Climate Change Report

[Jarvan]

First Solar.

But thats not really the point. Ninjas has an issue with a list of companies getting assistance from the government. I'd still like to know what his issue is exactly. Is it because they are getting money from the government? Because if that is what upsets him then he should be really super upset about a lot more companies than that tiny list. What about banks and Wall street getting bailed out and corporate off shore tax havens and farmer subsidies and corporate welfare and the list goes on.

If the department of energy invests money into a field that will be good for us in the long run in terms of getting us off of our dependency on oil then I have a much less harder time being upset about it than when Paul Ryan votes to keep giving big oil companies $40 billion tax breaks.

May want to rethink that answer Back.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...0%A6to-itself/

May be the Blaze.. but the info is solid. (On a side note, the company lost money in 2012, so not sure how you consider it profitable)

So.. no to First Solar, try again.

I am all for Research grants.

These are not research grants that companies are getting. They are free money that the company supposedly uses to build things... then the company goes bankrupt (about half the time). If we gave a 50 Billion grant and a company came up with a product that had a cost effectiveness ratio compared to fossil fuels of 1:1.10 or higher (fossil fuel being to the left of course) that would be one thing. I doubt Americans would be horribly upset if they had to pay 10% more for nearly 100% clean renewable energy. The fact of the matter is tho, that it isn't. (while panels may sell as low as .70 per watt in large scale, total cost to build a system greater then 100 Watts is 4.87 per watt.. compared to 2.10 per watt for coal)