AspenValley wrote:
Rockdoc Franz wrote: We were talking about this issue at home yesterday. While desirable, green energy support is going to the wrong place was our conclusion. Instead of supporting companies, we thought the stimulus would be better spent assisting homeowners in implementing green energy . Company stimulus packages did not make green energy more affordable to homeowners, a key to having the technology take off. Our current economy wars against such homeowner expenditures, but if there were substantial financial assistance for homeowners, they would i turn support the industries currently failing from lack of customers. So what is wrong with our logic?
I think it would be wise to encourage a switch to sustainable energy on both fronts. But the problem with only doing it from the consumer end, in my view, is that it may not encourage the best technology. I remember during the Carter administration when there were tax credits for renewable energy, a lot of little cottage industries sprang up supplying demand but there really wasn't a significant investment by businesses in serious R&D. And the cottage industries died out as soon as the tax credits ended, which tells me the products they were supplying weren't financially viable from the customer's view.
There needs to be serious support given to R&D in producing reliable, affordable and financially sensible products or I just don't think it's ever going to happen. One day we'll wake up to $15 gasoline and $3000 a month electric bills and it will be too late then.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Rockdoc Franz wrote:
AspenValley wrote:
Rockdoc Franz wrote: We were talking about this issue at home yesterday. While desirable, green energy support is going to the wrong place was our conclusion. Instead of supporting companies, we thought the stimulus would be better spent assisting homeowners in implementing green energy . Company stimulus packages did not make green energy more affordable to homeowners, a key to having the technology take off. Our current economy wars against such homeowner expenditures, but if there were substantial financial assistance for homeowners, they would i turn support the industries currently failing from lack of customers. So what is wrong with our logic?
I think it would be wise to encourage a switch to sustainable energy on both fronts. But the problem with only doing it from the consumer end, in my view, is that it may not encourage the best technology. I remember during the Carter administration when there were tax credits for renewable energy, a lot of little cottage industries sprang up supplying demand but there really wasn't a significant investment by businesses in serious R&D. And the cottage industries died out as soon as the tax credits ended, which tells me the products they were supplying weren't financially viable from the customer's view.
There needs to be serious support given to R&D in producing reliable, affordable and financially sensible products or I just don't think it's ever going to happen. One day we'll wake up to $15 gasoline and $3000 a month electric bills and it will be too late then.
I beg to differ with your pessimistic view of consumer driven technological innovation. Viable companies thrive because their products work. Viable companies find support for research or buy innovative research of start up companies to remain competitive.
Investment in R&D is a company decision. A CEO with vision will promote R&D whereas one focused on the bottom line and trying to impress shareholders will not. Ultimately, the Steve Jobs, will lead a company to great heights with technological innovations while still being able to more than satisfy the shareholders. In essence, I don't believe you can create a viable R&D culture by poring money into it if you do not have the management and vision in place to drive the company. It's more complicated than that.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
AspenValley wrote:
Rockdoc Franz wrote:
AspenValley wrote:
Rockdoc Franz wrote: We were talking about this issue at home yesterday. While desirable, green energy support is going to the wrong place was our conclusion. Instead of supporting companies, we thought the stimulus would be better spent assisting homeowners in implementing green energy . Company stimulus packages did not make green energy more affordable to homeowners, a key to having the technology take off. Our current economy wars against such homeowner expenditures, but if there were substantial financial assistance for homeowners, they would i turn support the industries currently failing from lack of customers. So what is wrong with our logic?
I think it would be wise to encourage a switch to sustainable energy on both fronts. But the problem with only doing it from the consumer end, in my view, is that it may not encourage the best technology. I remember during the Carter administration when there were tax credits for renewable energy, a lot of little cottage industries sprang up supplying demand but there really wasn't a significant investment by businesses in serious R&D. And the cottage industries died out as soon as the tax credits ended, which tells me the products they were supplying weren't financially viable from the customer's view.
There needs to be serious support given to R&D in producing reliable, affordable and financially sensible products or I just don't think it's ever going to happen. One day we'll wake up to $15 gasoline and $3000 a month electric bills and it will be too late then.
I beg to differ with your pessimistic view of consumer driven technological innovation. Viable companies thrive because their products work. Viable companies find support for research or buy innovative research of start up companies to remain competitive.
Investment in R&D is a company decision. A CEO with vision will promote R&D whereas one focused on the bottom line and trying to impress shareholders will not. Ultimately, the Steve Jobs, will lead a company to great heights with technological innovations while still being able to more than satisfy the shareholders. In essence, I don't believe you can create a viable R&D culture by poring money into it if you do not have the management and vision in place to drive the company. It's more complicated than that.
Let me ask you this....do you think we would have ever gone to moon by subsidizing people who thought they might want to take a ride to it?
Oh, and if you find a CEO with actual vision to invest over decades in R&D, and not just shuffle numbers to make next quarter's profits (and his bonus) look good, please let me know as I want to invest in his company for the long haul. Haven't seen that kind of vision in a couple of decades, I'm afraid.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: [And now that space flight is opened to the private sector and there is an opportunity to make a profit, just wait and see the innovation and efficiency that will evolve from it relative to the years of government regulated space flight.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
swampfish wrote: What?
Rockdoc is talking about entrepreneural-driven efforts driving the green industry, and not government subsidies. AspenValley you're saying that if government subsidies don't drive the green effort, then it won't happen, because people are generally only casually interested in it.
We got all the way to the second half of the 20th century before government started subsidizing research in this country. What ever did we do before then? Oh, yes. We used our heads, and rolled up our sleeves, pursued our visions and hunted down interested investors to back our endeavors. In other words, entrepreneurial spirits in a free market economy is what built our country, not government subsidies.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Vice Lord wrote:
The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:
Vice Lord wrote: Ha ha ha ha...Obama shoulda gave them the same kinda deals he gives the war contractors..Just tell Evergreen Energy, Amonix Inc and ENER1 to submit thier mostly fictitious costs, and we'll gaurentee them a 100% profit every year based on that.
What these green companies should have done was employ and fund lobbyist with that stimulus money- That way they coulda kept the money comin year after year after year..You know, like the weapons manufacturers do?
Only this thread is not about war contractors. And you can go on about war contractors until your blue in the face and die and it's not going to change the fact that the Obama administration has spent 10 billion dollars on failed green technology companies. But go ahead, deflect, roger the thread, that's all you mindless ignorant liberals are capable of anyway.
10 Billion Dollars! lol
We spent that on toilet paper every week in Afghanistan
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.