Green Energy Industry Is In For A Rude Awakening

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
There's a part of me that thinks that in 50 years we're going to look back at this whole climate change thing as one of the greatest government scams in the history of mankind. Climate has been changing for centuries, there seems to be equal and opposite scientists who disagree with the science that is currently in vogue. We're spending tons of money and still don't seem to know if what we're spending it on is right. We don't yet have a handle on where the raw materials are going to come from and what impacts on the environment and the economy obtaining them will be. See
Buttigieg's testimony last week. All he seems to know is that the goal is that 50% of new car sales be electric by 2030.
Anybody remember the certainty that was obamacare? How about the certainty of our entry into vietnam?
I guess time will tell!
No, many of the best scientists that ever lived like Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne believed that man made climate change is real.
So to claim man made climate change is a scam is beyond ridiculous.
Just more tin foil hat conspiracy theory garbage.
And although the climate has been changing for billions of years, it doesn't mean we humans aren't changing it for the worse presently.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
If I recall, our climate czar, john Kerry, said we could lower our carbon output to zero and it would have no impact.
Therefore we need to spend $trillions so we get no effect. I guess that makes sense to somebody
You are mischaracterizing what he said.
Kerry basically said that if we decrease our carbon output to 0 but the rest of the world increases theirs, the impact would be 0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,468
34,677
1
No, many of the best scientists that ever lived like Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne believed that man made climate change is real.
So to claim man made climate change is a scam is beyond ridiculous.
Just more tin foil hat conspiracy theory garbage.
And although the climate has been changing for billions of years, it doesn't mean we humans aren't changing it for the worse presently.
Back in the 70s scientists were predicting an ice age. They predicted that cities would be under water and the polar ice caps would be gone. They predicted sea level rises that never occurred.

In 2018 the IPCC said we only had until 2030 until it would be too late to stop massive floods, droughts, and severe starvation. Want to take bets on that one?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Ski and psuted

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,811
40,204
1
There is the turnpike. Plus there are tons of small state roads that don't come anywhere near Philly or Pitt.
Is that the best you have? No roads, no food for you. But hey, keep ripping on rural America. Fking idiot elitist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and psuted

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Is that the best you have? No roads, no food for you. But hey, keep ripping on rural America. Fking idiot elitist.
That's BS, did you ever hear of boats?
And these rural roads are subsidies for people in rural areas.
The big cities would do fine with a few major interstates.
But the rural areas, they would have a hard time paying for all those roads and bridges they have.
I'm sure they could pay for some of them.
But most likely they would be unpaved muddy paths.
I think it's hilarious that people in rural areas think they are so superior to people in thr cities because the state pays for public transportation, while completely ignoring the fact the state spends huge amounts of money on maintaining their bridges and roads, and plowing them in the winter.
And the food argument is horse Shtt.
In a free market, the farmers would pay for the cost to get their food to market.
That is why cities on the coasts and rivers have a geographic advantage, they can import food and products from all over the world via boat .
While in agrarian areas a few bad harvests and people are starving and fleeing to the cities.
It is a fact of life, cities are the engines of civilization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,811
40,204
1
That's BS, did you ever hear of boats?
And these rural roads are subsidies for people in rural areas.
The big cities would do fine with a few major interstates.
But the rural areas, they would have a hard time paying for all those roads and bridges they have.
I'm sure they could pay for some of them.
But most likely they would be unpaved muddy paths.
I think it's hilarious that people in rural areas think they are so superior to people in thr cities because the state pays for public transportation, while completely ignoring the fact the state spends huge amounts of money on maintaining their bridges and roads, and plowing them in the winter.
And the food argument is horse Shtt.
In a free market, the farmers would pay for the cost to get their food to market.
That is why cities on the coasts and rivers have a geographic advantage, they can import food and products from all over the world via boat .
While in agrarian areas a few bad harvests and people are starving and fleeing to the cities.
It is a fact of life, cities are the engines of civilization.
You are beyond ignorant and pathetic for ideology. Show me a waterway from Philly to Pitt? Cities die from plagues you moron.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,811
40,204
1
That's BS, did you ever hear of boats?
And these rural roads are subsidies for people in rural areas.
The big cities would do fine with a few major interstates.
But the rural areas, they would have a hard time paying for all those roads and bridges they have.
I'm sure they could pay for some of them.
But most likely they would be unpaved muddy paths.
I think it's hilarious that people in rural areas think they are so superior to people in thr cities because the state pays for public transportation, while completely ignoring the fact the state spends huge amounts of money on maintaining their bridges and roads, and plowing them in the winter.
And the food argument is horse Shtt.
In a free market, the farmers would pay for the cost to get their food to market.
That is why cities on the coasts and rivers have a geographic advantage, they can import food and products from all over the world via boat .
While in agrarian areas a few bad harvests and people are starving and fleeing to the cities.
It is a fact of life, cities are the engines of civilization.
Man survived long before cities. Do better, you look the fool you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,811
40,204
1
That's BS, did you ever hear of boats?
And these rural roads are subsidies for people in rural areas.
The big cities would do fine with a few major interstates.
But the rural areas, they would have a hard time paying for all those roads and bridges they have.
I'm sure they could pay for some of them.
But most likely they would be unpaved muddy paths.
I think it's hilarious that people in rural areas think they are so superior to people in thr cities because the state pays for public transportation, while completely ignoring the fact the state spends huge amounts of money on maintaining their bridges and roads, and plowing them in the winter.
And the food argument is horse Shtt.
In a free market, the farmers would pay for the cost to get their food to market.
That is why cities on the coasts and rivers have a geographic advantage, they can import food and products from all over the world via boat .
While in agrarian areas a few bad harvests and people are starving and fleeing to the cities.
It is a fact of life, cities are the engines of civilization.
You're such a pathetic dumbass, you don't even realize who built the roads long before they were paved.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,811
40,204
1
That's BS, did you ever hear of boats?
And these rural roads are subsidies for people in rural areas.
The big cities would do fine with a few major interstates.
But the rural areas, they would have a hard time paying for all those roads and bridges they have.
I'm sure they could pay for some of them.
But most likely they would be unpaved muddy paths.
I think it's hilarious that people in rural areas think they are so superior to people in thr cities because the state pays for public transportation, while completely ignoring the fact the state spends huge amounts of money on maintaining their bridges and roads, and plowing them in the winter.
And the food argument is horse Shtt.
In a free market, the farmers would pay for the cost to get their food to market.
That is why cities on the coasts and rivers have a geographic advantage, they can import food and products from all over the world via boat .
While in agrarian areas a few bad harvests and people are starving and fleeing to the cities.
It is a fact of life, cities are the engines of civilization.
Who built the canals used today in Phoenix?
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
You're such a pathetic dumbass, you don't even realize who built the roads long before they were paved.
What are you talking about? The Greeks, Chinese and Roman's all built roads.
Try being more specific, and what is your point?
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,811
40,204
1
What are you talking about? The Greeks, Chinese and Roman's all built roads.
Try being more specific, and what is your point?
Who built the roads and cleared the land in America, long before cities existed?
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,712
3,856
1
Who built the roads and cleared the land in America, long before cities existed?
Most of the land was not cleared before cities existed.
There were Indian paths and trails in North America but they didn't build roads like the Romans.
The Aztecs and Incas had proper roads but they were in central and South America.
And again, I don't know how this relates to the state spending money on roads.
I'm glad that the state does spend money on roads in rural areas but I don't think people in rural areas should get all high and mighty because the state subsidizes mass transit because the state gives huge subsidies to people in rural areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,667
5,064
1
Have you ever noticed, no one tells you how much it cost to charge your electric car. I would think if it truly "saved" money that would be the way to lead people to it. The "green" movement would benefit by having the ability to put more "green" in peoples pockets.
I drove an electric car daily to work for 3 years. It cost about 30 dollars month to charge it at my house for 1,000 miles of use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,667
5,064
1
Watch out for some kind of electric tax, for roads. If everyone is electric, no gas tax revenue.

Ohio is already doing that. It cost a lot more to register a hybrid or a full bev each year. But it makes sense as those vehicles won't be paying any or very little gasoline tax.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,667
5,064
1
The feds use some regular tax revenue to pay for roadwork and that's essentially a subsidy to fossil fuels?

Come on man! Tesla's profits come almost exclusively from carbon credits. But the new electric Mustang and get a $7,500 credit. EVs pay zero gas tax. Yet the problem is ICE subsidies?

Come on man! Tesla's profits come almost exclusively from carbon credits.

That's a lie.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,667
5,064
1
It's such a lie Tesla has their own web page on the subject..............

Sigh.................

https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives

It's such a lie Tesla has their own web page on the subject..............

No where on that site does it say anything about credits providing all of Tesla's profits. Another lie.

That said, with Tesla’s vehicle deliveries ramping up nicely and economies of scale kicking in, Tesla now appears to be solidly profitable even without credit sales. For perspective, for the first three quarters of 2021, we estimate that pre-tax profits would have stood at over $2.5 billion, excluding tax credits.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
102,897
55,783
1
It's such a lie Tesla has their own web page on the subject..............

No where on that site does it say anything about credits providing all of Tesla's profits. Another lie.

That said, with Tesla’s vehicle deliveries ramping up nicely and economies of scale kicking in, Tesla now appears to be solidly profitable even without credit sales. For perspective, for the first three quarters of 2021, we estimate that pre-tax profits would have stood at over $2.5 billion, excluding tax credits.​

The only reason my friend, a conservative in California, bought one was because of the massive tax breaks he got for buying a $90,000 vehicle.....

The only reason.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,667
5,064
1
The only reason my friend, a conservative in California, bought one was because of the massive tax breaks he got for buying a $90,000 vehicle.....

The only reason.

Tesla lost their massive tax breaks years ago.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,386
12,029
1
GM lost their tax credits about a year after Tesla.

GM lost their tax credit on all 457 vehicles they sold last quarter:

 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,667
5,064
1
GM lost their tax credit on all 457 vehicles they sold last quarter:


Hehe, yeah, they are leading the EV revolution per Biden and Mary Barra.

They used up a lot of credits when they sold the Chevy Volt hybrid car.

Toyota is just about to lose their credits and they have never even shipped an EV.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

SR108

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2004
15,924
5,258
1
I did counter the claims with facts. Again, usually the free market doesn't allow for a bunch of unused capacity to be lying around doing nothing.
As demand increases, so will capacity.
And I made my argument on subsidies for renewables like solar and wind.
Because they are cleaner than fossil fuel sources they should either be compensated for this or the more polluting sources should be taxed to more accurately reflect the cost of fossil fuels.
Again, usually the free market doesn't allow for a bunch of unused capacity to be lying around doing nothing.
I guess you missed the point, green energy is not a product of the "Free Market".
 

Latest posts