Great! Then everyone is for Trump's tariffs! You're just oppose to how he's going to spend the money!
Ok, I'm just being stupid and arguing with a straw man. I apologize.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump's New Humanitarian Streak--Foreign Aid at Businesses Expense
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
Great! Then everyone is for Trump's tariffs! You're just oppose to how he's going to spend the money!
Ok, I'm just being stupid and arguing with a straw man. I apologize.
That's about it. Tariffs should be used as a stick to get a country to agree to fair trade practices. They should not be used as a method to raise money to fund giveaway programs.
This idea of paying farmers for crops with government funds and then redistributing the food, is basically communism. Yes, I oppose that sort of thing.
So, one of two things will happen if these reciprocal tariffs (taxes) are not rescinded. 1. Costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers who are least able to afford them. 2. Consumers will make different purchasing decisions which will have a negative impact on the GNP. The Trump administration hopes that this trade war will end with China folding. That is a real possibility but even if that does happen it may be too late for many small businesses and consumers.
Wonderfully government subsidized
At the same time prices raise because cheap labor for cheap products are no longer subsidized by taxes on us going against our goods alone but rather through reciprocal taxes/tariffs to level the field the door in opened for the creation of many new jobs here to build better quality products. There may be shift of winners and losers but in the long run, maybe even a short run, I believe a positive impact on our GNP will increase in leaps and bounds by bringing us back into the competition, which is long overdue.
Right
Relaxing regulations in the energy sector means:
- Discarding environmental controls on factories and vehicles that try to preserve clean air and clean water.
- Allowing off-shore drilling for oil when they are better and cheaper alternatives like solar power. He is constantly trying to push us backwards technology-wise when even Saudi Arabia has a significant solar power program.
Then why is he trying to start a war with Iran?
In what world is solar energy cheaper than energy from oil?
1. It's better than the current farm bill.
2. We are going to give foreign aid any way, may as well let our farmers benefit from it.
3. Trump understands that Chins is a huge, fast emerging threat. His intention is to hurt their economy to slow their military build up and modernization.
Bully for Cambodia and Vietnam and Mexico. Not so good for U.S., manufacturers who have built their business around Chinese goods.
Last edited:
There ya go assuming again
We should take over Venezuela LOL!
Not cheaper but cleaner.
I guess the traitors should have been more loyal to USA. I buy as much USA made as possible. I pay 2.5x for USA made bearings, gear boxes, reducers, etc. They are worth every penny. You get what you pay for and reliability is not cheap.
Most certainly not in Trump-World. He either doesn't understand the state of energy technology or he has deals with coal people to block the new cheaper and more efficient technology. Other countries are leaving the U.S. behind once again.
***************************************************************************************************
Solar vs. Coal: Why the "74 Percent Report" Signals a New Era for US Energy | Inverse
The majority of existing coal energy plants in the United States could be replaced by solar or wind energy while saving consumers money, announces a report out this week that hails the milestone as the “coal cost crossover.” It’s long-projected outcome is increasingly efficient renewable energy and government incentives to develop the tech that doesn’t emit atmosphere-clogging CO2.
This Is the “74 Percent” Report
The report, compiled by the San Francisco-based think tank Energy Innovation, shows that in 2018, 211 gigawatts of existing American coal energy were “at risk from local [defined as 35 miles] wind or solar, which could provide the same amount of electricity more cheaply.” Those 211 gigawatts of coal energy represent 74 percent of all US coal-fired power plants (286 GW). By the year 2025, “at-risk coal” increases to 246 GW, the report projects.
Essentially, wind and solar costs are cheaper than 74 percent of coal costs in the United States, and that percentage is projected to keep rising.
The report also found that 94 gigawatts of coal was substantially at risk, meaning new wind and solar could undercut the cost of existing coal by more than 25 percent.
At the present, solar is still a waste of money. It is very close to true viability, but it still has not reached that point. It will be there in 10 years. You must also calculate in the fact that currently solar is heavily subsidizing Chinese economy and harming the economy of USA and our strategic allies.
If solar is so wonderful, why is China exporting almost all its panels and burning coal to make their own energy???
Kind of like my HVAC guy who wanted to sell me the $9k unit and when asked what he had at his house it was the $4k unit.
<snip>
I ask you, "in what world is solar energy cheaper than energy from oil", and you respond with an article about coal. Classic leftist deflection.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
I presented a study supporting my position. You present no facts just your observations. BTW, do you want the U.S. to follow China or do you want for us to resume the lead in technology, the country that put a man on the moon?
No, just an honest mistake. Oil is a more interesting topic. The dominant use of oil is transportation (71%) versus 24% for industrial power and 6% for residential, commercial and electric power combined. The cost of switching to renewable sources or natural gas for transportation is of course burdened by the large infrastructure required to support it and the development and use of vehicles using other fuel types. But your question was only about the cost of solar energy production version energy production using oil. The broader issue is more relevant.
The cost of using oil for transportation includes the price of crude, the refining into gasoline and the physical delivery of gasoline to service stations.
The cost of solar includes the cost of solar collectors (the energy itself is free), the conversion into electricity, the storage of the electricity (batteries) and the transmission of electricity to service stations.
Solar collectors and batteries have become much cheaper and more efficient in the last 20 years. Oil prices go up and down depending on geopolitics. Now they're down but could easily go back up. I think you have to factor in the cost of wars we've waged in the MidEast to secure oil for our industrial machine. Added to that is the fact that just recently the U.S. became a net oil exporter due primarily to shale oil production.
Therefore, for both economic, environmental and strategic reasons I believe we should continue to transition off oil. But yes, the cost of just producing energy from solar is now cheaper than the cost of producing energy from oil. I think taking us out from under the thumb of the sheiks in the MidEast is a major advantage. Drilling offshore in the U.S. is costly and dangerous. Remember the oil spills in the Gulf and offshore in Alaska?