Discussion on:

Romney's last minute walkback on wind subsidies

This is the biggest problem I have with Romney. From what I've seen he'll say practically anything to anyone if he thinks it will get him votes. How can you expect a person like that to keep to anything he's said during the campaign? It seems like he thinks it's his destiny to be President, maybe to fulfill Joseph Smith's prophecy, and whatever he has to do to get there is okay. I just see him as an amoral businessman.

just side with our pocket books,
I think there is a lot of intellegent people out there who value ethics in argument, one being the truth is based on facts, whether it personally benifits the individual or not.
Have you seen the latest greatest offshore windfarm?
The power it supplies, if using a straight line economics, as the proposal states, using today's prices (not factoring in any maintenance or repairs, monitering or managment...the proposal doesn't state)
- the design & manufacturing with site approvals, construction and connection to the grid won't pay for itself for almost 130 years . (lifespan?)........
If it can't generate enough power to justify it's own construction & up-keep. Why or how would this ever get built ?
This is why it requires a HUGE underwriting by the government.
So which part of this is Amoral again. (hummmm, it costs more than it's own projected lifespan of production will produce....?)
If you want to have a intellegent conversation about offshore electrical generation we should start a conversation about tidal driven power generation.
Sorry about your pocket book but wind hasn't been able to pay for it's own deconstruction after it was proven non-sustainable last time, for reference you should see the Altuna eyesore..... (kinda looks a little like Greece economically speaking).
Is my thinking flawed or is there some "mystic" justification for ignoring economic factors in the green energy sphere-a-scope to somehow shift the subject to another topic and never complete the equation.
No matter what the better idea is - doesn't it have to be self-sustaining ?
Moreover, wouldn't that be consistant and inherent with all sustainability conversations?
Does this movement seem to be content with the one legged stool discussion-(.... can't stand on it's own),
Does this present a intelectual challenge to anyone else, especally if there is such a thing as morality that includes - earth, enegry or sustainability ?

Why is it that nuclear power requires a HUGE underwriting by government? How about all the tax breaks fossil fuel companies get? How about the fact that fossil fuel companies don't have to pay the external costs caused by the pollution their products create? If renewable energy sources competed on a level playing field they'd get far more subsidy than they do now.

It's easy to come up with an anecdote about something that went wrong and ignore all the instances where it's working.

Wish Obama would walk back from some of his policies, like intentionally getting Americans killed overseas.

I really never expect this to become a political bashing tool. This is supposed to be about Tech, Innovation, Green, Business and all I'm reading is hate from both sides of the political aisle. Focus people on ideas and improvements to our world. Politicians come and go and most prove to have been insignificant to development of anything for the good of mankind and very little towards new ideas. Does anyone want to keep their eye on the ball here? So far today the stories are about political bashing, no real fact finding or development of anything.