Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources - by Mark Clayton CSM

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 11:49 AM
Original message
US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources - by Mark Clayton CSM
US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources

Geothermal and hydropower are mature enough for private enterprise to take the lead, the government says.

By Mark Clayton
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
September 15, 2006 edition


"US to cut funds for two renewable energy sources
Geothermal and hydropower are mature enough for private enterprise to take the lead, the government says.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Out at the Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River, a new turbine is being tested that generates more electricity, but won't kill so many fish - thanks to research dollars from Uncle Sam.
Down in California's Long Valley, on the Sierra Nevada range, federal researchers are working to boost efficiency of geothermal energy, which uses the earth's natural heat to generate power.

But renewable energy advocates may have to kiss goodbye those and other research projects. The US Department of Energy (DOE) is quitting the hydropower and geothermal power research business - if Congress will let it.

Declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding, the Bush administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminates hydropower and geothermal research, venerable programs with roots in the energy crises of the 1970s.

.... SNIP"


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0915/p02s01-uspo.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Who decides that successful technology should automatically go to
Edited on Fri Sep-15-06 11:52 AM by applegrove
the private market? Much money to be made by "new industry". Why shouldn't government benefit from its investment for a bit.

Almost like in any instance when government could make money..it has to be handed over to private investors so they can benefit...like it is a crime for anyone other than rich people in the stock market to make money.

If this is what is meant by "specialization" COUNT ME OUT!!

It would make just as much sense for government to stay in the industry for another twenty years.. and then sell when geothermal is a huge asset.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yep - "No difference between the two parties. We all know Gore and Kerry
Edited on Fri Sep-15-06 12:28 PM by blm
would have done the exact same thing."

So we were told ad nauseum.

(She said while clutching her stomach.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't think so. I think Gore and Kerry would have held onto govern
ment participation in emerging industries for a while longer.

It just seems that the GOP want government to be erased in fields unless there is no money to be made.

For sure government cannot be in mature industries unless a public good exists.. but why do they have to "get out" just when profits are about to sky-rocket.

This so reminds me of rich people with expensive stock brokers wanted all American in the Stock Market with Social Security..where they will be able to "beat the market" because of the expertese they can afford.. and for someone to win in the market..someone else has to loose. Almost like those 20 wealthy families in the USA.. want to have some sucker to sell all their GM stock to. And unless they can put inexperienced people in the market en mass..they will have to sell their GM or Ford or (old - past its due date industry) stock at a big loss.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. apple, surely you didn't think I said that seriously?
Come on - - you kid, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. That is what the sarcasm smilie is for. Yes..I didn't know how to take
it. I'm bad with names. I never know who I am talking to. So I'm not really doing much in the way of "judging" when I read. An issue I have with other facets of my life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. No doubt, then...
that there will be no funding for anything related to any fossil fuel-based technologies, since fossil fuels have matured for over 100 years.

heh. I crack myself up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Some of that is a good example of how the market is completely warped
by those 20 or 40 wealthy families in the USA. I hear ya. Tar Sands is new technology. But you are right.. investing and subsidizing oil industry so much.. just makes you want to puke.

The kid who wants all his marbles ...and yours. You knew at 4 to give up and go home. No point to hand with mean liars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texanshatingbush Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. Perhaps this is BushCo's tacit admission.....
....that global warming is real and will be drying up all future opportunities for hydroelectric power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-15-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I think it is just about the stock market. Lots of money out there in a
few hands that wants not to have to compete with American Government for profits new technologies will bring. Nothing wrong with wanting to invest in emmerging technologies. Just not when it warps the game to investors favours all the time. Like Oil getting subsidies. Like government investing in R & D and then leaving an industry they have seeded as soon as it is about to make money. What would government do with such profits? Why re-invest in more R&D in other alternative fuels. But if they leave as soon as it becomes realistic... they've just spent the money and handed it over to the stock market for them to make the profit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC