If the goal is to destroy our energy supplies, windmills R us

 

Buzzard hits home

Windmills shut down and new ones blocked – boids is dying. The Dollar Bills of this country aren’t interested in keeping our economy growing – why should they, when they despise consumerism and consumers themselves?

The plan is to bring everything down: shut down nukes, banish coal, destroy hydro-electric dams, block transmission lines,  stop fracking and LNG,  eliminate gasoline, did I miss anything? Oh – wind power – don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo.

Name one source of energy – just one source – that the Mr. Bills support. I sure can’t. Unless you count propeller beanies, and I don’t.

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “If the goal is to destroy our energy supplies, windmills R us

  1. Balzac

    It’s well established that liberals are fully behind one energy source: they call it nonobtainium……..

  2. DollarBill

    Drill, baby, drill. More oil; more fracking. “Clean coal” Bring them all on!!

  3. Anonymous

    I’m sure Mr. Bill uses this method to generate all of the electricity he uses for his household needs, computer, and Volt.

    😆

  4. Cobra

    “Drill, baby, drill. More oil; more fracking. ‘Clean coal’ Bring them all on!”

    Easy for Lizard Bill to criticize. Apparently he resolves his energy needs via his incessant and highly combustible gastrointestinal emissions, as manifested by his inane comments on FWIW.

  5. Asterix

    Connecticut happens to have a pretty decent home market in clean, green and efficient fuel-cell power generation. In building the cells, at least, not so much actually using it; most of the plants are shipped overseas, but domestic generation is slowly coming up. Of course, no one hears about us because we’re not sexy and/or wildly politically corrupt, but give us time!

  6. Dude

    er, chris….the U.S. military has been in the middle east since 1980 supporting our access to oil. Trillions of dollars and counting. Great business model: subsidize cheap oil so that no viable alternative energy can be developed.

    • All the more reason, Dude, to bring in oil from Canada and our own land and waters but we (a) banned the Canadian pipeline, (b) turned over the Gulf of Mexico to Venezuela and Cuba and (c) are moving to shut down our nascent shale oil industry,all while moving against windmills (might hurt birds and they ruin the Kennedy’s view),solar (too big, might hurt sand lizards), h hydro-power (dams hurt fish and must be torn down) coal (dirty), and nuclear (might hurt Jane Fonda). So what’s left? Nothing, and that’s exactly what these people want.

  7. Dude

    Chris, I don’t understand how you support government support for oil production, and excoriate a “business plan that requires money extracted from consumers at gunpoint”. I mentioned our military presence in the middle east because the irony was too rich. But, the oil industry gets many other freebies, directly and indirectly: below market oil leases on federal lands to encourage drilling, the cleanup of oil/gas spills and limitations on damages (whether at sea or land), condemnation of land (presumably) for pipelines should private owners balk at sale, the construction and maintenance of our highway and roads which single handedly made our auto industry possible and, in turn, made our dependence on carbon a fait accompli. Before I’m attacked, I’m not saying this is necessarily bad. I’m just asking for consistency among the supposed free marketers. Specifically, don’t ignore the trillions of tax dollars that support the oil industry when you attack the relatively little amount proposed for alternative solutions to our energy woes: hydro, solar, wind, public transportation, nuclear. It’s going to have to be a comprehensive undertaking that can’t rely solely on giving more to the oil industry.

  8. Asterix

    I was cracking a joke with the “give us time!” bit, but fuel cell development is being done largely in the absence of significant government grants. Some business is with the government, directly; see http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/business/article/Groton-base-buys-2-units-609372.php for instance. But quite a bit of it is with private industry, particularly folks like breadmakers, beer producers etc that produce waste gas the cells can run off of. Even solar and geothermal could find market-friendly niches (solar works great on the roofs of grocery stores with big freezers, for instance) if they weren’t being pushed as a base-load replacement for carbon fuels – the only hope for that is nuclear.

    However, you would be correct if you had said there’s a rent-seeking aspect, as in many cases the installations only make financial sense under the umbrella of restrictive government emissions rules. This is also why so much business is overseas – if you think our energy picture is cloudy, you should see Asia’s.

    Dude above me is correct in that all industries should be treated in a uniform manner, but confuses tax breaks (i.e. taking less at gunpoint from workers) with grants and extended loans (i.e. giving that gunpoint money to cronies.) He also ignores scale – discounting hundreds of billions on a multi-trillion industry is questionable, but granting or loaning billions of dollars to a company with a seven or eight digit market cap is straight foolishness.