Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:

On 6/9/2017 5:24 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Terrestrial solar and wind drive UP prices unless they are heavily
subsidized.


Oh no argument from me. And if heavily subsidized the cost is shifted
from direct payment of an electric bill to the indirect payment through
higher taxes so you could have removed the "...unless" part of that.


Just trying to keep anyone from leaping on 'consumer cost' and making
claims that don't stand up.

If the Middle East didn't contain copious amounts of oil, the US
wouldn't have literally spent trillions of our tax dollars invading
Iraq... twice. So this "renewables aren't fair because they're
subsidized" is b.s. of the first order. If it wasn't for oil, the only
involvement we'd have in the Middle East would be to make sure Israel
can defend itself (which it can).

You can counter my argument when the US has subsidized renewable energy
to the same amount of tax dollars that we've spend on wars in the Middle
East since the first Gulf War.


You understand that the United States gets little to no oil from Iraq
and the 'war for oil' meme is bull****, don't you? We also don't get
all that much from Kuwait. Looking at all US petroleum imports (both
crude oil and other petroleum products) from the top 15 importers to
the US (which includes both Iraq and Kuwait) for 2016 comes out to
around 9,061,000 barrels per day. Iraq's share of that comes to a
little over 3%. Kuwait's contribution is around 2.25%. Hell, we get
more petroleum from RUSSIA than we get from either Iraq or Kuwait.
What do you think Iraq would have done with the oil barring US
military action there? You think they're going to drink it, perhaps?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn