GM to Invest in Next-Generation Battery Facility That Will Lower EV Costs, Accelerate

[detmsp]

It is irrelevant that the cost of solar is the cheapest,what is relevant,is it economical to supply the masses of home owners of 100% sustainable reliable electricity,even after 200 years of being in existence.

I live in Florida and it would supply my needs 45% of the time.
In this state it is illegal to have your house 100% off grid and to keep it as occupied you must remain connected to the grid.

They quoted me $28,000 which would only supply 45% of my current usage,they do not like it when you run the A/C.

My current electric bill is $145 peak summer months,and now when it is freezing cold at 60 degrees my bill will drop less then $100.

It would take me 28 years before the system paid for it self the panels die at 10 years?

So before it has even showed me a return in the 28 years it will cost another $8000 to replace the panels.

That is paying $37,000 just so I can say,I got solar that does not even meet my needs,nice.

You could say ,that’s saving $5000 by going solar,but it is not because it is only covering 45% of my needs and you could take that same money and put it into a money market account or Tesla stock and walk away with a heck of a lot more in 28 years.

Besides I would not feel comfortable with the taxpayers having to support my electrical bill,next I will be looking at food stamps and a new EV at the taxpayers expense,not the way I was raised anyways.

It is easy to say you are saving money when everybody else is covering the loss.

I bet you would also find it economically unfeasible to build your own coal or natural gas power plant for your house. Maybe let the utility companies deploy solar? I mean that's literally what wheels' document shows is the cheapest source of electricity we have.

[Richard]

I bet you would also find it economically unfeasible to build your own coal or natural gas power plant for your house. Maybe let the utility companies deploy solar? I mean that's literally what wheels' document shows is the cheapest source of electricity we have.

Fossil fuels remain #1 as they aways have because it is a cheap reliable and plentiful source of energy to the masses.

Russia is building 8 new nuclear power plants in Turkey,betcha they will see cheaper and more reliable rates then solar,if solar was the end all answer,then they would be throwing up solar fields.

Fossil fuel has an infrastructure in place that has been built up over 100 years.

Now we are talking about an entire new infrastructure package just to lay the groundwork to implement save the planet measures.

Solar is cheap now,but considering we have been dumping 100s of billions into it,in order to make it cheap as a finial product to the end user,if you add up the total cost that it took to make it cheap,then it is not very cheap.

At this time we are still at the point where we have always been,if it made sense financially,the government would not have to give incentives in order to get people to buy it.

Anything that makes good financial sense,you do not have to pay people in order to take advantage of it.

Because I live in a hurricane prone state,it would have cost me an extra $186 per month,just in insurance premiums,they do not like things screwed to the roof of a house,most will not even insure if your roof is more then 10 years old.

Granted it was 7 years ago but GM had a solar collector system at the Hamtrac plant,it was live feed on the internet showing the rates,it seemed okay during the summer,but a bit dreary most winter days.

Not sure if it is still online though.

But speaking of winter,what happens up there after snowstorms,you have to get up there and sweep the snow off ?

Affordable,reliable and consistent for the masses,without that all you end up with are pretty bits,expensive pretty bits.

Not saying they will not get there with any of this,throw enough money at anything and you can make it work.

Technology is a developed process let out over a period of time,making that jump from where we are now to where we would like to be?

You cannot print enough money to make that happen,the 2030 goal is a crock because 10 years from now,today’s technology will be obsolete,the trillions looking to be spent today in order to meet that goal will be flushing money down the drain.

If they said this is where we want to be in the future but we are well aware that we do not have the infrastructure to support it,it becomes a bit more palatable if they were to say,okay let’s concentrate on the infrastructure first so it is ready for the future.

That is meeting today’s needs while preparing for the future.

As it stands now they are hell bent on putting EVs on the road that will not even be there in the future,if it is not addressed now,while totally ignoring and defunding other modes of transportation that could move the masses a heck of a lot cheaper then an EV in every garage.

Like Tesla saying - we are going to put 100,000 Tesla supercharger stations out there.

Sure they are,what are they going to do,build a Tesla power plant and run millions of miles of power cord?

You know exactly what they are doing,spending trillions to implement this stuff and then come back to the taxpayers while saying - crap,the grid cannot power it,now we need trillions more in infrastructure,after the fact.

Sure right now it is cheap to charge up an EV at the house at night,now put millions of cars into that senário while keeping in mind how many 2 car families there are .

So in 10 years they are looking to create an additional 40% stress on the grid that never existed before and we are all going to be dancing in the streets because we just saved the planet.

cannot even go back into the house and fire up the oil lamp to see,because those were also banned.

What this is doing is funding RnD for a few major corporations,so they can sell you a better mousetrap,that you already paid for to be developed.

Give me $50 million,I will build you something that you can buy from me,from the money you gave to me in the first place.

So the taxpayers are paying the company to develop the product,then they are selling that product to the taxpayers,but sense it is not economically feasible,and sense we are such nice taxpayers we will throw in even
in more money so you can pay others to make up for the loss as they purchase said item.

Heck where do I sign up for that?

This all reminds me of when I visit customers,they will have 6 pieces of equipment plugged into one outlet and wonder why they do not work.

That little outlet only supplies 20 amps and you can only suck 20 amps out of it,it is not producing an unlimited supply of power.

Apply that to the grid.

In case if people forgot,the government works for us,we should really not be in the habit of paying them to tell us what we need 10 years from now while ignoring what we need today.

People are cool with throwing millions into poverty as those funds are transferred to the top in the name of saving the planet?

Because some 16 yo girl said you destroyed her childhood,this is where we take our advice from.

For all of the smart stuff we can come up with,it does no good if we do not implement it smartly.

I would figure it would be like everything else in life,where the goal is to get there without stepping on everybody along the way.

[Rocket]

Solar panels are also not clean.

Ever see how they make them? It's not sand. Rather a big chunk of quartz, and a much bigger pile of COAL.. Yes coal. Then they burn that at 1,600 degrees or something to make the raw stuff for the solar panel.

It's also wasteful to dispose. No one knows where they are going to get disposed. Presumably we'll ship them to a poor country like China or India and dump them there?

Then there's the need to build lots of natural gas plants. If you build 80mw of solar or wind, you also need to build a 80mw natural gas plant nearby. That's because the wind and solar are unstable, and to keep the grid from collapsing you need a power plant of some kind that can quickly throttle up and down to keep the power supply steady.

One other thing solar calculators don't factor in is un-installing and re-installing your solar setup anytime you need to re-do your roof. That adds an extra $4,000 - $5,000 to each roof replacement.

A lot less if you do them both at the same time, as when your roof need replacement next, you can throw away the shingles and the solar panels together, and replace both. Though I'm not sure how having dozens of holes in the new roof would affect your roof warrenty.

In the end, out west, the payback is less than a decade [not factoring in the environmental impact, or holes in your roof, maintenance, the fact that you got subsidies, etc], and here in the north-east, it's roughly the life of the solar panels.

Solar would be awesome if you could drop $50,000 in solar equipment and have zero cost, zero emission electricity for life, but that's simply not the case. It provides some in the day, none at night, and after 8 years or so, the elec output of the panels starts dropping off noticeably, so that by 20 years there's no point in having them up there.

And we haven't even discussed maintenance, such as going up on the roof a few times a year to wash off your solar panels.

I've done the calcs a few times, and here it makes no sense. It does start to work out well if you live in Colorado, and install them at the same time as a new roof, and received big government subsidies. But didn't they cut those subsidies quite a bit a couple years ago?

[Richard]

Hungary is shutting down their last coal fired power plant in favor of alternative energy sources,but they are already a majority hydro power.

With population of 9 million.

As it stands now and how it is going,it appears as if the world is looking to combine multiple sources of alternative energy in order to provide one source.

Problem with that is it becomes dependent on a chain,one link in the chain breaks and you have problems after you have removed the other sources from the picture.

The other elephant in the room with a smart grid,it connects everybody,and everybody becomes vulnerable to it,it goes down,or gets hacked,you can bring an entire country to its knees.

It is easy to say,look this is what country X is doing and it is working,some forget that we are a country of 350 million and a land mass that covers thousands of mile with millions of miles of power cable.

It is a bit more complicated then providing power to 8 or 9 million with a majority packed in a dense city.

I think that is the wrong approach in trying to replicate and use as an example of what works in one tiny country.

Belgium is another small country in comparison,look at their wind turbines at the port,they can only run under certain wind conditions and require 1000s of gallons of highly refined fossil fuel oil in order to run them.

In a mad rush to convert with hard and fast deadlines,and with fossil fuels needed to produce everything related to building alternative energies,are you not actually speeding up what you are supposedly trying to prevent?

You are increasing the demand in fossil fuel related materials,in this case batteries,in order to meet that demand you have to increase output of production which in turn adds 40% more CO released then you would had when you started.

Is this the reason why they say global warming is increasing?

Because you have added more to its cause by simply increasing the demand that was never there to start with.

The solar subsidiaries are still there

They are screwing homeowners that are not reading the fine print in Florida with the no cost out of pocket for the panels and installation.

In the fine print,the company actually owns legal rights to the installed system,your house is the collateral,people are getting hit with $3000 to $12,000 property tax bills,due on demand after the installation or you lose your house.

Spend $25 - $50,000 installation of solar,tax man views that as an improvement and adjusts your property taxes as such.

You cannot sell the power company back to the power company,because it is not your system,the solar company retains dispersal rights.

But you have to pay for the system that you get no control over.

As it stands to me anyways,the only way to feasibly install solar for the home owner,is to actually buy the panels and all the necessary installation materials for cash,then hire a crew to install it all.

Then you truly own and control the system for your benefit.

Rents are high now and most EV charging situations are based on actual homeowners who can plug it in overnight,that currently is the most economical way even feasible way,once they start charging wide scale fir charging stations.

Last count 44.1 million Americans live in apartments,I cannot even comprehend the math needed to supply all of them with overnight charging stations at $25,000 each and figure out how much of a rent increase would be required to recoup that cost,while salaries have not increased.

The fine print numbers outside of,it’s cool to save the planet,is mind boggling,the logistics behind it all is never going to happen by 2030,the claim of 40% of the population will be sporting about in EVs at that time ?

The amount of taxes you would have to impose on everybody is just not sustainable.

1. New York City, USA needs 3,687 offshore wind turbines

list of how many wind turbines alone you would need to power a city

https://www.energyvoice.com/renewabl...city/?plan_id=

NYC - 3,687

Each turbine uses 60 gallons of highly refined oil in their gear box.

60 X 3,687 = 221,220 gallons of oil,just one city every 8 to 12 months.

Those are offshore wind turbines,wind turbines blow oil seals,what happens when you dump 60 gallons of oil into the ocean?

That is just one city,how many cities in this country,you need millions of gallons of oil,the same exact thing you are trying to eliminate in the first place in order to save the planet.

Outside of the current use,you would have to ramp up oil production by an additional millions of gallons,just to transition into wind energy.

Once you are dependent on that wind energy,you are still dependent on the very thing you wanted to get rid of in the first place,oil.

But managed to spend trillions in the meantime,just to arrive at the place back to where you started.

[bust]

Electric engines are much less costly for our environment than burning gas. They're our near future. Simple as that.

In the spirit of back to the topic of this thread I won't respond to the blah blah blah and hope you don't either.

[Richard]

It shows the mindset of saving the planet where people think the end product just appears out of nowhere.

Electric motors have to be manufactured out of raw materials that have to be mined and processed,useing fossil fuels in the process and creating toxic byproducts.

They can be recycled,you know how that is done?

They collect them from all over the country,load them in a big container in a ship at the port,that ship,which puts out more CO then 3000 cars,goes thousands of miles across the ocean to China or some other 3rd world country.

When it reaches its destination,that container is then unloaded and taken to a section of town that makes the worst slum in America look like Beverly Hills.

Then the container is dumped into the middle of the street,once it is dumped,entire families scramble and fight everybody else in order to grab some.

If you are old enough to walk,you are old enough to join in the fight.

They then take those motors back to their little huts with no running water or toilet facilities,and completely disassemble them,separating all of the components.

The government then returns and collects all of the dis assembled parts and in exchange,they may receive a little food or a few pennies.

It is actually brilliant if you think about it,you get an entire work force that works 18-20 hours a day 7 days a week without having to worry about child labor laws,pesky contaminated working conditions,overtime,employees calling in sick because if they get sick they die,when they die,somebody else just fills that spot automatically.

Once those materials are collected,they get sent to a foundry to get melted down in order to be reused,a foundry that has zero air scrubbers that remove the toxins from the air,the air which is dispersed across the little village while it is poisoning everybody every-time they breath or drink water that it has settled on.

We Americans have a habit of being a privileged and entitled bunch,as long as we can do things that make us feel good and we can make claims that we are saving the planet when the reality is no matter what the product is,we are only really saving half of the planet for the privileged while destroying the rest in the process.

We did not spend the last 40 years cleaning up this country from the side effects of industrialization,well we did but all we did in order to do that was move the Industrial off shore to other countries not tied to regulations and accountable to the humanity part.

Industrialization never stopped,it is still used to produce every product we touch and it still utilizes all the dirty stuff that it always did.

Clean is still dirty behind the shiny parts,until you can actually produce a product from raw materials to finished product,cleanly,all you are doing is taking the dirty part and moving it out of site out of mind,just so we can pat our selves in the back and say we are saving the planet.

It still does not change anything,say you want to increase EVs by 40%,no problem,but be under no illusion that you are actually saving the planet in the process,because as it stands now it is just increasing the output of all that dirty stuff by 40%,where it would have never existed before,and accelerating the damage in the process.

Does it really make sense to destroy 1/2 of the planet while saving the rest?

That is not sustainable.

Outside of collecting the profits of the trillions of dollars of free money,nobody in this country is really interested in saving the planet,because they are not willing to do what it really takes.

Which would entail sending their children overseas to work in the mines in order to produce the materials needed,because without that cheap disposable work force,it would not be possible in the first place.

I guess our government could go door to door and round up children and ship them overseas,Kinda like a draft thing,for a term of use,because really if one is not ready to give up their child for the cause,why would they expect others to do so,so they can reap the rewards.

stages for the materials

1st stage are the ones mining the materials.
2nd stage those materials are put in a sack and handed off to a main collection point where they receive their pittance.
3rd stage,all the collection points sell those materials to a wholesaler that is a shell corporation that is exempt from labor laws and shields the wholesaler from scrutiny and allows the next purchaser to say they were mined without using child labor or under inhuman conditions.

The mark up from the collected materials from the miners to the collector

400%

From the collector to the wholesaler

300%

From the wholesaler to the buyers for processing to batteries,cell phones etc.

400 %

They use shell corporations so places like Apple and GM can say they do not purchase materials from salve labor.

It’s like money laundering but it is applying the same principles to raw materials.

[Gistok]

In the spirit of back to the topic of this thread I won't respond to the blah blah blah and hope you don't either.

Looks like the blah blah blah wins out.

[Wesley Mouch]

Richard... lots of truth in your post -- but making IC engines isn't the cleanest industrial process either. I don't recommend living near a foundry if you can afford not to.

We have decided that we can re-process cars, to a great extend. We need to further decide that we can re-process batteries too. Its doable. But it won't be free. [[And let's be careful not to take too many jobs from the truly needy in the 3rd world before we let them find wealth too.)

[Richard]

Richard... lots of truth in your post -- but making IC engines isn't the cleanest industrial process either. I don't recommend living near a foundry if you can afford not to.

We have decided that we can re-process cars, to a great extend. We need to further decide that we can re-process batteries too. Its doable. But it won't be free. [[And let's be careful not to take too many jobs from the truly needy in the 3rd world before we let them find wealth too.)

I agree but as a first world country we have the means to return the land back,such as in the case of strip mining in northern Minnesota for iron ore or the coal fields.

These countries are taking farm land that was feeing thier population and destroying it,I highly doubt that we as a country are going to go back in and restore their lands after it is all said n done.

It is providing them jobs and allowing them hand to mouth eating abilities,but so are the Coca and opium fields that supply drug dealers,traffickers and even the street corner crack dealers with a living.

I do not really care about any of this and none of it is really going to save the planet,but it goes show the level of hypocrisy when we as a country stand up there,like we are setting some kind of example like we are good because we are saving the planet,when we are not.

Call it what it is,another revolution,just like every one before the Titian’s at the top suck it all up from the bottom then all those at the bottom run around saying woe is me,I cannot afford the American dream when they ares the ones that open up their wallets for the Titian’s in the first place and demand they take their money.

Its like dropping a nuclear bomb on a city,you measure the cost verses the outcomes.

Just because you can,should you?

We did not have any problems eliminating jobs in this country when it comes to energy,or anything else for that matter,if the current big 2.5 take the Tesla route and switch to modular construction in the vehicles,they only need a work force of less then 200 per factory,actually less then that,all they really have to do is watch the robotic process.

Along with technology comes the process of streamlining and removing as many human hands from the process.

It has already started with fast food,automatic drive throughs,ordering kiosks that have replaced 6 workers with a kiosk.

30 years down the road we are going to have a workforce of millions that will be unemployable,educated or not.

Sure all of this technology is nice,although I question if it actually makes our life easier,I do know with the speed of the advancement of it and the planned obsolescence of it all it has become more expensive for the lower end consumer.

With an EV that is built by assembling components,you will no longer need millions of mechanics,the commercial space they lease,the people they employ,the supply chain that supply’s them,the manufacturers that make the parts to send down the supply chains and the workers they employ and the space they lease.

That is only one tiny aspect of it all,to tell people that they will find jobs in the new technology fields of all of this coming up it’s a line of BS,by design it is eliminating the cost of labor.

Remember when they switched from industrialization to technology and told everybody that they needed to go to college and learn IT because somebody has to fix those hundreds of millions of computers that were getting ready to flood the market?

Who fixes computers any more,they break and then you throw them in the trash and buy a new one,you can employ cheap IT techs for the rest by importing them from India.

Nothing built around technology is designed to employ a labor force,that is the whole idea in the first place.

Why has the cost of solar come down? Because the panels are made in China with a workforce that is paid pennies,the bits are assembled here.

So the promise of employing millions in the solar industry as an alternative to fossil fuels was an empty one.

Just like the promise of the coal workers can put down their shovels and get a job building EVs,what about the current workforce that is already building ICE cars,they gonna quit?

3/4 of them will not even be needed in another 10 years.

How far do we really need to advance technology wise before it gets to the point where it becomes detrimental to society,in the end game what do you do with the people?

GM is not going to be replacing their line up with 40% of battery powered EVs by 2030.

10 years is a lifetime for technology,we have already seen it,name one piece of technology that is 10 years old and worth a dime.

All of these claims being made today about how it will be,are pointless.

We are looking to spend trillions of dollars based on a battery of today that will most likely not even exist 10 years from now.

Just as all of the smart people will be replaced by AI,no need for college anymore,a kindergartner of tomorrow will have direct access to the smartest thing in the planet,they do not even have to learn anything.

Even the smart and highly educated of today are becoming obsolete,10 years from now you will not need them.

Apple was the smart one,Tesla is an IPhone on wheels,and IPhone 3 works it’s basic functions not much different then an IPhone 16,it’s because we the public like the flashy stuff and we always have to have the latest and greatest,parts about saving the planet are just justification to make us feel better.

They already have a working for production motor cycle style airborne car,who wants to be sitting in traffic when you can jump on one of those and fly right over the top.

A Tesla today will be nothing like a Tesla in 10 years,today’s Tesla will be worth nothing,it will be like businesses using floppy disks to store their information on.

Today it is the irony of thousands of brand new GM vehicles sitting in a closed down chip factory in storage,because of a lack of chips.

[Richard]

Looks like the blah blah blah wins out.

End right on cue you respond with bla bla bla with noting to add to the topic.

You remind me of my wife,always nagging,of course ever sense she asked me to hand her the lipstick and I accidentally handed her the glue stick,I have not heard a word out of her.

I think she is giving me the silent treatment,you might try that at times.

You would be one that would say something like,there are thousands of gas stations out there that they could put EV charging stations in.

Without even thinking that even at replacing only 40% of ICE there will no longer be 1000s of gas stations around.

People living in today,things will not be like today tomorrow.

I understand your frustration as you become more obsolete ,as each day passes while knowing no matter how much time and money you spent becoming intelligent,you have been replaced by a little black box that a 6 year old can use to surpass any level of intelligence that any human can ever expect to achieve.

I guess at that point the only thing one can really do,is lash out at others,not much else left, if that is the only thing one prioritizes in life.

For every action there is a reaction,people are spending more time looking at taking action,while ignoring the reactions.

[bust]

Looks like the blah blah blah wins out.

Not unless we let them.
We can ignore.

There's a troll farm destroying this forum acutely focused on our gut, pushing arguments to trigger our lizard brain. Whether we know better, or have temporarily been converted, we'd be nincompoops to follow their game.

They only succeed the more we believe, and more we're confused. The more they misdirect our attention the more we're exploited for their gain.

[Richard]

Some have a hard time following their own advice.

One always has options,search around looking for charging stations after spending trillions in infrastructure to support it.

Or go to California and buy a Toyota hydrogen car that gets 850 miles per tank and already has the infrastructure in place.

Batteries are so 2020,like I said by the time 2030 rolls around EVs will be obsolete.

Given the choice who is going to buy a car that they have to plug in like a 1950s record player when they can buy a hydrogen car that the vast majority of the population will only have to refuel once every 90 days or more?

It has little to do with trolling,which is exactly what commenting is without addressing the topic.

GM spending millions on battery powered EVs is going to leave them exactly where they were in the late seventies,playing catch while the rest of the industry zooms past them.

It took them and the other US manufacturers 30 years to catch up last time,as soon as they made that feel good announcement,they were already behind with future technology.

It took a foreign car company to put Chrysler back on the map,maybe it would be better if GM and Ford just sold out to a foreign auto manufacturer sense they seem to be lacking in the innovation market.

[Wheels]

Not unless we let them.
We can ignore.

There's a troll farm destroying this forum acutely focused on our gut, pushing arguments to trigger our lizard brain. Whether we know better, or have temporarily been converted, we'd be nincompoops to follow their game.

They only succeed the more we believe, and more we're confused. The more they misdirect our attention the more we're exploited for their gain.

[mkd]

This is just a reliable as your bs chart and much more realalistic.

Attachment 41792

[Gistok]

Thanks mkd... I guess if you use the same search engines that some on this forum use you can find anything on the internet to support your "agenda".

[Gistok]

Thanks mkd... I guess if you use the same search engines that some on this forum use you can find anything on the internet to support your "agenda".

I see it all the time on Facebook... red hat wearing old biddies posting crap all the time that they find on the internet.

[Richard]

Each one has a wind speed range — between 30 and 50 miles per hour — at which it operates optimally.

Because of factors such as friction, these machines only have efficiency ratings of between 30 percent and 50 percent of rated power output.

https://sciencing.com/much-power-win...e-6917667.html

This is from 2001 so one can figure these numbers have increased quite a bit.

At that time the industry was using 200,000 tons of steel in the manufacturing of wind turbines.

http://www.perihq.com/documents/Wind..._FactSheet.pdf


In 2050, the carbon footprint for materials required for wind turbines globally will be 9.3 times lower than the CO2 emitted currently from coal power plants in the USA.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344921005474


So according to their calculations it will be another 30 years for wind turbine power to even get close to being more efficient then coal.

There was talk about putting wind turbines on Zug Island - is the average wind speed between 30 and 50 miles per hour?

How many places has anybody been where they experienced a daily wind average of 30 - 50 mph.

I see red hat wearing old buddies trying to support causes while trying to save the planet,at a cost of trillions to the taxpayers , where no matter how you spin it,the numbers do not add up to the claims.

So let’s spend billions of dollars so in 30 years we can see a reduction of the carbon over coal of 9%,without even thinking about how much more coal or other fossil fuels will be needed to used in order to fill the demand that would not have been there.

One would think it would be quicker,cheaper,faster to just do what they were already doing,burning coal efficiently.

Notice how the one thing that is destroying the planet the most is totally ignored,which is the use of plastics?

I guess Green is based on how big your lobby war chest is.

We are not looking at first improving what we are already doing,we are looking at reinventing the wheel while consuming and increasing the use of things that we can deal with right now.

If they cannot develop green without using green,it kinda ends up as a zero sum game.

You know what the funny part is?

We are told all about nasty bad China ,who refuses to join the green community internationally,I agree with the nasty bad part.

But they have installed more wind turbines then the rest of the world combined,in 2019 alone.

At this point the only thing green about all of this,is the amount of green flowing out of our wallets for generations to come,up to the top.

It would be interesting watching green advocates explaining to the city with 60,000 homeless in the streets,suck it up Nancy can’t you see we are saving the planet?

Not to even go down the road where we have completely sacrificed the millennials in the process who are going to be left holding the bag come retirement.

Like I said before,when you trade humanity under the guise of saving the planet,what exactly are you saving it from,and for whom?

[Rocket]

^ That's not the purpose of wind turbines.

Their purpose is to allow large corporations to dodge taxes.

They build them with large subsidies from the gov't [[roughly 2/3 of the cost). Then they get to deduct the entire cost over 10 years against their corporate taxes in accelerated depreciation. Then they do what they call 'swaps', where Company A might sell 100 turbines to Co. B, and in return, Co. B sells back 100 different ones to Co. A. Then they get to deduct them all over again. They'll do this 5 times over their 50 ish year lifespan, more than paying back the total cost, let alone their 1/3 stake. Any electricity generated in the meantime is a bonus. As is their ability to sell off Green Energy Certificates or credits.


NOTHING is done for the environment by government. Every last flick of a Congressperson's eye-lash or tap of a Senator's pencil has dollar bills [our dollar bills] attached to it somehow.