PDA

View Full Version : More Obama green energy money wasted.


cutthemdown
12-10-2012, 11:33 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/10/meltdown-subsidized-battery-maker-zaps-obama-detroit-visit/


The work you’re doing will help power the American economy for years to come.”

-- President Obama in a Sept. 13, 2010 phone call to battery maker A123 Systems, congratulating the firm on using the bulk of a $249 million government grant to open new facilities in Michigan.

President Obama travels to Detroit today to talk about the need for increased taxes on top earners to finance federal spending, and is using an announcement of a $100 million investment from German auto giant Daimler to illustrate that his economic prescription is working.

Obama is not likely to discuss another big business story of the day – the sale of the assets of battery maker A123 to a Chinese competitor. A123 spent at least $132 million of its $249 million stimulus package grant to build two Detroit-area factories, including one in Livonia, right next door to Redford Township, where Obama is speaking today.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/10/meltdown-subsidized-battery-maker-zaps-obama-detroit-visit/#ixzz2EfwD0Qih


Meh just a couple hundred million more down the ****ing drain.

Jetmeck
12-11-2012, 12:28 PM
FOXnews....lol

businesses fail all the time.......fact is green energy is a good thing and rather someone try to get more of that going or do you prefer we keep giving billions in tax subsudies to oil companies that your Republican bretheren won't let us get rid of ?

Fedaykin
12-11-2012, 10:40 PM
What has the $1T+ in extra military spending (above and beyond war spending even) in the last decade bought us?

lonestar
12-12-2012, 12:51 AM
What has the $1T+ in extra military spending (above and beyond war spending even) in the last decade bought us?

Just like a liberal change the subject when they can not add something meaningfully to the topic.


Just gave away a 132 million in Nobama money to the Chinese and that was the best commet you have?

Perhaps that is not a lot of money to a liberal, but it is to me. you know a 100 mil here and another 132 there and few other boondoggles in green pearls and all of a sudden you have another trillion wasted.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 01:11 AM
Just like a liberal change the subject when they can not add something meaningfully to the topic.


Just gave away a 132 million in Nobama money to the Chinese and that was the best commet you have?

Perhaps that is not a lot of money to a liberal, but it is to me. you know a 100 mil here and another 132 there and few other boondoggles in green pearls and all of a sudden you have another trillion wasted.

The point is we piss away at least 10x more than $132m every day on military spending, yet I never hear cutlet complain about that.

R&D is risky. The bulk of it fails. The expectation that every (or even more than a small percentage of) project/grant/etc. will produce a positive ROI is hysterically out of touch with reality.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:54 AM
I'm all for cutting any military spending that isn't needed. What big projects have the liberals thrown out for me to agree or disagree with?

Some of the big projects off the top of my head would be new aircraft carriers, one of which is already being built i believe. The f-35 i guess right? And then i think some new submarines. Then of course the new stealth destroyer that was scuttled, but then Obama restarted it to have i think 4 of them built. They are literally that expensive where even with our spending we can only build a few.

So the new Carrier actually has the updated powerplant. The old nuclear reactor powerplant was outdated and has some serious problems. I think its pretty important to move forward with the new Ford class which gets delivered first one 2015. Maybe though as we get the new ones we could go from having an 11 carrier fleet to a more modern 9 or 10 carrier fleet. But really the money is in staffing them. 250 million a yr to run a carrier. They have a 50 yr lifespan so just saying have 1 less actually is a big deal over 50 yrs.

f-35? I guess we could order less of them but we have to have them.

Really the biggest saving on the military would have to come be cutting troops. I like the idea of young people being able to join the military. Not sure i want it cut the amount it would take to save any real money. Tell me how many troops do you want to say go find a new job?

The point on the green energy is that Obama wasted a ton of money and its not smart to do that. Solar is a loser. Here in Calif we have a stupid mandate to get 20% from solar. All it has done is raise rates through the roof. Forcing this stuff is stupid. Having a strong military isn't.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:56 AM
so we throw away according to you 10x 132 million each day. Wouldnt that be over 1 billion a day? So we are throwing about over 365 billion a yr on the military we dont need. Im no math guy but those numbers seem a bit odd to me Fed.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:57 AM
I know we have some waste but i doubt its that much lol. We did spend 1000 on a hammer once or something like that. lol.

I think a better way to stop the runaway military spending is cap there increases. That way we slowly reign it in instead of handing 50 thousand young men and women a pink slip and having them hit the unemployment line.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 02:10 AM
so we throw away according to you 10x 132 million each day. Wouldnt that be over 1 billion a day? So we are throwing about over 365 billion a yr on the military we dont need. Im no math guy but those numbers seem a bit odd to me Fed.

As I've pointed out many times before. We're curently spending around $350bn a year (inflation adjusted) more on military than we were in 2000. This is where the 10x comment comes from.

What has that done for us?

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 02:12 AM
I know we have some waste but i doubt its that much lol. We did spend 1000 on a hammer once or something like that. lol.

I think a better way to stop the runaway military spending is cap there increases. That way we slowly reign it in instead of handing 50 thousand young men and women a pink slip and having them hit the unemployment line.

Hey, after several dozen times of me saying this is looking like you are finally catching on!

Of course, it's hilarious that _now_ cuts to future spending are "real" cuts for you.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:12 PM
Whats funny to me is you don't see lawmakers on the dem side crying we need tons of defense cuts. In fact one of the biggest ticket items, the stealth destoryer was re-instated after Bush and Cheney cut it citing cost. Hmmm i bet those liberal politicians in maine had something to do with it. Thats why cutting military so hard. Both sides have their hand in the kitty. Also if you start cutting troops it will get political for Obama. Do you cut the bases in red states, or blue states? it matters because you close a base and a town usually goes with it.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:13 PM
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program. They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.

W*GS
12-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program. They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.

Bull****.

They got a retread USSR boat that they mangled into an "aircraft carrier" that they have no experience in properly using. We've got decades of experience in carrier tactics that will take China decades to learn.

What is it with you right-wingers and your desperate desire for an enemy? Too much reading of Clancy thinking it's non-fiction or what?

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:30 PM
Bull****.

They got a retread USSR boat that they mangled into an "aircraft carrier" that they have no experience in properly using. We've got decades of experience in carrier tactics that will take China decades to learn.

What is it with you right-wingers and your desperate desire for an enemy? Too much reading of Clancy thinking it's non-fiction or what?

We use an 11 carrier strategy. How far would you reduce that down? Carriers have a 50 yr lifespan, cost 225 million a yr to run, have what 5000 troops on them? and the newest design, the Ford class gets delivered in 2015. Then we are supposed to get another one every 7yrs i think it is as we retire the old one. I believe we have one retiring very soon though i dont know the name.

So China needs at least another 2-3 yrs just to trian enough pilots to land on a real carrier. When they finally get it down, practicing with their Russian POS, it will probably be close to 7 yrs from now. So yes a ways away. But once they do learn they could churn out 2-3-4 carriers 15 yrs from now. Maybe 20.

Carriers take a long time to build and if we don't keep building them you lose the shipyards ability to build them. They dont just sit there tooled up waiting for the govt to say ok build another one.

i believe in the 11 carrier strategy, but i would agree since we are broke it could be paired down to a 10 carrier strategy.

China is lame now but working hard and spending billions to catch us. Russia hates us again and can't be trusted. People get complacent and think the world could never have a huge war again but your wrong. Eventually when resources dry up the superpowers are going to tangle all over the world.

Thats why we are building 3 of the zumwalt class destoryers. They can fire rocket propelled artilliary 500 miles. 1000 pound shells 500 miles. Think about that for a second. That is built for one reason, to control the sea around Thialand, phillipines, japan etc.

Don't kid yourself we go at it with China. Having the biggest military is expensive but we need it. The reason we havent had big wars is because we are so much more powerful countries fear our reprisals. Like I said you don't hear Obama talking about military cuts being so important. ITS TAXES TAXES ALWAYS TAXES.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 01:31 PM
Funny how i say aircraft carrier development, which is 100% accurate and not a flamboyant remark. But the response is BS BS BS. Even when people make measured comments the liberals on the board scream fire.

W*GS
12-12-2012, 02:24 PM
We use an 11 carrier strategy. How far would you reduce that down?

5.

Don't kid yourself we go at it with China. Having the biggest military is expensive but we need it. The reason we havent had big wars is because we are so much more powerful countries fear our reprisals.

Boy, are you stupid.

It's your thinking, and the demand for a global imperial military, that will bankrupt us without the Chinese, or anyone else, having to fire a single shot.

Do you even ****ing get that?

PS - Is your dick 2" long and you're trying to compensate, or what?

houghtam
12-12-2012, 02:34 PM
Carriers today are able to hit 9 times as many targets as they were only 10 years ago. Our carriers today are equal to 100 carriers from just a short time ago.

Sestak is right. Our military spending needs to be cut, and deep. Not just because we need to balance the budget, but because there is simply not a need for so large a military anymore, particularly on the quantitative side.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 02:40 PM
I like to debate in the real world. You all know that not Congress or the White House would want a 5 carrier strategy. So....Your right we might as well just insult each other.

elsid13
12-12-2012, 02:59 PM
5.



Boy, are you stupid.

It's your thinking, and the demand for a global imperial military, that will bankrupt us without the Chinese, or anyone else, having to fire a single shot.

Do you even ****ing get that?

PS - Is your dick 2" long and you're trying to compensate, or what?


Reducing to 5 CVNs means the United States would have ONE CVN to provide world wide coverage at any given time. There is a maintenance & training life cycle that CVN and submarines and their crews go through that bring a number of ssets off line at any given time and make them ineligible for tasking. In reality to meet all the current missions and taskings there should between 12 and 14 carriers and between 15 to 20 air wings.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Reducing to 5 CVNs means the United States would have ONE CVN to provide world wide coverage at any given time. There is a maintenance & training life cycle that CVN and submarines and their crews go through that bring a number of ssets off line at any given time and make them ineligible for tasking. In reality to meet all the current missions and taskings there should between 12 and 14 carriers and between 15 to 20 air wings.

Which is why even saying maybe we could stretch them thin and go with 10 is IMO reasonable. Whats funnier is the shipyard on the east coast are in liberal areas, i doubt they want them closed down.

W*GS
12-12-2012, 03:07 PM
Reducing to 5 CVNs means the United States would have ONE CVN to provide world wide coverage at any given time. There is a maintenance & training life cycle that CVN and submarines and their crews go through that bring a number of ssets off line at any given time and make them ineligible for tasking. In reality to meet all the current missions and taskings there should between 12 and 14 carriers and between 15 to 20 air wings.

So reduce the current missions and "taskings" so that 5 suffices.

We can't afford to be a global imperial power any more.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 03:25 PM
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program. They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.

Considering most of their defense related company's are state owned even less Is really reported.

Something that we have to do is keep the sea lanes open for those cheap mports everyone has to have.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 03:32 PM
Funny how i say aircraft carrier development, which is 100% accurate and not a flamboyant remark. But the response is BS BS BS. Even when people make measured comments the liberals on the board scream fire.

Most of the assclowns have never been in the military and do not have a clue on what is required to keep them operational. Nor the manning of such.

I suspect their " REAL" knowledge of the military is from their commie professors in college.

Which explains all of the stupidity.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 03:35 PM
5.



Boy, are you stupid.

It's your thinking, and the demand for a global imperial military, that will bankrupt us without the Chinese, or anyone else, having to fire a single shot.

Do you even ****ing get that?

PS - Is your dick 2" long and you're trying to compensate, or what?

Wild A ss Guess is making funnies again.

As for the dick remark. I have heard it takes one to know about!!!

W*GS
12-12-2012, 03:45 PM
Most of the ass clowns have never been in the military and do not have a clue on what is required to keep them operational. Nor the manning of such.

I suspect their " REAL" knowledge of the military is from their commie professors in college.

Which explains all of the stupidity.

What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:

The jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2,443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.

WTF?!?

houghtam
12-12-2012, 03:58 PM
Most of the ass clowns have never been in the military and do not have a clue on what is required to keep them operational. Nor the manning of such.

I suspect their " REAL" knowledge of the military is from their commie professors in college.

Which explains all of the stupidity.

Or being a member of a Navy family with 6 former and 2 active members, oh and a former 3-star admiral's opinion...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/48991511#48991511

"We are using the wrong force-sizing metric, from the Cold War, today. It's about capability and about knowledge...so that you can have a more agile and smarter force...in order to go get the adversary... What kind of capability, not size, do you need to accomplish your mission?"

Also, indirectly quoting him: The force-sizing metric that is still in the new strategy by Panetta is the same strategy that Gen. Powell used in 1990, which is that we have to be able to fight two land wars, two stressing scenarios, in Iraq and South Korea simultaneously. Now that there is no longer a war in Iraq, and our military says that we can support South Korea through air power only, what's missing in this debate is a force capability metric, not one that's just based on how many ships, how many aircraft, when each of them is capable of doing so much more than they were before.

And another direct quote:

"[The Military] is not a jobs program. It's a find and defeat the enemy program.

BroncoBeavis
12-12-2012, 04:00 PM
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:



WTF?!?

So what you're saying is this new "unaffordable" weapon could be financed for 20 years on about 30%-40% of this year's budget deficit.

elsid13
12-12-2012, 04:06 PM
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:



WTF?!?

You need to be carefully when you start using then year dollars, because many time the OSD/Services comptrollers use inflation factors that are higher then actually inflation and you need to bring them all costs into 2001 base years dollars to compare apples to apples.

For the F35, it is interesting case study. The idea behind it was to single up the requirements across the 3 services (AF, Navy and MC) and have single vehicle capable of support each services mission. The idea was the upfront cost (R&D, manufacturing,productions)would be greater, but the O&S cost (where over 80% of the cost of weapon system is) would be less with common parts, spares, training and logistics requirements. Great idea but when you jerk around the industrial base you start to cost growth which wasn't planned for.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 04:14 PM
Fed also you need to realize that 10 yrs ago China didn't have their own advanced fighter being built or an aircraft carrier development program.

We were running more carriers (which were a lot more costly per unit to run) in the 90's than we are now with hundreds of billions less expenditures.

So, what is the extra $350bn/yr for?


They are spending by some accounts 10 times more on the military then they report. Don't think for a second they can't catch us in another 10 yrs.

You toss this claim around all the time and never provide even a single bit of support. Anyone can just make sh*t up.

China right now is dumping massive amounts of cash into infrastructure and manufacturing. That is what they are currently beating us in, badly.

You know tools what won WWII? It wasn't the tanks, ships and airplanes that we had when the war started. It was the industrial might needed to outbuild the other guys. Take a look at the pacific. We had 3 carriers in 1941, and over 100 by 1945.

It was the same story on the western front. The allies won in large part due to superior industrial capacity (in particular the U.S. and Russia which were each able to out produce The Axis powers).

And of course, the world changes. What currently dominates the battlefield won't be what dominates in the future. We seem to re-learn that painful lesson every time we go to war.

What does all that mean? If we want to safeguard ourselves, we need to be focusing on the industrial foundation that will be needed to build the tools we will need to fight in any major conflict.

The only thing you've said that is anywhere in the realm of smart is that we certainly can't stop building carriers and other things, lest we lose the knowledge and ability to do so. But again, we're back to the same question I've posed many times before: What has an extra $350bn/yr in military spending done for us?

houghtam
12-12-2012, 04:21 PM
And of course, the world changes. What currently dominates the battlefield won't be what dominates in the future. We seem to re-learn that painful lesson every time we go to war.

Although everything you said was true, this is perhaps the most telling and relevant, considering that even the "battlefield" itself has changed...and nobody can point to it on a map.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 04:37 PM
Of course, my $350bn figure, btw, only includes money given directly to the Department of War... err excuse me the Department of Defense. It does not include the indirect costs such as VA, military pensions, NSA, DoE, etc.

In total, we're spending in the neighborhood of $500bn/year more on military than we were 10 years ago (some estimates of total defense related spending go as high as $1.4 trillion a year).

Well, we need to develope new weapons systems! I agree, but even the hugely costly weapons systems brought up here don't even begin to explain that increase. The F-35 has accrued about $50 billion in R&D costs, and estimates for a "full" production run (which has not occured) are another $200bn. How long has the f-35 been in development? 15 years? So, even if we had expended that $250 billion (we haven't) that only accounts for $17bn a year.

What about the Ford Class? The Ford class is an overhaul of the Nimitz, and the cost to produce the first one is pegged @ $42 billion (R&D + unit cost). That class has been under way for 10 years, so we're talking $4bn/yr a year for the last decade.

So, those two major new weapons systems have added ~$20bn/year to spending.

So again, what has the rest of that $350bn bought us?

lonestar
12-12-2012, 04:44 PM
What good is a military that drives the economy that supports it into the ground because of its exorbitant cost?

For example, the F-35 JSF:



WTF?!?

DO you really think that advances in aircraft are going to make flying 35 year old planes a long term good idea..

Just sometimes you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland..



The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike fighter program may well be the largest single global defense program in history. This major multinational program is intended to produce an “affordably stealthy” multi-role fighter that will have 3 variants: the F-35A conventional version for the US Air Force et. al.; the F-35B Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing for the US Marines, British Royal Navy, et. al.; and the F-35C conventional carrier-launched version for the US Navy. The aircraft is named after Lockheed’s famous WW2 P-38 Lightning, and the Mach 2, stacked-engine English Electric (now BAE) Lightning jet. Lightning II system development partners included The USA & Britain (Tier 1), Italy and the Netherlands (Tier 2), and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey (Tier 3), with Singapore and Israel as “Security Cooperation Partners,” and Japan as the 1st export customer.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/F-35-Lightning-The-Joint-Strike-Fighter-Program-2012-07501/

so what is the problem?

and what has this to do with the topic

More Obama green energy money wasted.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 05:00 PM
We were running more carriers (which were a lot more costly per unit to run) in the 90's than we are now with hundreds of billions less expenditures.
. Take a look at the pacific. We had 3 carriers in 1941, and over 100 by 1945.
[/B]

Before the war, the United States started production of 24 new large Essex carriers, 9 smaller Independence class carriers, and an even greater number of small, slow escort carriers which were used to support ground operations and provide anti-submarine escort, among other duties. (Reynolds 132) In 1943, the new American carriers began to enter service, and due to factors detailed below, none of the new Essex class carriers were sunk, even to kamikaze attacks late in the war..
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/carriertactics.html

so pray tell it was not wam bam thank you mam building them in 4 years they had 35+ already on the ways..

as the war went on they built or restructured quite of few existing ships by adding an upper flight deck to them, to make them into Carriers..

Rosie the Riveter kicked some ass..

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:02 PM
DO you really think that advances in aircraft are going to make flying 35 year old planes a long term good idea..

Just sometimes you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland..

...

More Obama green energy money wasted[/COLOR]

Love the double standard nutbag. So, you have no problem with hundreds of billions wasted on military spending, because "you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland" but when a pittance compared to that is lost in a failed energy R&D venture it's terrible!

Doesn't matter how many big fancy super carriers and jets we have if we don't have the energy tech to run them and build more of them long term. There is only so much oil in the world.

Also, no military force will prevent flooding of coastal cities, loss of cropland and increased expenses due to more powerful weather.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 05:04 PM
Fed just throws out the number 360 billion then rags on me for making **** up? Every defense watchdog group claims China lies about what they spend on military. Things are more expensive this decade bacause we are buidling a new fighter the f-35, a new destroyer the Zumwalt, Ford class Carriers to replace ones that are retiring because they are almost 50 yrs old.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 05:04 PM
We have enough oil for a long long time. Even when it runs out i doubt its solar that replaces it.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:10 PM
..
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/carriertactics.html

so pray tell it was not wam bam thank you mam building them in 4 years they had 35+ already on the ways..

as the war went on they built or restructured quite of few existing ships by adding an upper flight deck to them, to make them into Carriers..


"Before the war" means 1941, when it was clear the U.S would not be able to stay out of the war that had started nearly a decade before.

The Essex class ship were all built between 1941 and 1950. The Essex herself was laid down on 28 April, 1941.

The Yorktown (2nd Essex class) was laid down 6 days before Pearl.

Nice try at dodging the point btw.


Rosie the Riveter kicked some ass..

That she did. Luckily she had the industrial infrastructure necessary to do that ass kicking.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 05:11 PM
Love the double standard nutbag. So, you have no problem with hundreds of billions wasted on military spending, because "you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland" but when a pittance compared to that is lost in a failed energy R&D venture it's terrible!

Doesn't matter how many big fancy super carriers and jets we have if we don't have the energy tech to run them and build more of them long term. There is only so much oil in the world.

Also, no military force will prevent flooding of coastal cities, loss of cropland and increased expenses due to more powerful weather.

here is the rub.. I've been in the military and understand what it take to have a secure country..

I live 3 miles from perhaps what is now the largest US military base in the world. I see the infrastructure that it takes to house those brave soldiers.. many who have just come home from the middle east and know they will be going back..

Was in the navy and Know what it take to keep those ships that secure the shipping lanes so you can have your cheap imports to make your life so easy..

I know what it takes because I have been there and done that..

I have earned the right to complain about wasting money on ventures that are pet projects of NOBAMA and in this case now have been sold to the Chinese at a fraction of the cost to the money that was given to them by the US taxpayers.. IIRC that particular facility never made a single ****ing battery that it was intended to make..

I have earned the right to be incensed by the assclown in the white house wasting money..

What have you done for your country?

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:15 PM
here is the rub.. I've been in the military and understand what it take to have a secure country..

If you're such an expert, then you should be easily able to answer my question. What has $350bn/yr of increased spending bought us?


I have earned the right to be incensed by the assclown in the white house wasting money..

What have you done for your country?

Hilarious!

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:20 PM
Fed just throws out the number 360 billion then rags on me for making **** up?


I know you are terrible math, but I didn't realize you could even do simple arithmetic.


Every defense watchdog group claims China lies about what they spend on military.


Still not proving any actual evidence.


Things are more expensive this decade bacause we are buidling a new fighter the f-35, a new destroyer the Zumwalt, Ford class Carriers to replace ones that are retiring because they are almost 50 yrs old.

Which I've already shown doesn't account for very much of the change at all. The Zumalt has so far cost around $20bn and has been in development for over a decade, so now (including the other costs for the F-35 and the Ford I mentioned before) we're talking $21bn/year in average cost for those three programs.

So, what has the other $329bn bought us?

lonestar
12-12-2012, 05:21 PM
"Before the war" means 1941, when it was clear the U.S would not be able to stay out of the war that had started nearly a decade before.

The Essex class ship were all built between 1941 and 1950. The Essex herself was laid down on 28 April, 1941.

The Yorktown (2nd Essex class) was laid down 6 days before Pearl.

Nice try at dodging the point btw.



That she did. Luckily she had the industrial infrastructure necessary to do that !@#$%^&* kicking.

nearly a decade before typical liberal making crap up!! the earliest part of WWII was when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938..

3 years before we entered the war.. hardly a decade..

elsid13
12-12-2012, 05:24 PM
If you're such an expert, then you should be easily able to answer my question. What has $350bn/yr of increased spending bought us?



If you are interested here is the line item breakdown:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USbn_13bs1n_30333231_705_054_053 #usgs302

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:29 PM
nearly a decade before typical liberal making crap up!! the earliest part of WWII was when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938..

3 years before we entered the war.. hardly a decade..

Germany broke the Versialles treaty in 1935 and moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936. The war didn't get hot until 1938, but it was already in progress by 1935.

elsid13
12-12-2012, 05:29 PM
God I hate defending cutthemdown, but he is correct that China does spend more then what they official publish. They don't official report everything budget toward the military, plus the PLA earns its own money through the number of companies they control or have part ownership in. Those companies rack in billions of additional dollars a year that is unaccounted for.

http://www.ti-defence.org/our-work/defence-corruption-risks-typology/financial/military-owned-businesses

and from Wiklesks

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_CHINA%27S_MILITARY-OWNED_BUSINESSES,_January_17,_2001

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:30 PM
If you are interested here is the line item breakdown:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2013USbn_13bs1n_30333231_705_054_053 #usgs302

Not sure what your point is, but perhaps I should clarify. What has that spending done to further our defense objectives?

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:37 PM
God I hate defending cutthemdown, but he is correct that China does spend more then what they official publish. They don't official report everything budget toward the military, plus the PLA earns its own money through the number of companies they control or have part ownership in. Those companies rack in billions of additional dollars a year that is unaccounted for.

http://www.ti-defence.org/our-work/defence-corruption-risks-typology/financial/military-owned-businesses

and from Wiklesks

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_CHINA%27S_MILITARY-OWNED_BUSINESSES,_January_17,_2001

Thanks for the info, though I am unimpressed with what is being reported here.

So, in 1997 they had some military owned businesses that earned around $1-3bn a year. This is supposed to be of concern?

The U.S. "hides" all kinds of military spending (the ~$700bn given to the DoD is not even close to the sum of all defense spending. There's the DoE (maintains all nukes), NASA (does military R&D), The VA, Military Pensions (part of the treasure dept.), Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, etc.

elsid13
12-12-2012, 05:43 PM
Thanks for the info, though I am unimpressed with what is being reported here.

So, in 1997 they had some military owned businesses that earned around $1-3bn a year. This is supposed to be of concern?

The U.S. "hides" all kinds of military spending (the ~$700bn given to the DoD is not even close to the sum of all defense spending. There's the DoE (maintains all nukes), NASA (does military R&D), The VA, Military Pensions (part of the treasure dept.), Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, etc.

This might be a better article from April this year. http://www.economist.com/node/21552193 . I just pulled the first two googled article for the previous post.

Also remember that China is regional power so you need to keep that in context when compare spending between their military and US military.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 05:51 PM
This might be a better article from April this year. http://www.economist.com/node/21552193 . I just pulled the first two googled article for the previous post.

Also remember that China is regional power so you need to keep that in context when compare spending between their military and US military.

So this says they spend 50% more than they claim (which puts them spending less than 1/4 what we currently spend). A far cry from the claimed 10x. It also projects that China will be outspending us in 25 years. That's pretty meaningless as we can barely figure out whats going to happen next year let along 25 years from now.

But again, where China is beating us hands down in the investment they are making in their infrastructure and manufacturing capability. That is the true threat. We're wasting a lot of money building things that in 25 years probably won't even be relevant on the battlefield. By all means we should continue R&D (including building things) but not at the expense of our own economic and industrial strength.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 06:13 PM
I have earned the right to complain about wasting money on ventures that are pet projects of NOBAMA

Still loving the hypocrisy. You don't think there are "pet projects" in the defense budget? You don't think there is spending for the sake of spending. Projects the military doesn't even want?

Why are you complaining about pennies being tossed in the trash and not complaining when rolls of $100 bills are being used as firewood?

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 06:26 PM
So folks. Why is it a problem that some energy research fails, but not that some military research fails?

Like I said, almost all R&D is a "failure" on some level, ranging between outright failure and learning what not to do.

Why the double standard?

(trick question: we all know the reason for the double standard, it has to do with who you can blame for the failure)

W*GS
12-12-2012, 06:31 PM
DO you really think that advances in aircraft are going to make flying 35 year old planes a long term good idea..

Tell that to the DoD. They're the ones planning on F-35s flying for the next 25+ (not 35) years.

Hell, within 10 years, in-cockpit piloted planes will be obsolete.

Just sometimes you have to pay the real price of having a secure homeland..

If only our military was being used to defend the US instead of a futile attempt at global empire.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 07:11 PM
We have enough oil for a long long time. Even when it runs out i doubt its solar that replaces it.

Oh great seer, tell us more!

Want a more secure country? It starts at the base, and at the base of everything is the need for energy.

Know what one of the most critical, expensive and logistically challenging parts of running an army is? Fueling the machines. You're quite right that we won't have solar powered jets, tanks or anytime soon. But, we might be able to run a factory with solar power and power our civilian and military logistics vehicles with solar or other alternative sources.

There's a reason the navy uses nuclear powered ships whenever possible.

Of course, the less the civilian population relies on oil for transportation, industry and the economy, the more will be available for the military and the more likely we will be to be able to sustain the type of industrial activity necessary to stay in the fight.

You are all obsessed with entirely the wrong thing. You think the most important aspect of security is having more planes, tanks, bombs, etc _now_. That's simply not true. As I've said before, the most important aspect of security is the economic and industrial capacity to build those things _faster than the enemy_ -- and the cornerstone of that ability is energy.

China understands this, which is why they are dumping tons of money into alternative energy.

You know why Japan attacked us despite their military leadership knowing it was a bad idea to start another front halfway around the world? They had no choice. They were running out of oil because of U.S. embargoes.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 08:10 PM
Germany broke the Versialles treaty in 1935 and moved troops into the Rhineland in 1936. The war didn't get hot until 1938, but it was already in progress by 1935.

Let's see even if that is correct.

1941-1935= a decade. Yes liberalism at its best, rewriting history.

Ahahahahahahahaha

Jetmeck
12-12-2012, 08:18 PM
**** it....give alll the tax breaks to greedy ass oil companies....**** green energy and the future and the planet.

**** it all....that bad Obama included.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 08:19 PM
So this says they spend 50% more than they claim (which puts them spending less than 1/4 what we currently spend). A far cry from the claimed 10x. It also projects that China will be outspending us in 25 years. That's pretty meaningless as we can barely figure out whats going to happen next year let along 25 years from now.

But again, where China is beating us hands down in the investment they are making in their infrastructure and manufacturing capability. That is the true threat. We're wasting a lot of money building things that in 25 years probably won't even be relevant on the battlefield. By all means we should continue R&D (including building things) but not at the expense of our own economic and industrial strength.
How about factoring in the rate of pay for those goods. $.38 per hour vs. probably $40.+ and also they are working for non profits our guys are not. Their true cost of making an AK47 is a fraction of the cost of our AR 15.

So they spend a fraction ofthe cost yet make billions in profits for exporting their AK47 adding it into the governmental profits.

Sorry but your Thoughts comparing their reported expenditures to ours, will not withstand scrutiny.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 08:21 PM
Let's see even if that is correct.

1941-1935= a decade. Yes liberalism at its best, rewriting history.

Ahahahahahahahaha

Look up the meaning of the word nearly.

But as usual, you can't contribute to the conversation so you're just resorting to trolling. What a paragon you are.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 08:36 PM
Look up the meaning of the word nearly.

But as usual, you can't contribute to the conversation so you're just resorting to trolling. What a paragon you are.

Nearly Almsot close approximation. So in liberalville 6=10 , even if you are really feel it started in 1935.

Here is what most folks beleive.

World War II, or the Second World War (often abbreviated as WWII or WW2), was a global war that was underway by 1939 and ended in 1945.

but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and Britain.


So rewrite history for everyone else. I don't care.

It still seems like 2 years to me and everyone else. In fact I'd bet that most would beleive WWII started in 1941 if they even knew about it.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 08:44 PM
IMO it really started as Hitler was writing mein kampf, but no later than 1933 when he was named the Chancellor of Germany.

But I like history.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 08:58 PM
How about factoring in the rate of pay for those goods. $.38 per hour vs. probably $40.+ and also they are working for non profits our guys are not. Their true cost of making an AK47 is a fraction of the cost of our AR 15.

So, Communist China is more efficient and less corrupt than the U.S by a large margin? I had no idea they were so much better than us!

While China will continue to enjoy a significant manpower cost savings over us, it's not the 100x you imply. And, as they continue to modernize, that cost savings will be eroded.

China has a massive number of troops, but their hardware doesn't even begin to compare (not even their new jets).


So they spend a fraction ofthe cost yet make billions in profits for exporting their AK47 adding it into the governmental profits.

The U.S. is the #1 arms dealer in the world, far outpacing China.

"Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0

Even when you factor in likely profit margin, the U.S. comes out ahead. Cheap, mass produced items like the AK-47 have a lot lower profit margin than the advanced weaponry the U.S. sells.


Sorry but your Thoughts comparing their reported expenditures to ours, will not withstand scrutiny.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:02 PM
Nearly Almsot close approximation. So in liberalville 6=10 , even if you are really feel it started in 1935.

Here is what most folks beleive.



So rewrite history for everyone else. I don't care.

It still seems like 2 years to me and everyone else. In fact I'd bet that most would beleive WWII started in 1941 if they even knew about it.

Nice hissy fit. 6.5/10.

W*GS
12-12-2012, 09:07 PM
In fact I'd bet that most would beleive WWII started in 1941 if they even knew about it.

****in' dope. WWII started in 1931, when the Japanese invaded Manchuria in China.

Hell, one can argue that WWII started with the Treaty of Versailles and the gutting of Germany.

W*GS
12-12-2012, 09:08 PM
Basically, the Right needs to make China into some horrific boogeyman to justify their belief in a fascist America.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 09:10 PM
Oh great seer, tell us more!

Want a more secure country? It starts at the base, and at the base of everything is the need for energy.

Know what one of the most critical, expensive and logistically challenging parts of running an army is? Fueling the machines. You're quite right that we won't have solar powered jets, tanks or anytime soon. But, we might be able to run a factory with solar power and power our civilian and military logistics vehicles with solar or other alternative sources.

There's a reason the navy uses nuclear powered ships whenever possible.

Of course, the less the civilian population relies on oil for transportation, industry and the economy, the more will be available for the military and the more likely we will be to be able to sustain the type of industrial activity necessary to stay in the fight.

You are all obsessed with entirely the wrong thing. You think the most important aspect of security is having more planes, tanks, bombs, etc _now_. That's simply not true. As I've said before, the most important aspect of security is the economic and industrial capacity to build those things _faster than the enemy_ -- and the cornerstone of that ability is energy.

China understands this, which is why they are dumping tons of money into alternative energy.

You know why Japan attacked us despite their military leadership knowing it was a bad idea to start another front halfway around the world? They had no choice. They were running out of oil because of U.S. embargoes.

Solar is so inneffecient i just dont see it meeting our needs, ever. The powerplants take too much land and only work when sun is out. The notion solar can do much for us when you factor in the cost is a fantasy.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 09:11 PM
Still loving the hypocrisy. You don't think there are "pet projects" in the defense budget? You don't think there is spending for the sake of spending. Projects the military doesn't even want?

Why are you complaining about pennies being tossed in the trash and not complaining when rolls of $100 bills are being used as firewood?

sure there are projects, but perhaps something will come of them.. opposed to throwing money at green just because they are morons pet projects and most likely his buds getting the money to accomplish nothing, but line their pockets....

if you want research dollars spent on these projects fund the think tanks at the innovative universities such as Stanford..

Then allow real companies to run with the findings/ideas opposed to start ups that have NO capitol to do so..

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:13 PM
Solar is so inneffecient i just dont see it meeting our needs, ever. The powerplants take too much land and only work when sun is out. The notion solar can do much for us when you factor in the cost is a fantasy.

You know how you can make something more efficient?

Research!

You wingnuts just have no ****ing clue how the real world works. It takes time, effort and money to learn new things. If idiots like you were running things, we'd still be in the stone age.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 09:13 PM
So, Communist China is more efficient and less corrupt than the U.S by a large margin? I had no idea they were so much better than us!

While China will continue to enjoy a significant manpower cost savings over us, it's not the 100x you imply. And, as they continue to modernize, that cost savings will be eroded.

China has a massive number of troops, but their hardware doesn't even begin to compare (not even their new jets).



The U.S. is the #1 arms dealer in the world, far outpacing China.

"Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/world/middleeast/us-foreign-arms-sales-reach-66-3-billion-in-2011.html?_r=0

Even when you factor in likely profit margin, the U.S. comes out ahead. Cheap, mass produced items like the AK-47 have a lot lower profit margin than the advanced weaponry the U.S. sells.

Yet you have zero knowledge of what China is really exporting either.. Like they tell the world what they are doing in that area..

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:15 PM
Yet you have zero knowledge of what China is really exporting either.. Like they tell the world what they are doing in that area..

Gotta love it. You and cutlet think you can just make whatever **** up you want, with no support.

What evidence do you have that China is exporting more than my reference implies? What does China make (in terms of military hardware) that anyone would event want to ****ing buy?

lonestar
12-12-2012, 09:17 PM
now getting back on target of the topic..

Dear Energy Patriot,

For years, Congress has subsidized energy production. This has to stop.

Tomorrow, we at the American Energy Alliance will kick off our 48 hour campaign to #EndTheWindGiveaway. With your help, we can end Congress’ multi-billion dollar subsidy to wind energy companies.

Since 1992, Congress has handed out $20 Billion in subsidies to the wind industry via something called the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Wind energy companies claim they need these subsidies to keep their inefficient businesses afloat. In recent times, wind has received 42% of all government energy subsidies but has produced less than 3 percent of the electricity generated.

How you can help:

1) Click here to sign our petition (http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/engage/tell-congress-not-to-throw-money-at-the-wind/)

2) Click here to send a tweet using our twitter feed (http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/twitter/)

3) Forward this email to friends and ask them to do 1&2.

The wind industry has received subsidies since 1978 to give wind a “leg up.” Isn’t 35 years of subsidies enough? Isn’t it about time that the wind industry stands on its own without massive taxpayer subsidies?

Extending the PTC just one year would cost taxpayers an additional $12 Billion! Help us end the cycle of corporate dependency!




this is the scary part..

Since 1992, Congress has handed out $20 Billion in subsidies to the wind industry via something called the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Wind energy companies claim they need these subsidies to keep their inefficient businesses afloat. In recent times, wind has received 42% of all government energy subsidies but has produced less than 3 percent of the electricity generated.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:19 PM
sure there are projects, but perhaps something will come of them.. opposed to throwing money at green just because they are morons pet projects and most likely his buds getting the money to accomplish nothing, but line their pockets....

if you want research dollars spent on these projects fund the think tanks at the innovative universities such as Stanford..

Then allow real companies to run with the findings/ideas opposed to start ups that have NO capitol to do so..

Most fundamental R&D has a negative ROI. Only a tiny percentage pays out. It's not something you can do without MASSIVE capital to work with. Only really, really large companies (e.g. IBM) and governments can afford to make those kind of bets.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:22 PM
now getting back on target of the topic..

this is the scary part..

Since 1992, Congress has handed out $20 Billion in subsidies to the wind industry via something called the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). Wind energy companies claim they need these subsidies to keep their inefficient businesses afloat. In recent times, wind has received 42% of all government energy subsidies but has produced less than 3 percent of the electricity generated.[/COLOR]

See: Most R&D having a negative ROI. The thing is, you don't know what will have a positive ROI unless you try. Shall we just stop trying to learn and improve because everything is not immediately (or perhaps ever) profitable?

$500m/year is peanuts compared to the black hole of R&D in the military.

P.S. You should get some reading glasses if you need huge fonts to read.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 09:26 PM
Most fundamental R&D has a negative ROI. Only a tiny percentage pays out. It's not something you can do without MASSIVE capital to work with. Only really, really large companies (e.g. IBM) and governments can afford to make those kind of bets.

where did I say small companies should do this IF anything I said start ups should not be involved..

fund top universities to do the R&D..

then hand it off to corporations to build.. paying licensing fees to do so.. and God forbid pay taxes on the profits..

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:43 PM
where did I say small companies should do this IF anything I said start ups should not be involved..

fund top universities to do the R&D..

then hand it off to corporations to build.. paying licensing fees to do so.. and God forbid pay taxes on the profits..

So we shouldn't foster small businesses with existing technology developed by universities? We should just give up to the Chinese who are currently kicking our ass in large part because they are subsidizing their companies?

You think we should be charging licensing fees for companies to use technology developed with public funding?

lonestar
12-12-2012, 09:46 PM
So we shouldn't foster small businesses with existing technology developed by universities? We should just give up to the Chinese who are currently kicking our !@#$%^&* in large part because they are subsidizing their companies?

You think we should be charging licensing fees for companies to use technology developed with public funding?

NO and Yes

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 09:48 PM
Obviously when something big needs to be funded or researched our govt will always be a main player. Thats not the question. The question in whether or not solar energy is a smart technology for our govt to be betting on so heavily. The folly to cool the earth could cost us big time. Bioengineering to cool the earth. Co2 reduction will never make it happen unless you are planning some sort of population control. Solar is a loser.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:50 PM
NO and Yes

So, give up the game to China. Wow.

Charge taxpayers twice for R&D. Wow.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 09:51 PM
Obviously when something big needs to be funded or researched our govt will always be a main player. Thats not the question. The question in whether or not solar energy is a smart technology for our govt to be betting on so heavily. The folly to cool the earth could cost us big time. Bioengineering to cool the earth. Co2 reduction will never make it happen unless you are planning some sort of population control. Solar is a loser.

Once again. Oil/Coal is a finite resource. It's not all about GCC. We've been over this in this very thread.

lonestar
12-12-2012, 09:59 PM
So, give up the game to China. Wow.

Charge taxpayers twice for R&D. Wow.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion..

Not all major companies in the US are owned by Chinese concerns YET.

and charging them a licensing fee for something a school developed seems a reasonable thing to do..


how you getting taxpayers charged twice is probably another liberal twist of words..

I'm going to bed have a construction crew in the am to supervise..

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 10:06 PM
Once again. Oil/Coal is a finite resource. It's not all about GCC. We've been over this in this very thread.

Thats not the point. Still you act like solar will be the replacement when that is no forgone conclusion. The power plants take up too much land and don't work at night. Go ahead and live the Obama fantasy that we can afford to use solar to power the country. We have enough coal and natural gas for a century, we should use it. The money we save keep looking for real alternatives that work. Not some all in on solar when it doesn't work.

cutthemdown
12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
The only real solution to the worlds enegry problem is nuclear fusion. Using seawater as the fule source with very little radioactive waste. Believe it or not these reactors are within the reach of our science. It will be the next huge step for mankind, not a feaking solar panel on your roof. One day solar panels will be laughed at as a joke of the global warming craze.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Not sure how you came to that conclusion..

Not all major companies in the US are owned by Chinese concerns YET.


No, but the Chinese are currently kicking our ass in a lot of ways, aided in large part by our own short sightedness.

They are working together through force (just like the Soviets), and we have lost our ability to work together through mutual interest. The cold war was won not with bombs, but because we worked together as a nation to out compete that communist regime. We beat the Soviets economically and technologically. This time around, the communists have learned and are trying to flip the table on us, and they are winning because all we're interested in doing in building more irrelevant weapons and squabbling like schoolchildren over the letter in parentheses behind the president's name when he shows up on TV.


and charging them a licensing fee for something a school developed seems a reasonable thing to do..
how you getting taxpayers charged twice is probably another liberal twist of words..


Paying for the R&D with tax money given to the university + making people pay for the results of the R&D = being asked to pay twice. Pretty simple.

BroncoBeavis
12-12-2012, 10:50 PM
No, but the Chinese are currently kicking our ass in a lot of ways, aided in large part by our own short sightedness.

They are working together through force (just like the Soviets), and we have lost our ability to work together through mutual interest. The cold war was won not with bombs, but because we worked together as a nation to out compete that communist regime. We beat the Soviets economically and technologically. This time around, the communists have learned and are trying to flip the table on us, and they are winning because all we're interested in doing in building more irrelevant weapons and squabbling like schoolchildren over the letter in parentheses behind the president's name when he shows up on TV.



Paying for the R&D with tax money given to the university + making people pay for the results of the R&D = being asked to pay twice. Pretty simple.

"Catching up" is a little different than "kicking our asses"

If any single State of These United States had a median household income around $10,000, you'd call it criminal. But in China you act like it's some sort of inspirational miracle.

I'll never understand the left's fascination with command and control economies. They don't work. China's growing, yes. But every industrializing country went through that phase. Yet I doubt you want this country to go through a second industrial revolution. The excesses of that era helped bring about the backlash in the progressive movement.

And we beat the Soviets because centrally planned economies don't work. The Soviets couldn't manage an economy on a world-class scale. And for the most part, our government won because it didn't have to.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 11:07 PM
Thats not the point. Still you act like solar will be the replacement when that is no forgone conclusion. The power plants take up too much land and don't work at night. Go ahead and live the Obama fantasy that we can afford to use solar to power the country. We have enough coal and natural gas for a century, we should use it. The money we save keep looking for real alternatives that work. Not some all in on solar when it doesn't work.

Why are you so fixated on Solar? Where have I said solar is definitely the answer? It's one idea that has *huge* potential if we can overcome the efficiency and cost problems (which we have been making steady progress on) and solve the storage problem.


The only real solution to the worlds enegry problem is nuclear fusion. Using seawater as the fule source with very little radioactive waste. Believe it or not these reactors are within the reach of our science. It will be the next huge step for mankind, not a feaking solar panel on your roof. One day solar panels will be laughed at as a joke of the global warming craze.

Guess what you'll need if you want to use centralized fusion (something I also think is the most likely next step for large scale industrial power generation) when the oil runs out. You'll still need energy storage -- aka batteries. Energy storage is a major problem in the future -- one we don't face today because we use energy (ironically, solar energy) in a previously stored form (chemical).

Most likely the "battery" that we will use in the future will be hydrogen produced with nuclear power. Of course, hydrogen has its own huge set of logistical problems that will be a challenge.

Of course, all the tech necessary for these and all the other options are still in their infancy, and we don't know yet which one (or which combination) will work the best, which is why we need to continue doing research and development!

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 11:11 PM
"Catching up" is a little different than "kicking our asses"


Note, I said "in a lot of ways".


If any single State of These United States had a median household income around $10,000, you'd call it criminal. But in China you act like it's some sort of inspirational miracle.


Where did I say or even imply that?


I'll never understand the left's fascination with command and control economies. They don't work. China's growing, yes. But every industrializing country went through that phase. Yet I doubt you want this country to go through a second industrial revolution. The excesses of that era helped bring about the backlash in the progressive movement.

And we beat the Soviets because centrally planned economies don't work. The Soviets couldn't manage an economy on a world-class scale. And for the most part, our government won because it didn't have to.


I never said I wanted or was fascinated with a command and control economy (in fact, I was very careful to not imply any such thing). Jesus ****ing Christ you wingnuts have zero reading comprehension.

BroncoBeavis
12-12-2012, 11:22 PM
Note, I said "in a lot of ways".



Where did I say or even imply that?



I never said I wanted or was fascinated with a command and control economy (in fact, I was very careful to not imply any such thing). Jesus ****ing Christ you wingnuts have zero reading comprehension.

Well when you say stuff like They're turning the tables on us and trying to beat us like we beat the Soviets and they're "winning" there's a whole lot of gaps one needs to fill in to get there.

A lot of the China paranoia today is ridiculously unfounded. Like back in the 80s when everyone thought Japan was going to rule the world.

Fedaykin
12-12-2012, 11:51 PM
Well when you say stuff like They're turning the tables on us and trying to beat us like we beat the Soviets and they're "winning" there's a whole lot of gaps one needs to fill in to get there.

A lot of the China paranoia today is ridiculously unfounded. Like back in the 80s when everyone thought Japan was going to rule the world.

I agree there is paranoia, but not about what China is doing economically. They don't have an interest in physical conflict with us. When I say they are trying to turn the tables on us, I mean they are trying to beat us not with force but with economic warfare.

They are currently "winning" because not because they are ahead of us, but because they have their eyes on the long game and we're stuck in the past. They're investing in themselves and their future whereas we are sending money to them for cheap trinkets (to the tune of $300bn a year in trade deficit) and throwing money away on weapons that will most likely never see the battlefield they are intended for, because that battlefield no longer exists (not just my opinion, see the comments from Powell et al earlier in the thread).

Without serious reforms, they will eventually tumble due to the communistic core of their economy, but that doesn't mean they won't take us down with them.

BroncoBeavis
12-13-2012, 08:35 AM
I agree there is paranoia, but not about what China is doing economically. They don't have an interest in physical conflict with us. When I say they are trying to turn the tables on us, I mean they are trying to beat us not with force but with economic warfare.

They are currently "winning" because not because they are ahead of us, but because they have their eyes on the long game and we're stuck in the past. They're investing in themselves and their future whereas we are sending money to them for cheap trinkets (to the tune of $300bn a year in trade deficit) and throwing money away on weapons that will most likely never see the battlefield they are intended for, because that battlefield no longer exists (not just my opinion, see the comments from Powell et al earlier in the thread).

Without serious reforms, they will eventually tumble due to the communistic core of their economy, but that doesn't mean they won't take us down with them.

They're industrializing. That's pretty much the long and short of it. It looks impressive when it's a nation of a billion people. and they're going to be an economic superpower, cumulatively, for sure. But until they see the light and grant their people greater freedom and let markets dictate economic decisions, they're no real threat in any sense, other than militarily.

Yes, their production capacity is impressive. But when American retailers are making more money off of Chinese production than the Chinese producers are, what you really have is almost a form of economic imperialism.

I will agree though that free trade with China is probably a bad deal. We should offer free trade agreements to every free and democratic nation without condition. Then put up trade tariffs on everyone else. We should force ourselves to be competitive with those who play by the same rules. But with nations that maintain essentially forced labor, we should do what we can to even the playing field. Unfortunately it might be too little too late on that front.

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 02:20 PM
America should be working to tear down tarrffs not make more of them. Sure they are needed sometimes but using them too much is a bad idea. For instance Obama trying to save solar with tarriffs to protect all his bad investments, when we could be getting the panels for next to nothing from China, installing them on our homes, and actually getting something out of it.

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 02:21 PM
Why are you so fixated on Solar? Where have I said solar is definitely the answer? It's one idea that has *huge* potential if we can overcome the efficiency and cost problems (which we have been making steady progress on) and solve the storage problem.



Guess what you'll need if you want to use centralized fusion (something I also think is the most likely next step for large scale industrial power generation) when the oil runs out. You'll still need energy storage -- aka batteries. Energy storage is a major problem in the future -- one we don't face today because we use energy (ironically, solar energy) in a previously stored form (chemical).

Most likely the "battery" that we will use in the future will be hydrogen produced with nuclear power. Of course, hydrogen has its own huge set of logistical problems that will be a challenge.

Of course, all the tech necessary for these and all the other options are still in their infancy, and we don't know yet which one (or which combination) will work the best, which is why we need to continue doing research and development!


Funny you asking why we are fixated on solar in this thread, or why I am whatever! Hey dumb**** look at the thread title, it's about wasting money on solar.

lonestar
12-13-2012, 02:54 PM
America should be working to tear down tarrffs not make more of them. Sure they are needed sometimes but using them too much is a bad idea. For instance Obama trying to save solar with tarriffs to protect all his bad investments, when we could be getting the panels for next to nothing from China, installing them on our homes, and actually getting something out of it.

An amazing concept. Write the bad investments off and move on. Wow was that not one of his campaign slogans. Move on.

But he has to protect his union buddies. Come hell or high water.

lonestar
12-13-2012, 03:05 PM
In a semi related comment. I was driving down on I10 highway a few months ago saw those big wind mills coming at me in a series of six trucks.

One truck each with one vane on it, an extended flat bed with about 50 feet added to the middle of it. tow trucks hauling the base and towers same size truck and one hauling the generator actually the smallest part on a normal flat bed.

Thought great another wind mill going up nearby.

Got off I10 and went south a few miles and saw yet another convoy coming out of MEXICO with all the same units. Involved.

About an hour later was retracing my steps following them this time and saw yet another one this time the support blocks all of the stuff was lashed down to had hecho in Mexico on them.

And the truck had Mexican plates on them.

So even these Green units are not made in the USA and they still are not profitable.

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 03:13 PM
We should be using our coal and natural gas while pouring the r&d money into nuclear fusion reactors. We get those babies online and look out it could fuel another era of huge advancement. Solar? sorry but not so much. Anyone who thinks solar is ever going to change the world is kidding themselves. They have poured a ton into it last 10 yrs and basically they aren't signifcantly more effecient yet. If you want the govt to fund something make it something big, that can really change our bottom line.

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 06:33 PM
Funny you asking why we are fixated on solar in this thread, or why I am whatever! Hey dumb**** look at the thread title, it's about wasting money on solar.

You'll want to re-read your title bub. It does not single out solar. And your article isn't about energy production, it's about energy storage.

Dumbass -- you don't even understand what your own ****ing post is about.

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 06:49 PM
We should be using our coal and natural gas while pouring the r&d money into nuclear fusion reactors. We get those babies online and look out it could fuel another era of huge advancement. Solar? sorry but not so much. Anyone who thinks solar is ever going to change the world is kidding themselves. They have poured a ton into it last 10 yrs and basically they aren't signifcantly more effecient yet. If you want the govt to fund something make it something big, that can really change our bottom line.

Wow, just repeating yourself endlessly does not an argument make. That you completely blew off my previous reply to this malarkey is pretty telling.

Of course, no matter what we use to replace dino power (fusion, solar, wind, hydro, whatever), we'll still need a way to STORE that power in order to use it in mobile applications (e.g. cars), which is why we need better batteries! Dino power comes pre-stored in a readily usable form. Nuclear binding energy does not.

btw: You're full of sh*t, as usual. Average commercial solar cell (both major kinds) efficiency has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. If that's not 'significant' what is? It still lags significantly from what we have achieved in the lab, which is why we should keep working on ways to improve what we are currently doing. In the same time, the price has been reduced to a fraction of the cost 10 years ago.

I love that you're such a p***Y that 10 years of work on something and you want to tuck tail and run. Like I said before, if the likes of you were running things we'd still be in the stone age.

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 07:20 PM
America should be working to tear down tarrffs not make more of them. Sure they are needed sometimes but using them too much is a bad idea. For instance Obama trying to save solar with tarriffs to protect all his bad investments, when we could be getting the panels for next to nothing from China, installing them on our homes, and actually getting something out of it.

So, cede technological leadership to China? Buy even MORE **** from China, filling their coffers at the expense of our own?

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 09:24 PM
If China wants to waste money giving us cheap panels we should oblige. Our economy would get stimulated by install/maintence jobs which is where the jobs are anyways.

Instead he slapped tarriffs making them so expensive you need a govt subsidy to pay for it, to make it work economically. It's just not a good business model and points to solar panels being a loser. It won't be a technology that sticks once the real technology gets developed. The real being nuclear fusion reactors that run on seawater. Once we get that solar panels and power plants will be a joke.

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 09:34 PM
If China wants to waste money giving us cheap panels we should oblige. Our economy would get stimulated by install/maintence jobs which is where the jobs are anyways.

Instead he slapped tarriffs making them so expensive you need a govt subsidy to pay for it, to make it work economically. It's just not a good business model and points to solar panels being a loser. It won't be a technology that sticks once the real technology gets developed. The real being nuclear fusion reactors that run on seawater. Once we get that solar panels and power plants will be a joke.

Commercially viable fusion is at least a century away. The best we've accomplished is a 10 billion dollar reactor that has yet to produce net positive energy or run for more than a few hundred milliseconds.

And of course, you keep ignoring that even with fusion we still need the ability to store that energy, which is why we need to invest a lot into energy storage technology. You'll never fit a fusion reactor into a car.

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 09:41 PM
Battery technology will improve on a curve without much govt funding. Already some of the battery technology is growing. IMO it won't need much govt prodding. Let the private sector do it naturally fed.

Well France has the most advanced one yet being built. I think 2020 it comes online. It will be used to try and figure out how to make them work as a powerplant. I;d rather invest money over the next 50 yrs going for fusion, then wasting it like Obama does. You know spending money on things the private sector will do if they made sense economically. No private companies can work on fusion without govt help. Its way too big and scientifically challenging.

So we get some electric cars. Do you really think that is going to cool the earth? If it does then I was wrong but I think we could all drive them and co2 would still go up.

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 09:45 PM
But I am not anti electric car Fed I think they are a great idea. I just don't believe govt needs to force the issue. The best thing you could do for that industry is to open up more rare earth mines in the USA. We need those minerals to make batteries. Right now China shoving the fact they are the only producer up are ass with a shovel.

We have one getting ready to open and in CA. I think its more then a yr away still though. When it goes we will own 30% of the rare earth market. When that happens you watch those industries will kick ass. But we will still point out when Obamas investments go south because it shows bad decision making on the people he put around him to decide this stuff. I'm not arguing that electric cars are stupid though. I don't think that at all.

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 09:57 PM
Battery technology will improve on a curve without much govt funding. Already some of the battery technology is growing. IMO it won't need much govt prodding. Let the private sector do it naturally fed.


Energy storage tech is far, far behind. There's a reason your fancy smartphone needs to be charged twice a day. And of course we've only gotten to where were at with large amounts of government funding (see: universities).


Well France has the most advanced one yet being built. I think 2020 it comes online. It will be used to try and figure out how to make them work as a powerplant. I;d rather invest money over the next 50 yrs going for fusion, then wasting it like Obama does. You know spending money on things the private sector will do if they made sense economically. No private companies can work on fusion without govt help. Its way too big and scientifically challenging.


Put all our eggs in one basket, eh? A highly theoretical basket at that. Fusion may never be viable.

You seem to think all worthwhile advancement happens at a pace that is commercially viable. That's just amazing naive. Fundamental R&D is not something that is profitable in the short term, and don't kid yourself, energy production and storage tech all still requires fundamental R&D.


So we get some electric cars. Do you really think that is going to cool the earth? If it does then I was wrong but I think we could all drive them and co2 would still go up.

You have a single track mind. GCC is a concern, but so is the finite availability of Dino energy resources as well as the ecological consequences (beyond GCC) of gathering those resources. Ever seen a strip mining operation?

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 10:45 PM
Cmon Fed most scientists in that field say it will eventually work. They usually aren't wrong but i fully admit that sort of stuff way over my head. I'm not saying Obama should not invest, i am saying the stimulus was a giveaway, done so fast no govt could distribute the money to winners. They just flung it all over the place to see what would stick. I fully agree though the govt needed for major change in science. I am 100% behind the space program, doing major things like try to develop fusion, go to mars, cure diseases and yes even battery storage. Its just Obama didn't do it right, he wasted a large portion of billions on crap. I wonder how much Obama even giving to fusion, i bet they would have loved 130 million here, 80 million here, you know the big chunks on companies bankrupt.

cutthemdown
12-13-2012, 10:47 PM
Also we have enough coal and oil to at least last the 100 yrs you yourself said before fusion could really be counted on. I am all for battery storages advancement though. In reality though to fuel that like i said we have to mine rare earths. You stay away from that because you know that while environmentalists love electric cars they dont like what is needed to build the batteries. Rare Earths are almost as important as dino fuels now. Better hope that 1 american rare earth mine is enough. IMO we should look to trounce China on this letting rare earths drop, and battery profits go through the roof.

Fedaykin
12-13-2012, 11:04 PM
Cmon Fed most scientists in that field say it will eventually work. They usually aren't wrong but i fully admit that sort of stuff way over my head.


Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Beyond just the problem of initiating the reaction, there are multitudes of other problems. For example, how do we harness the energy that is produced? Last I read we don't have the exotic materials necessary to survive the neutron bombardment byproduct of the fusion reaction that will turn the internal parts of the reactor radioactive and make every feasible alloy we know of become brittle.


I'm not saying Obama should not invest, i am saying the stimulus was a giveaway, done so fast no govt could distribute the money to winners. They just flung it all over the place to see what would stick. I fully agree though the govt needed for major change in science. I am 100% behind the space program, doing major things like try to develop fusion, go to mars, cure diseases and yes even battery storage. Its just Obama didn't do it right, he wasted a large portion of billions on crap.


I know of two examples totaling < 1% of the stimulus. There's no such thing as a sure bet when you're talking about tackling difficult problems.

You know how many space program projects failed? How much disease research fails? How many boondoggles there have been in defense research?

You just want a want to attack the guy with a (D) behind his name.


I wonder how much Obama even giving to fusion, i bet they would have loved 130 million here, 80 million here, you know the big chunks on companies bankrupt.

Fusion research gets more money than all other energy research (production and storage) combined. It's doing fine.

cutthemdown
12-14-2012, 02:20 AM
Not accoridng to the this. This sounds like Obama cut funding for fusion research.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-25/national/35461417_1_nuclear-fusion-iter-fusion-power

Fedaykin
12-14-2012, 07:27 PM
Not accoridng to the this. This sounds like Obama cut funding for fusion research.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-25/national/35461417_1_nuclear-fusion-iter-fusion-power

Actually, according to that, fusion research monies were moved around to better fund the ITER (one of the most important fusion research projects currently under way), something we committed to in 2003.

You really should read past the first paragraph when you try to cite something. Idiot.

You should also probably look up how much the Republican controlled congress has gutted energy research (except fossil fuel research) in the last few years.

cutthemdown
12-14-2012, 07:32 PM
Still not enough money and republicans should get more on board also. Its the next big leap for mankind and should be the main thrust of our science right now IMO. In the meantime use up all the oil and coal and stop this silly idea we can use solar to power the country.

Fedaykin
12-14-2012, 07:58 PM
Still not enough money and republicans should get more on board also. Its the next big leap for mankind and should be the main thrust of our science right now IMO. In the meantime use up all the oil and coal and stop this silly idea we can use solar to power the country.

So, continue wrecking environmental devastation and just hope we can continue to meet all our energy needs for the next century or more burning dead dinosaurs for power?

Pretty dumb plan when we have viable technology to help us start getting away from a fossil fuel based economy now. At the very least it will help us conserve the fossil fuels necessary to make it until we do get fusion going (if ever).

Or are you happy to bet on the fusion long shot to avoid massive resource wars (oil, water, arable land) in the latter half of the 21st century?

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 12:56 AM
And now the investigations begin!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/solar-panel-companies-subpoenaed-in-federal-probe-over-taxpayer-aid/?test=latestnews

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 12:58 AM
We will still evenutally have resource wars Fed. We will need a huge military to come out on top. But eventually we tangle with China over resources. It's already starting in the oceans around the Philipines and Thailand, Vietnam. Resource wars may not be the all out war we are used to however. Still though we need a bigger navy to get it done.

W*GS
12-19-2012, 01:08 AM
We will still evenutally have resource wars Fed. We will need a huge military to come out on top. But eventually we tangle with China over resources. It's already starting in the oceans around the Philipines and Thailand, Vietnam. Resource wars may not be the all out war we are used to however. Still though we need a bigger navy to get it done.

Do you work for the defense industry?

You're one of the most ignorant persons, on just about all subjects, I've ever met.

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 02:10 AM
DERP!

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 04:03 AM
meanwhile working its way through the courts will be all the cases of taxpayers getting ripped off. The govt is just unable to do anything without most of the money being wasted or just outright stolen.



Several major solar panel companies have been issued subpoenas as part of a federal investigation into whether they overcharged for their work in order to squeeze more stimulus money out of taxpayers.
The investigation was revealed earlier this year by one of the subjects in the probe, California-based SolarCity. Shortly before going public last week, the company disclosed in an SEC statement (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1408356/000119312512416770/d229977ds1.htm)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png that it "and other companies with significant market share" -- as well as others "related to the solar industry" -- had received subpoenas from the Treasury Department's Office of the Inspector General.
The SEC statement did not reveal what other companies are being scrutinized. But The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solar-firms-probed-for-misrepresentations-in-getting-public-money/2012/12/13/0ba07656-4496-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png reported that SunRun and Sungevity have also received Treasury subpoenas.
The investigation follows the controversies over Solyndra, the California solar firm that declared bankruptcy in September 2011 after pocketing nearly $530 million in taxpayer support, and over other government-backed solar companies that have gone belly up.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/solar-panel-companies-subpoenaed-in-federal-probe-over-taxpayer-aid/?test=latestnews#ixzz2FUj0LU6l

cutthemdown
04-09-2013, 05:16 AM
Flabeg received $9 million in grants and loans for the facility from the state. In early 2009, the company won $10.2 million in tax credits awarded by the Obama administration as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

The Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill, included $2.3 billion in such credits for clean energy manufacturing projects. Flabeg's $10.2 million was the largest clean energy tax credit awarded to a Pennsylvania company at the time.

Findlay Township received $500,000 in federal money to enlarge a sewer line in the area around the plant to plan for Flabeg's expansion.

Through it all, Flabeg said it expected about 300 jobs to be generated by the plant. The firm's payroll topped out more than 200 at one point, Mr. Lampl said, and had about 70 workers when it stopped production last week.



ba ba bum bum bum another one bites the dust. Is it up to a billion flushed down the drain yet?

cutthemdown
04-09-2013, 05:17 AM
When will people admit what a loser industry solar is and fall back in love with our percious liquid gold? Drill baby and we can turn this economy around.

TonyR
07-08-2014, 02:03 PM
So far, the [clean energy] loan program has only burned through about $800 million of its $10 billion in reserves. Mitt Romney suggested during a debate with President Obama that half of its loans had failed; in fact, more than 95 percent are performing fine. That’s a record most private portfolio managers would envy, and it’s especially remarkable for a program that’s supposed to focus on innovative projects that private financiers won’t bankroll without government help. The goal was to help push promising green technologies across the so-called “Valley of Death,” and it seems to be working. Now that a bunch of huge solar projects have been built with government help, a bunch of copycat projects are under construction with purely private financing. They’ll benefit from the lessons learned in the initial round.

… it would be a shame if Solyndraphobia drove the Energy Department towards overly safe projects that don’t need government help. We don’t need an energy version of the Export-Import Bank, offering slightly cheaper financing to borrowers with no plausible risk of default. The loan program’s main goal should be facilitating disruptive projects in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not avoiding failure in order to make sure taxpayers recoup every dollar. The Ex-Im Bank’s repayment rate is 99.7 percent; that means it’s very unlikely to have a Solyndra problem, and equally unlikely to accomplish anything useful. http://time.com/2955312/obama-solyndraphobia-clean-energy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME %3A+Swampland%29

Rohirrim
07-08-2014, 02:23 PM
When will people admit what a loser industry solar is and fall back in love with our percious liquid gold? Drill baby and we can turn this economy around.

"...that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong-these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."
Winston Churchill

cutthemdown
07-08-2014, 03:39 PM
I'd like to blow coal on you right now.

barryr
07-08-2014, 04:30 PM
These idiots can't even figure out if the planet is warming or cooling. Story changes all the time.

W*GS
07-08-2014, 05:14 PM
These idiots can't even figure out if the planet is warming or cooling. Story changes all the time.

Only for people who can't follow anything but a laser pointer shining on the wall.

Like you.

Rohirrim
07-08-2014, 05:32 PM
Only for people who can't follow anything but a laser pointer shining on the wall.

Like you.

My dogs love that.

cutthemdown
07-08-2014, 05:44 PM
Obama can for sure fund some companies that will become money makers. For how long they make money is in dispute.

Also when you consider only like 2-3% of our electricity comes from solar who knows what it really costs. Is it even 2-3% lol.

Also Tesla, electric cars, for sure some of them will make good. What you can't prove is if Tesla needed govt money. What you can't prove is if solar and wind will ever produce even 25% of our needs?

Also it doesn't reduce co2 enough to make any difference so that point is moot.

cutthemdown
07-08-2014, 05:45 PM
My dogs love that.

Weird my dogs are smart enough to know it's not real. The cat also. I guess your pets must be democrats.

barryr
07-08-2014, 06:17 PM
Only for people who can't follow anything but a laser pointer shining on the wall.

Like you.

Like on Venus.

cutthemdown
11-20-2014, 09:51 PM
http://rt.com/usa/206551-solar-plant-production-california/

Kaitlin Meese, an analyst at research firm Bentek Energy, said its early production figures "do not paint a strong picture for solar-thermal technology development." Meanwhile, Dr Neil Fromer, an executive director of the Resnick Sustainability Institute at the California Institute of Technology said, “The operation of such plants is highly dependent on weather conditions, and predicting when and how strongly the sun will shine is not a perfect science. A little bit of inefficiency with mirrors can translate into a loss of power output ranging from small to significant,” AP reported.


Looks like thermal solar is dead. Why even waste anymore money on it? Maybe other types of solar can still advance but these type of plants are a joke.