More Green failure, corruption, and tax payer waste.

[brenthutch 444]

tkhayes

good to know that the layoff of a few hundred employees is a sign that the business model is a failure and corrupt.

Coal is laying off thousands.....does that count in your analysis?
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20160111

Oh of course not, how silly of me to think with any logic.....

That is Obama's analysis.

[billvon 2,998]

>Well on their way to zero people and zero cost. If that is your definition of efficiency,
>good on you.

"Less people = more efficient" was your definition, not mine.

[brenthutch 444]

Less people while maintaining or improving output is efficiency. Slashing jobs at half built nonproductive government boondoggles is not efficiency.

[turtlespeed 221]

brenthutch

Less people while maintaining or improving output is efficiency. Slashing jobs at half built nonproductive government boondoggles is not efficiency.

I disagree - Slashng redundant, non essential government jobs is one of the most efficient things there are n the world.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Phil1111 1,149]

Layoffs and/or subsidy and/or loosing money is not necessarily corruption.

[billvon 2,998]

>Layoffs and/or subsidy and/or loosing money is not necessarily corruption.

Exactly. If you are a Republican, losing money/bankruptcies/layoffs just mean that you are a realist, and can make the tough calls. You are really only allowed to consider it corruption if they have a D after their name.

[turtlespeed 221]

billvon

>Layoffs and/or subsidy and/or loosing money is not necessarily corruption.

Exactly. If you are a Republican, losing money/bankruptcies/layoffs just mean that you are a realist, and can make the tough calls. You are really only allowed to consider it corruption if they have a D after their name.

Which is it?

Loosing would be "freeing up of"

You seem to contradict each other while agreeing.

Inconceivable!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Layoffs and/or subsidy and/or loosing money is not necessarily corruption.

Exactly. If you are a Republican, losing money/bankruptcies/layoffs just mean that you are a realist, and can make the tough calls. You are really only allowed to consider it corruption if they have a D after their name.

It's not what I call corruption, it is what the Obama administration's FBI calls corruption.

"Asked recently whether it’s a problem that people getting state grants and contracts are contributing to his campaign fund, Cuomo noted that’s not new."

[turtlespeed 221]

brenthutch

***>Layoffs and/or subsidy and/or loosing money is not necessarily corruption.

Exactly. If you are a Republican, losing money/bankruptcies/layoffs just mean that you are a realist, and can make the tough calls. You are really only allowed to consider it corruption if they have a D after their name.

It's not what I call corruption, it is what the Obama administration's FBI calls corruption.

"Asked recently whether it’s a problem that people getting state grants and contracts are contributing to his campaign fund, Cuomo noted that’s not new."

Exactly.

How do you think Super PACs work?

Why do you think Hillary is leading? How did everyone know before the votes were tallied?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,998]

>Which is it?
>Loosing would be "freeing up of"

Perpahs you're right! And what good American would oppose freedom? Hopefully you will be freeing some of your money soon. If so I have a list of charities where your newly-freed money would find a good home.

[jcd11235 0]

turtlespeed

Why do you think Hillary is leading? How did everyone know before the votes were tallied?

This year's Democratic primary is what a thorough ass kicking looks like when delegates are awarded proportionally. Sanders was all but mathematically eliminated when the votes were counted Super Tuesday. If it was a fight, they would have stopped it.

ETA: The folks at FiveThirtyEight seem to (mostly) agree. Here's an excerpt from (the transcript of) a recent podcast:

harry: One thing that I think gets undersold is the psychology of coming so far when so few people thought you would come so far. Most people, including me, thought Sanders would win some votes but that Clinton would ultimately crush him. And while she holds a significant lead, Sanders won more than 40 percent of the Democratic primary vote. When the same analysts who thought you didn’t have much of a chance now say you’re dead in the water, there is an understandable tendency to dismiss them. The problem: The analysts are right in this case. And that some in the Sanders campaign are so forcefully arguing that he is losing because the game is fixed could make it difficult for Clinton to coalesce the Democratic vote.
…
natesilver: Now I’m really going to get myself in trouble: Weren’t the experts correct that Sanders didn’t have much of a chance?

micah: I’m with Nate on this: Sanders did get crushed — this is what crushed looks like in a proportional primary system. If the Democratic race were run with GOP rules, that would be more apparent.

harry: Oh, I don’t agree with that at all. Sanders is trailing Clinton in the popular vote by about the same as Cruz is trailing Trump.

micah: And Cruz got crushed.

natesilver: To me, it’s like when a college football team — Clinton University — is favored by 24 points. Their opponent, Sanders State, kicks a field goal to go ahead 3-0. But then Clinton U. pulls ahead 14-3 on Super Tuesday and leads the rest of the way. Sanders State never makes it a one-score game, and in the end, Clinton U. wins by 14. So Sanders State beat the point spread, but you wouldn’t really call it a close game — Clinton U. was in control almost the whole way.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[winsor 236]

billvon

>Layoffs and/or subsidy and/or loosing money is not necessarily corruption.

Exactly. If you are a Republican, losing money/bankruptcies/layoffs just mean that you are a realist, and can make the tough calls. You are really only allowed to consider it corruption if they have a D after their name.

Look, we need F-35s. Anything that expensive is, by default, fantastic.

Anyone who suggests that it is simply a boondoggle with the singular purpose of lining the pockets of politically connected military industrial complex is clearly wrong. Probably a Democrat - but even some of are aware of the wisdom of the F-35 program.

Only fools would waste money on renewable energy, since there is a limitless supply of fossil fuels.

If we spend the money on F-35s, our future is bright.

[brenthutch 444]

Yes at least at the end of the day we will have a plane. The same things were said about the Abrams tank and Apache helicopter, and they turned out to be great kit.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

So wasted money in those instances is fine, because eventually a good product arose from it.

Then why is wasted money in green energy so horrible? You don't think any good would ever come out of it?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

So wasted money in those instances is fine, because eventually a good product arose from it.

Then why is wasted money in green energy so horrible? You don't think any good would ever come out of it?

No

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

No I do not think any good will ever come out of it. I think the never ending failures and corruption will continue until rational heads prevail and put a stop to the nonsense.

[billvon 2,998]

>>Then why is wasted money in green energy so horrible? You don't think any good would ever come out of it?

>No I do not think any good will ever come out of it.

Too late:

=====
Renewable Energy
Wikipedia

Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 13.44 percent of the domestically produced electricity in 2015, and 11.1 percent of total energy generation. As of 2014, more than 143,000 people work in the solar industry and 43 states deploy net metering, where energy utilities buy back excess power generated by solar arrays.

Renewable energy reached a major milestone in the first quarter of 2011, when it contributed 11.7 percent of total U.S. energy production (2.245 quadrillion BTU of energy), surpassing energy production from nuclear power (2.125 quadrillion BTU). 2011 was the first year since 1997 that renewables exceeded nuclear in US total energy production.
======

> I think the never ending failures and corruption will continue until rational heads prevail and put a stop to the nonsense.

Rational heads are prevailing:
=========
US coal-fired power is steadily declining
August 11th 2015
The Economist

In April 2015 electricity generation from natural gas surpassed generation from coal in the US for the first time ever, according to US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. This was widely reported, although it did not mean that coal had been displaced permanently by gas as the prime source of electricity. Nevertheless coal's role in US power generation is steadily eroding, a trend that will continue. . . .

Historically, coal has been king in supplying electricity in the US. In 2005 it accounted for 51% of US power generation: in that year nuclear accounted for 19%, natural gas 18%, and hydropower 7%. Generation from non-hydro renewables (solar, wind and biomass) was negligible. Since around 2007, however, coal has been losing ground in terms of both market share and kilowatt hours generated. Indeed, the observed trend over most of the last decade is clear: coal has been losing ground, albeit gradually, to gas (and to a lesser extent renewables).
==========

[gowlerk 2,205]

brenthutch

No I do not think any good will ever come out of it. I think the never ending failures and corruption will continue until rational heads prevail and put a stop to the nonsense.

Now that's what I mean when I talk about deadenders. A complete lack of vision and inability to acknowledge obvious change coming down the track. Like a coal powered locomotive, it's coming straight at you. The switch to diesel electric power was resisted by some. Especially fire tenders. You can rail on and on about the change being forced on you. But here it comes, get out of the way. The times they are a changing.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 803]

How is this dead horse thread any different from your previous dead horse thread right there next to this dead horse thread?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>>Then why is wasted money in green energy so horrible? You don't think any good would ever come out of it?

>No I do not think any good will ever come out of it.

Too late:

=====
Renewable Energy
Wikipedia

Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 13.44 percent of the domestically produced electricity in 2015, and 11.1 percent of total energy generation. As of 2014, more than 143,000 people work in the solar industry and 43 states deploy net metering, where energy utilities buy back excess power generated by solar arrays.

Renewable energy reached a major milestone in the first quarter of 2011, when it contributed 11.7 percent of total U.S. energy production (2.245 quadrillion BTU of energy), surpassing energy production from nuclear power (2.125 quadrillion BTU). 2011 was the first year since 1997 that renewables exceeded nuclear in US total energy production.
======

> I think the never ending failures and corruption will continue until rational heads prevail and put a stop to the nonsense.

Rational heads are prevailing:
=========
US coal-fired power is steadily declining
August 11th 2015
The Economist

In April 2015 electricity generation from natural gas surpassed generation from coal in the US for the first time ever, according to US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. This was widely reported, although it did not mean that coal had been displaced permanently by gas as the prime source of electricity. Nevertheless coal's role in US power generation is steadily eroding, a trend that will continue. . . .

Historically, coal has been king in supplying electricity in the US. In 2005 it accounted for 51% of US power generation: in that year nuclear accounted for 19%, natural gas 18%, and hydropower 7%. Generation from non-hydro renewables (solar, wind and biomass) was negligible. Since around 2007, however, coal has been losing ground in terms of both market share and kilowatt hours generated. Indeed, the observed trend over most of the last decade is clear: coal has been losing ground, albeit gradually, to gas (and to a lesser extent renewables).
==========

Both a result of government and political eco-alarmists interference.

And the push to do things faster will continue as real science comes to terms with the hype.

Case in point

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

Talk to me when wind and solar pass coal for electricity generation. According to your article coal is still #1.

[rushmc 23]

gowlerk

***No I do not think any good will ever come out of it. I think the never ending failures and corruption will continue until rational heads prevail and put a stop to the nonsense.

Now that's what I mean when I talk about deadenders. A complete lack of vision and inability to acknowledge obvious change coming down the track. Like a coal powered locomotive, it's coming straight at you. The switch to diesel electric power was resisted by some. Especially fire tenders. You can rail on and on about the change being forced on you. But here it comes, get out of the way. The times they are a changing.

The real deadenders are those (like you here) who throw names and labels to try and stop debated because their own position will not hold up.

All change has its resistance. BAD change is pushed by those like you who wish to push their beliefs (like the very Christians many here bitch about.) (BTW, I do not by into that but it makes a good example) And they use governments, non elected bureaucrats and the courts to push their shit through because the public at large does not by into the bull shit .

Lack of vision can also be caused by the blinders you wear.

Oh

And for you call me a deadender makes me happy!
Name calling usually signals the end of the debate.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 2,205]

Quote

And for you call me a deadender makes me happy!Laugh
Name calling usually signals the end of the debate.

You are correct, the debate is over. The change to renewables is unstoppable. The deadenders will keep on whining to the grave though.!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The real deadenders are those (like you here) who throw names and labels to try and stop debated because their own position will not hold up.

Like you labelling reports you agree with as "real science", while disregarding anything that doesn't agree with you?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

The real deadenders are those (like you here) who throw names and labels to try and stop debated because their own position will not hold up.

Like you labelling reports you agree with as "real science", while disregarding anything that doesn't agree with you?

there is the difference

Question? yes!

disregard? You projecting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln