- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,204
- Reaction score
- 1,547
Last edited:
I used to be stringer for a newspaper covering the county board of supervisors meetings, so I've been to a lot of such meetings.
The "controversial political topics" we were trying to avoid were global warming, carbon credits, and wealth redistribution. Do you think it is more plausible that a town in Texas signed 20-year power-generation contracts based on a mandate to seek out the best deal, or was that Texas town secretly motivated by global warming, carbon credits or wealth distribution? I'm taking it on face value that it was a good deal. You find evidence Georgetown was motivated by global warming, carbon credits or wealth distribution, and I guess that would be a legitimate addition to the conversation, but until then, it seems off-topic to me.
I'll give you 48 hours to crack this case Agent tmacklin, and then it's back to handing out parking tickets for you!
What did I miss...
We ain't like those thieves out in that little California town who screwed the pooch so bad it went bankrupt, no sir-eee Bob! :grin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation
It is not possible to pick up a turd by the clean end...
It probably seems like bringing up the Solyndra case from a half decade ago is off-topic trolling, but in a way it is relevant. The reason the company went under is that the price of silicon dropped so much, and consequently the price of more standard-design flat panel solar panels dropped too --- there was no way their advanced design for using less silicon could compete based on price. No one expected the price of solar technology to drop so fast, least of all Solyndra and its investors. It turned out to be a bad bet for sure, but the good news is that solar turned out to be so cheap in the end.
Enter your email address to join: