mvscal wrote:I don't see that the government should be offering any subsidies be it private or commercial.
Now THAT'S conservative. And while I think it's pie-in-the-sky in this modern age, I really can't fault your thinking behind it. While I may disagree(based only upon the current fiscal climate, not in principle), I respect the viewpoint, and applaud you if you truly apply it consistantly.
Fair enough.
Solar power is not an "alternative energy" source. It is a supplemental technology at best.
Regardless how much of total demand could be filled by solar power, it IS an alternative to petroleum.
But agreed, there's going to have to be a serious technological breakthrough for solar to be viable on any large scale, and the number of joules of energy hitting a given area is what it is.
BUT...a water heater uses electricity, which often comes from petroleum. Any reduction in this is a good thing.
And those solar towers show some promise, but once again, there needs to be a technological breakthrough for them to become a particularly feasable option.
Practical alternative energy sources are tar sands, coal liquefaction and oil shale development and, like it or not, oil companies are the ones best suited to developing and exploiting those resources.
I disagree that they're "practical." They're still just limited fossil fuels. Dead-end. And oil companies definitely are better suited to develope them...when the government takes our tax dollars to help them do it, so they can profit from the people who paid for the research in the first place...but I know I'm preaching to the chior here, in light of your first statements.
Who says this has to be a "PUBLIC WORKS" project? You?
No, not at all. But, Bush's "alternative energy" subsidies are little more than a public works project, only very few members of the "public" benefit...most suffer from it. My rationale was that if the money is to be spent, it should be spent on something that provides immediate benefit, while boosting the economy at the same time.
I can't really bash someone for saying that the money should be spent on either, though. Valid stance-imo, whether I agree or not.
Trying googling the phrase 'private enterprise', dumbfuck.
I'm familiar with it. My beef is when public monies are used strictly so private enterprise can profit. Also, add in the idea that these private enterprises are profiting from public lands, and it becomes clouded. In their present form, projects such as these don't necessarily cater to the "greater good" -imo. Tricky situation, regardless.
