'Not easy being green'

Nancy, good point however pointing out that you did not support Pawlenty is irrelevant and just damages message.

Nancy's obviously got issues.

The only green that matters and congress cares about is dollars. Subsidizing inefficient green energy costs us the tax payers twice. Once for the tax to pay the subsidy and once in the form of higher energy costs.

Clean coal technology is available and we have more coal than the middle east has oil so it should be a no brainer. Nuclear energy is as green as it gets and we have the technology so it should be a no brainer. We can replace almost all of our oil usage by switching to natural gas, which we have lots so it should be a no brainer. So tell me why even our elected officials (who obviously have no brains) want to spend our hard earned dollars on experimental inefficient technology?

Since wind power is unable to sustain an electric grid on its own but requires a coal/oil/gas/nuclear generation system as backup, shouldn't the cost of the the coal/oil/gas/nuclear generator be factored into the cost of wind powered electricity? Caution: Objects in the eye of a greenie may be more expensive than they appear.

Actually JJ is too conservative in the estimates. There was just an article in the paper that the wind turbines hit their rated capacity when the winds are at least 24 MPH, which happens only 20% of the time. Thus, in order to replace 500 MW of coal generated power, you need 2000 MW of wind turbines to account for the fact that most of the time they do not produce much power the majority of the time.

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Nancy, good point however pointing out that you did not support Pawlenty is irrelevant and just damages message.

I re-read her letter after reading your comment, and I don't think it does damage the message. It's about how women get passed over for recognition by the DFL (and Republicans too, I might add). I was at the DFL convention when Mike Hatch got the nomination, and it was terrible. I was a staunch Becky Lourie supporter, and worked on her campaign. I agree with the letter writer. I think she added the Pawlenty comment only because she had noted she had supported Republicans when the DFL ignored qualified women, but not to the point that she would just vote for another middle-aged white man (pawlenty).

Edmunds: Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24k per car, not $4k
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/29/edmunds-ca...

There is little doubt that Cash for Clunkers gave auto sales a big boost in late July and most of August, but there has been considerable debate as to how much help taxpayers'$3 billion provided. Customers who purchased a new car or truck were rewarded in many ways, especially when you consider the U.S. government paid out a median price of about $4,000 per clunker. Those customers are also saving at the pump, as each car turned in was 4-10 mpg better than the vehicle it replaced. Dealers sold more cars. States received more tax dollars. So the program was a success, right?

If you believe the statistical analysis of Edmunds, perhaps the program wasn't so terrific after all. The industry research juggernaut claims that of the 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of those sales went to people who weren't going to purchase a new car in 2009. The result, says Edmunds, is that the $3 billion spent for C4C ended up spurring only 125,000 sales at a cost of $24,000 per vehicle. Further, Edmunds claims that October's sales would have ramped up even more than what current projections indicate.

There doesn't seem to be too many industry experts who disagree with Edmunds' assessment that the Clunkers program only generated 125,000 additional sales, but C4C wasn't just about selling cars and trucks. Ford industry guru George Pipas told CNN Money that the Blue Oval feels the program was a success, adding "The whole purpose of the program was to provide some kind of catalyst to kick-start the economy, and by all accounts the extra production that was added this year was a boost to the economy."

more at autoblog.com ...

----------

this means upcoming “cash for appliances” should render us some fabulous $8000 taxpayer funded refrigerators!
Just an example of how government health care would operate.

"U.N. To Name Tinker Bell As Honorary Ambassador Of Green"

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/70167...

The Green movement is a fairy tale so I guess its a good match.

carbon credits == scam