In fact Govco projects cause a brain drain on the private sector.

The Arpanet was created by scientists at government-funded corporate and academic labs in the private sector.

It probably would have been invented eventually, just like men would have walked on the moon and the Federal highway system would have been built, and Loran and GPS would have been implemented, but government funding certainly helped develop all of these.

Big Battery

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

cadman

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

johnpowers

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

cadman

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

I am no expert, but I think one of the Wright Brother's largest customers in the beginning was the U.S. Army and Navy. Pretty sure the FAA is government financed with excise taxes attached to users. Airports are funded by public money. The FAA also spends money on research for safety, mobility, and the environment. I won't get into the billions the defense department has spent on military aircraft and the research and development of such. 

Mango Man

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

People speak of the government as an entity when in it's not. It's the people's money and not usually well spent. 

MRichardson

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

You cannot be serious.

johnpowers

MRichardson said:

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

You cannot be serious.

I'm very serious. But I guess you believe that it was government subsidies and funding that advanced aviation from wood and fabric aircraft to the Boeing 787?

cadman

johnpowers said:

MRichardson said:

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

You cannot be serious.

I'm very serious. But I guess you believe that it was government subsidies and funding that advanced aviation from wood and fabric aircraft to the Boeing 787?

It would not have happened without government money, see my examples above. 

johnpowers

cadman said:

johnpowers said:

MRichardson said:

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

You cannot be serious.

I'm very serious. But I guess you believe that it was government subsidies and funding that advanced aviation from wood and fabric aircraft to the Boeing 787?

It would not have happened without government money, see my examples above. 

So only government can advance science and technology? Got it!
Tell us all why we are not all driving Model T’s ?

cadman

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

johnpowers said:

MRichardson said:

johnpowers said:

cadman said:

Big Battery said:

Maybe we would be further ahead had the government not directed the brain power in a specific direction. Maybe we would have a colony on Mars by now. Maybe each home would be energy self-sufficient.

The interstate killed the railroad... maybe we would have better mass transit if for not government meddling.

Gutenberg created the greatest invention of all mankind... did he have US government help?

Did the Wright brothers have the US government telling them to invent an airplane?

It is pure pro-government arrogance to believe that we would still be in the stone age without govco starting wars. Government funding creates huge misdirection in research and growth...

In both cases, especially the Wright brothers, government funding took the invention and made it mainstream. The Wright Brothers also tried to sell their invention to the government to get more money. It would have taken much longer to get to the moon or any place without the finances of the government behind it. 

Logic would dictate that we would be further behind technologically wise and medical without the funding of the federal government and other public funding around the world. it is the only source of funding where a return on the investment is not wanted. It is naive to think we  would be further along without that free money. 

I am in the aviation industry, tell us how government funding advanced aviation. 

You cannot be serious.

I'm very serious. But I guess you believe that it was government subsidies and funding that advanced aviation from wood and fabric aircraft to the Boeing 787?

It would not have happened without government money, see my examples above. 

So only government can advance science and technology? Got it!
Tell us all why we are not all driving Model T’s ?

Never said that, but the government, using tax payer money,  is the only entity capable of financing some things that won't produce a profit. Do you think private industry would have created all the roads we have with no way to make a profit on it? Without the roads, there wouldn't be as many cars as we have. Some times the government isn't directly involved, but involvement in related items make a difference in advancement. 

The NIH and the NSF give out billions in grants every year to advance medicine and science. There is also private foundations like the John Templeton Foundation that do the same, 

Some times the government should stay out, some times they are needed,