This is really illuminating and extremely sobering for all of us lefties who hope for eco-friendly, renewable energy.
Take a look!
Too bad eco policies, like the ban on incandescent light bulbs, is resulting in lost jobs in the US and the exportation of jobs to China.
Yeah, saving those 200 jobs is a really good reason to waste Gigawatts of power.:rolleyes:
Which is why I’ve been saying for years that the low-hanging fruit is in simply using less energy to accomplish the same tasks. Cap-and-trade would have spurred this tremendously.
You really think that before flourescent bulbs were mandated that there was only that one plant in the US making bulbs?
If people want to waste energy…let them they are paying for it.
Are you in favor of mandating settings on thermostats in people’s homes?
Are you in favor of regulating whether someone can have a heater on their pool?
Are you in favor of regulating fireplaces?
Etc. etc.
Yeah, it’s eco policies to blame here, not GE, a company that grossed $157 billion in FY 2009, yet found it more fiscally sound to shut down U.S. lightbulb production entirely so that they could pay Chinese workers pennies on the dollar compared to what they were paying those 200 Americans, and wouldn’t have the (one-time) cost of modifying the plant. (Better to build one with cheap Chinese labor and Chinese products.) They had to protect their $157 billion. Heaven forbid that they only gross $156.5 billion one year and have facilities to move forward with a green energy product in the U.S. That’s unconscionable. Horrid eco policies! :rolleyes:
They may pay their utility bills, but we all pay for “wasted” energy because so much of our current energy comes from non-renewable resources. Every light that you burn unnecessarily or mile you drive that you didn’t need to is using up oil that isn’t going to come back. Every degree warmer you set the thermostat in winter rather than putting on a sweater or degree cooler in the summertime while you sleep under a comforter represents more mountaintops being destroyed for the coal to keep the power plants humming. (And that’s not even touching carbon emissions.)
Wasted energy doesn’t happen in a personal vacuum. It has an impact not only on everyone living now but on all the generations to come. It’s pure, unnecessary, unthinking selfishness.
There are several things wrong with this statement other than the subject-verb mismatch (“eco policies…is”).
One is that 80 percent of the solar and wind energy in the U.S. depends on equipment produced in China and other countries that have made a more robust commitment to renewable energy within their own borders.
Chinese clean energy investments hit $34.6 billion in 2009, almost double the U.S. total of $18.6 billion, according to data released by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/china-trumps-u-s-in-clean-energy-investments/
If the U.S. had gotten serious about renewables years ago, we could have led the market in development of new technologies, instead of shipping our best minds in this area overseas.
If the country had continued with the sober attitude that Jimmy Carter had it would be a massively different situation now.
GE’s not a charity. Its responsibility is not to employ people. Its responsibility is generate a return for its shareholders. The government on the other hand takes a great deal of responsibility to increase employment in its jurisdiction. Energy in the US is plentiful and cheap. The government should not be in the business of mandating consumption of a commodity. Let the market handle it. If and when the supply of energy becomes less then the price of energy will rise and that will incentivize consumers to choose to conserve. If you want to conserve now great, if you would rather burn 200 watt incandescent bulbs in your house that should be your right. The trade off of the amount of the 1000’s of jobs that left this country because of a ridiculous policy that inhibits peoples personal freedoms is what is unconscionable. Your argument that GE is the bad guy here is stupid and misplaced.
Clearly a philosophical difference here. I do not feel that we as a society owe anything to generations 100’s of years in the future. Energy is plentiful and cheap. If it was is such short supply as you estimate, then the price per mmbtu would be so high, none of us could afford it. As I said before, the government should not be in the business of mandating the consumption of commodities.
$39 billion is a drop in the bucket when it comes to overall investment in energy resources. The reason there are not significant clean energy investments anywhere is that they are not economically viable. When people invest money, they expect an economic return, otherwise it’s not an investment but charity. So far no one has yet developed an economically viable alternative to burning fossil fuels to produce the equivalent amount of energy. Once someone does, you’ll see huge amounts of investment.
Does anyone know what they mean by “Rejected Energy”?
It’s not surprising that nearly all transportation is petroleum fueled. I think it would be interesting to see figures breaking down the transportation-related consumption into freight and passengers, and of the latter, discretionary travel as distinct from obligatory (i.e. commuting and business trips).
I wasn’t able to find a clear definition, but I’m guessing that it might have something to do with energy lost during the conversion process. Maybe. ?