If the two of you were really, really opposed to subsidies, you'd go after nukes and ethanol.
The reason Texas goes for wind is that the state is going to grow and needs to lower emissions.
Who knows? The Texas delegation is very powerful in the GOP. Maybe they can get these wind subsidies re-instated. And retroactive.
If the two of you were really, really opposed to subsidies, you'd go after nukes and ethanol. If you were really really opposed to subsidies you would be opposed to solar, both thermal and photovoltaic. In the case of solar thermal, it is very expensive and stupid since the motors will degrade in the desert environment.. Photovoltaic is just expensive, and only makes sense in the desert SW or southern California where the sunshine mostly coincides with the energy need for A/C.
I am adamantly opposed to offshore wind whereas wind in Texas has a somewhat reasonable cost (hence the subsidy phaseout). I would certainly oppose any wind power being built around here (Virginia). It is done in WV but is basically a joke there.
If the two of you were really, really opposed to subsidies, you'd go after nukes and ethanol.I am opposed to all taxpayer subsides to any industry or group.
Ethanol is another evil that should not exist.
The reason Texas goes for wind is that the state is going to grow and needs to lower emissions.
Lower emissions? Please tell me you aren't into the AGW scam. Considering geologic timescales, the level of Carbon in the atmosphere is actually on the low side. If anything the Earth could use more carbon to aid in plant growth.
If you have a chance, check out this book, The Chilling Stars. It is a fascinating read. It really is an eye opener. It is about the research of a Danish scientist, Henrik Svensmark. It seeks to explain how our Sun and Cosmic Rays interact to affect our climate.
Who knows? The Texas delegation is very powerful in the GOP. Maybe they can get these wind subsidies re-instated. And retroactive.
LOL. I hope not. Both parties are filled with hard-core statists.