(Yet more) Green stimulus failure

[SLM]

Only in a confined space. Normally hot air rises so the generators would have to be mounted on the roof and just tap into the air conditioning system.

I get what you're saying. I just think that the oxymoron of something working on Parliament Hill is too great of an obstacle to overcome.

 

[Tonington]

You know sometimes it's okay to criticize something you support as a whole.

Hmm, in the past month, I've criticized some new posters here for making unsubstantiated claims about the impacts of the Alberta oil sands. Last night I welcomed the changes suggested by the academy who reviewed the IPCC structures. Today I suggested an audit of the DOE programs would be a good idea.

Do you know our government also allows for defaults as part of the Economic Action Plan? Some projects are bound to fail. It's inevitable. I'm not going to criticize without knowing more, and the reports in the media to date have been extremely myopic. Do you know how many companies received grants and loan guarantees? I don't. As I showed, the company that received the grants and loan guarantees was lauded by business analysts, and procured lots of private investment. There's more than one side to this story, and it's in a large part only really one story that is being told.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I believe I pointed out earlier that the US Loan Guarantee programme for renewables is a $37.8 billion one. Why his foolish hammering about trivial losses in a programme that has been hugely successful.

A couple of hours ago, I was at a soccer game watching my six year old grandson - a future star if ever I saw one. They won 17 to 1.

I have told the coach that they must quickly get rid of the goalkeeper. ip a goal is intolerable and let down the team.

 

[petros]

There's a huge amount of hypocrisy going on here, there is no sector that has such political or economic control that the fossil fuel sector does, it's about as close to a water monoploy as you can get and yet the people who want to find more sustainable, socially responsible, healthy and economically diverse ways to provide energy are somehow in the wrong?

You don't have to any further than this site to understand the meaning of complacency when it comes to a viable future, economically, socially and eventually in terms of species(ours) survival. People are engaged in the effort to provide sustainable energy for a lot of reasons, only one of which is profit.

On the other hand profit is the only thing that seems to drive an energy sector that will remove entire mountains:

Mountaintop Removal Mining - High Resolution Photos

Seriously pollute crucial bodies of water:

Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tear up vast stretches of wilderness while drawing down and polluting vital watersheds:

Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And spilling oil all over the place all the time:

Third oil spill fuels calls for Alberta pipeline review - The Globe and Mail

It's one of the most bizarre situations that people that vehemently defend such practices as necessary are also fanatical about attacking anything that will replace them.

If we want the world to eventually end up looking like Mordor from Lord of the Rings then we're going about it the right way.

How many wind gennys does it take to run a 200mt metal arc furnace to make more windmills? How do you make the first ones without immense amounts of fossil fuels?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Hmm, in the past month, I've criticized some new posters here for making unsubstantiated claims about the impacts of the Alberta oil sands. Last night I welcomed the changes suggested by the academy who reviewed the IPCC structures. Today I suggested an audit of the DOE programs would be a good idea.

You did a bit more than that, and so did a bunch of other people.

Not wanting to deal with a serious issue at all isn't the same as being critical of people who may have views not entirely consistent with yours.

One of the reasons that people concerned about this and other issue raise the volume is because the other "side" doesn't even hesitate to bang their drums very loudly...and usually with little or no factual basis.

Based on the sheer complexity of the issues we're dealing with around this subject there needs to be certain latitude for discussion to take place at all. But how to you find that in a forum where some members don't hesitate to advocate the most severe measures to shut down the discussion permanently?

Burning people to death or shooting them as has been advocated by Praxius and taxslave respectively as a way to "end" the discussion is disgusting, it would be nice to see some of the "critical" thinkers here take a stand on behaviour like that.

 

[CDNBear]

You did a bit more than that, and so did a bunch of other people.

Becauase it was warranted.

Not wanting to deal with a serious issue at all isn't the same as being critical of people who may have views not entirely consistent with yours.

LOL, you're telling that to the wrong person.

One of the reasons that people concerned about this and other issue raise the volume is because the other "side" doesn't even hesitate to bang their drums very loudly...and usually with little or no factual basis.

If only you were capable of seeing the vicious circle.

Based on the sheer complexity of the issues we're dealing with around this subject there needs to certain latitude for discussion to take place at all. But how to you find that in a forum where some members don't hesitate to advocate the most severe measures to shut down the discussion permanently?

If that really is the intent.

Burning people to death or shooting them as has been advocated by Praxius and taxslave respectively as a way to "end" the discussion is disgusting, it would be nice to see some of the "critical" thinkers here take a stand on behaviour like that.

I took a stand on your behavior.

You advocate for the same thing, from a different perspective.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

how do we tell the difference, the whole time that some of us are trying to find viable alternatives the current owners of most of the market are doing everything they can to stop them.

How are they doing that?

There isn't going to be one magical technology that will replace fossil fuels(although Thorium liquid reactors could eventually come close), it's going to be a new much more flexible system of production and consumption that will create a new sustainable energy model.

Who said there was.

And that requires foresight and a concerted effort across many levels of government, industry and society as a whole. How do you do that when we have people in very important positions still denyng there's even an issue.

Denying what issue? Global warming? That fossil fuels won't last forever?

Throwing money at feel good projects is not the way to change our energy needs.

Hmm, in the past month, I've criticized some new posters here for making unsubstantiated claims about the impacts of the Alberta oil sands. Last night I welcomed the changes suggested by the academy who reviewed the IPCC structures. Today I suggested an audit of the DOE programs would be a good idea.

Do you know our government also allows for defaults as part of the Economic Action Plan? Some projects are bound to fail. It's inevitable.

Okay fair enough, I've been off the grid for awhile, maybe I missed those posts.

I'm not going to criticize without knowing more, and the reports in the media to date have been extremely myopic. Do you know how many companies received grants and loan guarantees? I don't. As I showed, the company that received the grants and loan guarantees was lauded by business analysts, and procured lots of private investment. There's more than one side to this story, and it's in a large part only really one story that is being told.

Well then tell the rest of the story and I'll be happy to listen as long as it is not based in speculation.

 

[taxslave]

You did a bit more than that, and so did a bunch of other people.

Not wanting to deal with a serious issue at all isn't the same as being critical of people who may have views not entirely consistent with yours.

One of the reasons that people concerned about this and other issue raise the volume is because the other "side" doesn't even hesitate to bang their drums very loudly...and usually with little or no factual basis.

Based on the sheer complexity of the issues we're dealing with around this subject there needs to be certain latitude for discussion to take place at all. But how to you find that in a forum where some members don't hesitate to advocate the most severe measures to shut down the discussion permanently?

Burning people to death or shooting them as has been advocated by Praxius and taxslave respectively as a way to "end" the discussion is disgusting, it would be nice to see some of the "critical" thinkers here take a stand on behaviour like that.

Except that is not what either one of us said. That is just your spin on it.