Patterson: Obama on wrong side of energy arguments
Tom Patterson
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
12 comments:
Rules of Conduct
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
Rich posted at 1:58 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
If everyone had a well paying job, they'd be voting Republican (ie: their pocketbook). The only real chance Obama has to stay in power is to keep unemployment high and blame the rich folks. Expect him to find ways to stifle jobs, as covertly as possible.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:23 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
Doctor Patterson,
What's up Doc?
When you speak about medicine, I give you the benefit of the doubt. But when I hear you speaking about crude oil production and job creation, I talk to my petroleum geologist friend. And he can't figure out where you are getting your facts. Would you please fill the two of us in?
CWDarling posted at 7:29 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
I am with Dale on this one... Most of the US mainland is ripe for the "fracking" process. Problem is it spoils water, causes tremors or earthquakes and will likely leave entire swaths of the Country uninhabitable I am afraid. I know we need energy production... take it to the sun. The real reason we have issues with renewable energy... once we develop a true technology that can produce it... it will be so cheap everyone can afford it... big business would lose. It really is that simple... so Dr... stop being a pawn.
CWDarling posted at 7:34 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
I forgot to point out that calling the current administration "Obstructionist" is laughable... but I am sure you don't see it that way being a "conservative" politician... I quote conservative because you are not one... you fall under the catagory of patriarchal politician. You really don't care what your constituents thought... you did what was best for you.
wdgnas posted at 7:53 am on Sun, Dec 18, 2011.
Meanwhile, we’ll continue to pay higher fuel prices. And even though we now have the opportunity to be energy independent, we’ll continue to buy oil from people who use our dollars to spread hatred against us. This is absurd.
prices for most petroleum products have been dropping. here is an article that should make all of you say what is going here.
http://money.msn.com/ways-to-invest/why-the-us-is-sending-oil-overseas-jubak.aspx
CooperG posted at 9:47 am on Sun, Dec 18, 2011.
Patterson plays the typical Arizona Republican card of denying Arizona's ability to utilize one of its few naturally occurring competitive advantages (the sun) to grow a local industry (renewable energy) and instead tows the old school party line of mindlessly supporting planet and water table killing natural gas fracking and oil drilling. After all, those industries bring SO many jobs to our state.
Why does Patterson hate creating Arizona jobs so much? I think it's because he's stuck in the past. Patterson should seriously considering fully retiring and make some room for more forward thinking people to state their opinions on these pages. As the saying goes, you can't hurtle into the future with your eyes affixed to the rear-view mirror. If he doesn't support creating Arizona jobs, we don't need to hear about how much he wants them created in other states.
VofReason posted at 1:18 pm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011.
Yes that cheap sun energy. A very general rule of thumb: Small, single-PV-panel systems that produce about 75 watts can cost about $900 installed, or $12 per watt. A 2-kilowatt (1 kilowatt=1,000 watts) system that meets most energy needs of an extremely energy-efficient home can cost $16,000-$20,000 installed, or $8-$10 per watt. A 5-kilowatt system that completely meets the energy needs of many conventional homes can cost $30,000-$40,000 installed, (from solar installer website). Boy this seems pretty cheap way to get energy- not. Maybe that is why they have to give you huge tax breaks for people to do it. If it were smart, capitalism would take care of itself.
VofReason posted at 1:21 pm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011.
For hall monitor Dale. When he speaks about looney left ideas, I know he is spot on (wrong but spot on). Anything he claims is good for the country- not so much.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:32 pm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011.
And yet First Solar, the nation's largest Solar PV manufacturing company, now headquartered right here in Tempe, has done a land office business. It's revenues are dipping now, only because demand in this recession is dipping. And First Solar's chief competition ? It's not wind or coal. It's PV manufacturers in China! What do the Chineese know that you don't know, VofReason?
wdgnas posted at 6:53 am on Thu, Dec 22, 2011.
vofreason:i do not know where you get your information. 75 watts a panel--maybe a b-stock thin film panel. i installed a system with 12 230 watt panels that meets the needs of the family in colorado. 2.76 kw for $12,500. it's all relative.
VofReason posted at 12:53 pm on Thu, Dec 22, 2011.
I got that info from solar power website- I don't have personal experience with it or have anything installed. I do know this though, why do they need tax subsidies if it is such a good idea on it's own. How much does the government have to give you in tax incentives to buy a TV? Computer?
wdgnas posted at 7:47 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
vofreason: I do know this though, why do they need tax subsidies if it is such a good idea on it's own.
ask the nucular power industry the same question. why do they need the federal government (that's you and i, in case you have forgotten) to subsidize, err i mean to their provide insurance. is this not a subsidy? how about having 2 carrier groups in the persian gulf and 1in the mediterranean sea? isn't that subsidizing the oil and natural gas industries?
and to answer your question, How much does the government have to give you in tax incentives to buy a TV? Computer? that would be zero, unless of course i were using them as a business expense.