Bee,
1. Innovation is not driven by government. It is by individuals HP and APPL were started in garages.
2. Solar provides an irregular expense from of energy. See Germany this past December. Again, I do not have a problem with solar. I'd just like to see the proponents pay more for their power rather than the many who can least afford it.
3. I've got no problem working on the next thing and for it to be there when science finally fails the oil industry. Right now, we are awash in NG and coal. At current oil prices coal hydrogenation should be economically feasible, I read an article about 4 or 5 years ago as it being a way to lower jet fuel prices when oil was above $42/bl.
4. How much would a Volt without the subsidy? I know I would not pay what they would have to ask, if the car came to market a true cost plus Gross Trading Margin. Especially in if I drove in Minnesota in winter where electrical range is about 40 miles. I've zero problems with any energy efficient vehicle that is not subsidized...let it compete with clean diesel technologies out there...see VW, Mercedes and BMW. It the iterim...high paying jobs will leave California and the United States to places with lower regulation and lower energy costs. I am seeing that already in my industry...more imports, less domestic product...I see a basic commodity, whose specialty products were once almost 100% domestic.
Not listed as 5. The Hollywood examples shows even people who support taxes...you can substitute solar, will go where they need to go to get around regulation, taxes to reduce cost of goods and increase net profits. If they leave Solar Land for Lignite Land and Lignite Land isn't as stringent with regulations, what have you gained? Cleaner air? Cleaner water? No, you have lost jobs. Carbon emissions know no border.
Last edited by wbtravis; 01/17/14 11:35 AM.
