Global warming?

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12435519#post12435519 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Your a fool if you think that ALL new energy infrastructure won't need government subsidies.
From one of your referenced articles:
The company insists it can do this at a cost of just 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, analogous to the price of electricity from burning natural gas in California if a cost was imposed for the emission of carbon dioxide
Who would impose this cost? Government? Sounds like a subsidy to me.

If a govt imposes a cost, is it not a tax? If the govt gave money to solar private enterprise then it would be a subsidy.

 

[RichardS]

To try and argue that solar has not recieved subsidies is just plain dishonest. The reason the discussions are rather pointless. Some time ago in another thread someone, maybe MCary, referred to your green worldview as dogma. Really that is the perfect description.

 

[virginiadiver69]

Call it whatever you will, tax, fee, imposed cost or subsidy...it amounts to the same thing. I'm simply saying that any of these alternatives rely heavily on "funding" with government as the middle man. I doubt any of these alternatives would even come to market without "incentives".
Ya know, it's been said that nuclear power would be too little to late. I can't help but think that if this never became a bugaboo when it did we could possibly have been able to avoid this conversation.
The fact is, nuclear power has had a very good reputation wherever it's tried. We already rely heavily on it.
I know...I know...Chernobyl. Bla Bla Bla.
The China Syndrome was just a movie.
Should we expand hydro power?

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12436408#post12436408 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
To try and argue that solar has not recieved subsidies is just plain dishonest.

Umm, no one has made that argument. BTW the same can be said about coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, etc. Kind of leaves no point to be made on either side of the argument in regards to subsidies and tax breaks and other forms of govt. support.

BTW the opposing argument to the green "dogma" is just as dogmatic

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12436408#post12436408 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichardS
To try and argue that solar has not recieved subsidies is just plain dishonest. The reason the discussions are rather pointless. Some time ago in another thread someone, maybe MCary, referred to your green worldview as dogma. Really that is the perfect description.

Fair enough, but where did I say that solar has not received subsidies?
What I said was that there would be no nuclear plants without subsidies.

Dogma? Run out of arguments so now you attack my world view. If you want to say that you disagree with my view, then that is fine. If you do not believe a single word that I have said, that is fine. You have said your bit and I have said mine, but please do not talk about my world view when you do not even know me. I am happy to discuss anything you want on this topic but lets communication involves talking and listening.

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12436556#post12436556 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Fair enough, but where did I say that solar has not received subsidies?
What I said was that there would be no nuclear plants without subsidies.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12431061#post12431061 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
The solar industry in doubling every two years, the nuclear industry can't even raise funding without govt subsidies.

You can feign innocence if you like but your snide attitude was clear.

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12436521#post12436521 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Umm, no one has made that argument.

Umm, it was clearly insinuated.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12437141#post12437141 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
You can feign innocence if you like but your snide attitude was clear.

Now now, no need to get personal. I think you are reading too much into text.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12437237#post12437237 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
Now now, no need to get personal. I think you are reading too much into text.

I think Scott is correct here. So far I've been impressed that we've been able to leave this thread open as long as it's been, but it's starting to degenerate in the direction that always gets them closed. So, in the interest in not closing threads, please, if you can't make your point or argument without slinging mud, don't bother. So long as the comments can be kept to the points on hand without the personal quips and barbs, the thread will stay open. Even if we stay in disagreement

 

[virginiadiver69]

What you call mud slinging was merely someone being called out on something they said. If someone is going to insinuate a lie I'm going to point it out.
So...what about hydro power?

 

[billsreef]

Seems it's time to put the breaks on this discussion before the mud slinging starts to endanger peoples posting privileges.