Posted on 12/09/2011 3:02:10 AM PST by 1010RD
When does the ethanol mandate expire?
I agree. There needs to be a way to get the R&D money and then forever cut the gov’t out of the commercial application end of it.
I’m not really sure we’ve even hit on the right combination with solar. These little solar cells, panels, thin-sheets, etc. are basically the focus for years now. Surely there’s a better way than that to get at all the heat bombarding this planet.
Come on - 8 billion a year to burn up 40% of our corn crop in order to water down our gasoline is a GREAT INVESTMENT (in the political future of anyone running for office in or around the Corn belt).
Bachmann supports ethanol subsidies, Perry supports solar and wind subsidies (not sure if he supports ethanol).
I agree
With the added benefit of higher food prices to consumers.
Don’t forget about lower gas mileage.
It’s a win-win-win for America!
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Are you saying that Gingrich doesn’t support ethanol subsidies by government?
Does he support the ethanol mandate?
Is ethanol a national security issue or a boondoggle?
Are there any alternative methods not involving taxpayer money that would expand energy alternatives and lower the cost of American energy?
There is a way: private money. There are plenty of billionaires and they can spend their cash hunting the solutions, not ours.
Surely there’s a better way than that to get at all the heat bombarding this planet.
Petroleum is the result and we should be using it. Look at Thorium as a potentially safe nuclear alternative. Newt is behind the curve on this and is bent on money.
Bachmann doesn’t have the resources. You’re left with Newt, Mitt and Perry. All flawed candidates. What you can look at is executive experience and being a legislator isn’t the same. Newt did a great job with the Contract and then couldn’t keep his mouth or his zipper shut.
He’s a terrible executive.
That leaves Mitt and Perry. I’ll take Perry flaws and all. He’s been governor our 2nd largest state, team him with Rubio and you’ve got a winning ticket. Obama loses all he’s invested in the 99%/OWS crowd. That entire meme dies with two self-made men one a small town rancher and the other the son of Cuban immigrants.
We need both Houses and the WH to right our country. If we cannot gain the WH we need to take the Senate and hold the House. That’s my... well I was going to say two cents, but it looks like twenty five at least. ;-]
If he wins the nomination, I'll be all for him.
Best of luck.
I agree with you in most cases about R&D money. I don’t think solar, wind, etc., are such huge undertakings that they are beyond the capacity of individuals/corporations to undertake on their own.
Except that while we have wasted billions of dollars given to the likes of Solydnra we have completely ignored R&D is such things as fuel formulation and surface deposit production which have had, as “disruptive technologies” had a difficult time making it to market even though they would bring dramatic improvement. In effect government focus on “green energy” for a “green economy” combined with its war on hydrocarbon fuels has blocked improvement that could have long since made us independent of foreign oil. Indeed, even in nuclear, the dominance of a few large companies focused on large scale plants has thwarted the promising area of smaller nuclear plant development even though we have in our navy much know how in that area so that Japan and others have gotten ahead of us in that area and we even refused an offer from them to demonstrate small scale nuclear in Alaska as a loss leader for free. Similarly with regard to hydro, we have shunned the enormous promise of low head hydro which offers the duel advantage of clean, cheap power and better flood control in order to save such things as the “snail darter” which is ridiculous. Even in large scale nuclear we have not pursued commercialization of better options that we have uncovered in government research. In short the DOE in particular has not just been ineffective it has blocked progress.
It It's not. Erick Erickson wrote yesterday at Redstate that we should seriously consider a brokered Republican convention due to the weakness of the GOP field. I am rapidly coming to agree with this conclusion.
Yes, let us useful idiots at Free Republic ensure a Romney candidacy, and therefore another four years of 0bama.
Idiots.
We have three crappy options: Mitt, Newt, Barry. You choose which ones to attack. Idiots are going to attack Newt, now that Cain is gone and Palin didn’t enter the race. And then we get Mitt. Great. Idiots.
what exactly does that mean?
Good post. Thanks.
What it means is that no candidate has a majority of delegate votes at the convention, so the nominee is then decided through horse-trading with delegates released from their previous obligations.
The HUGE weakness to this type of convention is that it leaves the door open for Romney, which is a fate worse than death both to me and to the GOP.
The advantage, and it may be all conservatives have, is that it’s possible a real conservative candidate might emerge.
OK and agreed. I’m disturbed by Newt’s shifting views, although it’s not unusual for a politician. I hesitate to say that just anybody’s better than Obama
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.