SC Republicans blocking relief? Man, I can’t believe they got us into Iran in the first place, let alone continually threatening genocide and breaking cease fires with their Israeli buddies…
Every oil anaylyst says that would not happen any time soon, even if the Strait of Whore Moose were to immediately open. Once again the problem originates with Dear Leader.
Wait until Will finds out Senate Republicans want to spend $1 BILLION of taxpayer money for “security” for Trump’s very gay ballroom. But what’s the big deal with this $1 billion/day war to obliterate Iran’s mythical nukes that were obliterated last June and will need to be obliterated on an annual basis. Forever wars, anyone? Meantime we’re all cool with crazy N Korea having nukes, amirite?
Listen I hate taxes just as much as the next man but eliminating or halving the gasoline tax for a couple months is just a short-run gimmick, akin to the annual sales tax holiday. Let’s say an average family has 3 vehicles, each using about 18 gallons a week (roughly a fill up for most cars if you aren’t running down to the last gallon). That’s 216 gallons a month. If you cut the gas tax in half you save about 31 bucks. If you fully eliminate it for a month, its 62 bucks. That’s only going to matter for the very poorest drivers in our state (who also likely pay no income taxes at all.) For the average middle class family of 4-5 people, its chump change – it doesn’t move the needle on real economic relief. It might cover a modest dinner at Chic-fi-lay. Our gas tax is a flat per gallon rate, not a percentage of the price. It is the 30th lowest in the country – so just inside the lower half of the states, cluster with about 7 other states that are within 2 cents above or below us. The real relief we need is in income and property taxes; big, substantial cuts that could amount to at least a couple thousand dollars per year.
Congaree Catfish Top Fan, whom I really hope to befriend after disabusing myself of confusing you with “BalaBoosta” and others who insult me just because they can, I ask sincerely: is part of “conservatism” the rejection of ALL wind and solar projects, even the well-designed, well-managed among them?
And is part of that rejection, if it be part of conservatism, based solely or mainly on China’s leadership and success in those fields, not only for itself but also for “poorer” contries?
SubZero, I personally would not make a blanket statement to reject all wind and solar projects, particularly when it comes to such facilities that directly turn generators on-site for large buildings, and thus allow large facilities to reduce their draw on the commercial/public generating capacity. That being said, the devil is in the details and the factual scenario in every case matters. Sites that require new, long transmission infrastructure to connect the power plat to the grid should be avoided. Solar sites that are prone to damaging hail (which can make an entire solar farm essentially destroyed) should be avoided. Solar sites that require hundreds of acres of forestland to be cut down should be avoided. Also, early generation wind turbine assemblies don’t have a good track record for longevity/durability. Query in return: do you recognize that nuclear power plants are far more resistant to the natural elements, don’t require as much deforested land, have far greater energy production density, and release almost zero carbon emissions?
To answer your question first, I believe in de-centralized power production and household water collection and purification. Water for agricultural scale and hydropower generation is, as I was educated where it started, the basis of civilization, or at least the movement of societies from nomadic hunters-gatherers to stable food-self-sufficient organized nations.
The details, where you state the devil is, are a matter of good engineering versus stupid engineering; and there is a lot of the latter in every field, including hospital designs for example.
What puzzles me is the apparent MAGA hostility to wind and solar. I don’t see why that should be a political issue at all.
Are you interested in further exchange of views?
7 comments
SC Republicans blocking relief? Man, I can’t believe they got us into Iran in the first place, let alone continually threatening genocide and breaking cease fires with their Israeli buddies…
“until current price spikes retreat”
Every oil anaylyst says that would not happen any time soon, even if the Strait of Whore Moose were to immediately open. Once again the problem originates with Dear Leader.
Wait until Will finds out Senate Republicans want to spend $1 BILLION of taxpayer money for “security” for Trump’s very gay ballroom. But what’s the big deal with this $1 billion/day war to obliterate Iran’s mythical nukes that were obliterated last June and will need to be obliterated on an annual basis. Forever wars, anyone? Meantime we’re all cool with crazy N Korea having nukes, amirite?
Listen I hate taxes just as much as the next man but eliminating or halving the gasoline tax for a couple months is just a short-run gimmick, akin to the annual sales tax holiday. Let’s say an average family has 3 vehicles, each using about 18 gallons a week (roughly a fill up for most cars if you aren’t running down to the last gallon). That’s 216 gallons a month. If you cut the gas tax in half you save about 31 bucks. If you fully eliminate it for a month, its 62 bucks. That’s only going to matter for the very poorest drivers in our state (who also likely pay no income taxes at all.) For the average middle class family of 4-5 people, its chump change – it doesn’t move the needle on real economic relief. It might cover a modest dinner at Chic-fi-lay. Our gas tax is a flat per gallon rate, not a percentage of the price. It is the 30th lowest in the country – so just inside the lower half of the states, cluster with about 7 other states that are within 2 cents above or below us. The real relief we need is in income and property taxes; big, substantial cuts that could amount to at least a couple thousand dollars per year.
Congaree Catfish Top Fan, whom I really hope to befriend after disabusing myself of confusing you with “BalaBoosta” and others who insult me just because they can, I ask sincerely: is part of “conservatism” the rejection of ALL wind and solar projects, even the well-designed, well-managed among them?
And is part of that rejection, if it be part of conservatism, based solely or mainly on China’s leadership and success in those fields, not only for itself but also for “poorer” contries?
SubZero, I personally would not make a blanket statement to reject all wind and solar projects, particularly when it comes to such facilities that directly turn generators on-site for large buildings, and thus allow large facilities to reduce their draw on the commercial/public generating capacity. That being said, the devil is in the details and the factual scenario in every case matters. Sites that require new, long transmission infrastructure to connect the power plat to the grid should be avoided. Solar sites that are prone to damaging hail (which can make an entire solar farm essentially destroyed) should be avoided. Solar sites that require hundreds of acres of forestland to be cut down should be avoided. Also, early generation wind turbine assemblies don’t have a good track record for longevity/durability. Query in return: do you recognize that nuclear power plants are far more resistant to the natural elements, don’t require as much deforested land, have far greater energy production density, and release almost zero carbon emissions?
To answer your question first, I believe in de-centralized power production and household water collection and purification. Water for agricultural scale and hydropower generation is, as I was educated where it started, the basis of civilization, or at least the movement of societies from nomadic hunters-gatherers to stable food-self-sufficient organized nations.
The details, where you state the devil is, are a matter of good engineering versus stupid engineering; and there is a lot of the latter in every field, including hospital designs for example.
What puzzles me is the apparent MAGA hostility to wind and solar. I don’t see why that should be a political issue at all.
Are you interested in further exchange of views?
Why does the photo for this story appear to depict a man holding the nozzle to some window of his car, not its gas tank?