wings wrote:And green jobs?
There are more of those and there is also a lot more drilling for oil. Drill, bay, drill.
wings wrote:And green jobs?
Bierboy wrote:wings wrote:And green jobs?
There are more of those and there is also a lot more drilling for oil. Drill, bay, drill.
Flabello Meandroid wrote:You think solar and wind power isn't a growth industry? Better tell GE- they have me drawing that **** left and right
If every time I bring up a new incident and you resort to Chappaquiddick, then you've got nothing.
EddyP wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:You think solar and wind power isn't a growth industry? Better tell GE- they have me drawing that **** left and right
Cue wings **** on GE because Immelt is buddies with Obama.
wings wrote:EddyP wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:You think solar and wind power isn't a growth industry? Better tell GE- they have me drawing that **** left and right
Cue wings **** on GE because Immelt is buddies with Obama.
Did I say that Flabs? Big environment is larger than big oil.
Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
wings wrote:EddyP wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:You think solar and wind power isn't a growth industry? Better tell GE- they have me drawing that **** left and right
Cue wings **** on GE because Immelt is buddies with Obama.
Did I say that Flabs? Big environment is larger than big oil.
Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:EddyP wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:You think solar and wind power isn't a growth industry? Better tell GE- they have me drawing that **** left and right
Cue wings **** on GE because Immelt is buddies with Obama.
Did I say that Flabs? Big environment is larger than big oil.
Didin't you just say green jobs are a "friggen joke?" Then next post you say big environment is larger than big oil.
wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
Well, to answer your question, sure. I think it's a growth industry. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama invested in an OLD technology while the chinese kicked their but with the new technology? Who's idea was it to dump money into this thing, and never do any background check especially when the new technology was readily available? That's just poor DD, and not caring about the tax payer's money, but only investing because it would sound good politically.
I don't believe that the gov't should be investing our cash that way. Traditionally, the gov't makes really bad choices with our hard earned money. Leave it to the private sector.
Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
Well, to answer your question, sure. I think it's a growth industry. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama invested in an OLD technology while the chinese kicked their but with the new technology? Who's idea was it to dump money into this thing, and never do any background check especially when the new technology was readily available? That's just poor DD, and not caring about the tax payer's money, but only investing because it would sound good politically.
I don't believe that the gov't should be investing our cash that way. Traditionally, the gov't makes really bad choices with our hard earned money. Leave it to the private sector.
Chinese solar manufacturers are succeeding primarily because they build factories cheaply. Their product is mainly old school standard stuff.
wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
Well, to answer your question, sure. I think it's a growth industry. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama invested in an OLD technology while the chinese kicked their but with the new technology? Who's idea was it to dump money into this thing, and never do any background check especially when the new technology was readily available? That's just poor DD, and not caring about the tax payer's money, but only investing because it would sound good politically.
I don't believe that the gov't should be investing our cash that way. Traditionally, the gov't makes really bad choices with our hard earned money. Leave it to the private sector.
Chinese solar manufacturers are succeeding primarily because they build factories cheaply. Their product is mainly old school standard stuff.
The reason why solyndra failed had to do with the investment of an older technology that the chinese improved on. If it's old school standard stuff, then solyndra's was even worse.
Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
Well, to answer your question, sure. I think it's a growth industry. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama invested in an OLD technology while the chinese kicked their but with the new technology? Who's idea was it to dump money into this thing, and never do any background check especially when the new technology was readily available? That's just poor DD, and not caring about the tax payer's money, but only investing because it would sound good politically.
I don't believe that the gov't should be investing our cash that way. Traditionally, the gov't makes really bad choices with our hard earned money. Leave it to the private sector.
Chinese solar manufacturers are succeeding primarily because they build factories cheaply. Their product is mainly old school standard stuff.
The reason why solyndra failed had to do with the investment of an older technology that the chinese improved on. If it's old school standard stuff, then solyndra's was even worse.
It's hard to have a rational discussion when you just make stuff up. Solyndra was a new design that didn't perform as well as traditional ones. But why are we talking about Solyndra- the govt has invested in other green technologies also. Probably the best thing (imo) is to give tax breaks on their installation and let consumers and businesses drive the technology and markets with their choices.
The same could be said for failed weapons systems or the Iraq war, but I don't see you complaining about any of that.wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
Well, to answer your question, sure. I think it's a growth industry. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama invested in an OLD technology while the chinese kicked their but with the new technology? Who's idea was it to dump money into this thing, and never do any background check especially when the new technology was readily available? That's just poor DD, and not caring about the tax payer's money, but only investing because it would sound good politically.
I don't believe that the gov't should be investing our cash that way. Traditionally, the gov't makes really bad choices with our hard earned money. Leave it to the private sector.
Chinese solar manufacturers are succeeding primarily because they build factories cheaply. Their product is mainly old school standard stuff.
The reason why solyndra failed had to do with the investment of an older technology that the chinese improved on. If it's old school standard stuff, then solyndra's was even worse.
It's hard to have a rational discussion when you just make stuff up. Solyndra was a new design that didn't perform as well as traditional ones. But why are we talking about Solyndra- the govt has invested in other green technologies also. Probably the best thing (imo) is to give tax breaks on their installation and let consumers and businesses drive the technology and markets with their choices.
I'm hardly making it up, Flabs. BILLIONS of dollars were spent on this failed technology. Billions.
Bierboy wrote:The same could be said for failed weapons systems or the Iraq war, but I don't see you complaining about any of that.wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:wings wrote:Flabello Meandroid wrote:Yeah, traditional power sources are obviously bigger. I was talking about growth, not size.
Well, to answer your question, sure. I think it's a growth industry. What does that have to do with the fact that Obama invested in an OLD technology while the chinese kicked their but with the new technology? Who's idea was it to dump money into this thing, and never do any background check especially when the new technology was readily available? That's just poor DD, and not caring about the tax payer's money, but only investing because it would sound good politically.
I don't believe that the gov't should be investing our cash that way. Traditionally, the gov't makes really bad choices with our hard earned money. Leave it to the private sector.
Chinese solar manufacturers are succeeding primarily because they build factories cheaply. Their product is mainly old school standard stuff.
The reason why solyndra failed had to do with the investment of an older technology that the chinese improved on. If it's old school standard stuff, then solyndra's was even worse.
It's hard to have a rational discussion when you just make stuff up. Solyndra was a new design that didn't perform as well as traditional ones. But why are we talking about Solyndra- the govt has invested in other green technologies also. Probably the best thing (imo) is to give tax breaks on their installation and let consumers and businesses drive the technology and markets with their choices.
I'm hardly making it up, Flabs. BILLIONS of dollars were spent on this failed technology. Billions.
Users browsing this forum: budhaboy, knowse, Magilla Gorilla, P4G, Podman, Snailman and 2 guests