Republicans V.clean energy

Post Reply New Topic

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011 ... y-spending

depressing.

You bet. That is what happens when government decides what investments are to be made.

ruveyn

Well Green Energy Projects tend to have serious issues.

http://blog.cleantechies.com/2008/12/01 ... panish-pv/

http://www.troymedia.com/2010/05/30/spa ... -disaster/

That's a pretty good start. If they cut other types of programs the way they plan to cut the energy programs, that just might start curbing the deficit.

They should probably leave at least some of Amtrak's subsidy intact though.

Yes, Inuyasha, the alleged fraud accustations to researchers in Spain magically make the republican's cutting spree in the US towards green energy (which will reduce the deficit and reduce our dependence on oil once they give fruit) make sense.

There really is no alternative to fossil fuels besides nuclear right now and our country is still reeling from "The China Syndrome" 30 years later. We can have 15k nuclear warheads ready to be deployed at a moments notice and nobody bats an eye but when it actually comes energy people freak out. Wind and solar are limited in scope and don't get me started on the farce that is ethanol. High speed rail? lol.

When it comes down to it, we have to cut something and this is preferable for most you guys to the more painful cuts to the welfare-warfare state that we also need to make make vast cuts to if we're ever going to solve this debt crisis.

Oh yeah, we don't believe that there are alternatives to fossil fuels, and we'll stop any research that could prove us wrong.

All those rumors that ethanol was perfectly viable in the world's fifth largest country are liberal disinformation.

Meanwhile, the real money sink, our beloved military, will continue to suck all our dollars.

Funding for alternative energy will be back by demand someday when the country isn't about to default on a $14 trillion debt.

•There's not nearly as much energy in ethanol as there is in gasoline.
•Creating significant amounts of energy from food crops would deplete the amount of land available for growing actual food for people to eat.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-effi ... facts1.htm

Ethanol is not as good of a fuel source as gasoline, and for many cars it causes damage to the engine.

And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then, in almost all cases, to ship the product to collection points via fuel-powered transport, the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce this alternative fuel. That ethanol could end up containing less energy than the gasoline consumed to produce it.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-effi ... facts1.htm

While they claim ethanol is cleaner for the environment many studies it seems fails to take into account that you have to burn more Ethanol to get the same result as 1 gallon of gasoline.

Quite frankly, if Ethanol was really as good as advertised you would see countries like Japan relying exclusively on ethanol vehicles. (Since Japanese Auto companies couldn't care less what oil companies want)

UPDATE EDIT:

On further checking, I found that Ethanol is corrosive to parts found in car engines made before a 1985 and even has some issues with cars made after 1985. Furthermore, it does not work well in cold climates cause it can freeze more easily than gasoline. Additionally, we could see heat related damage in certain types of engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85_in_sta ... ines#Risks