Comments on: Federal Tax Credits May Handcuff Clean Energy Development

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Mon, 21 May 2012 12:31:00 +0000

Oh, ya, right, like anyone really gives a damn…..my company have 3….count ‘em…THREE new renewable powerplant designs, and even with a working prototype for each, can’t find financial support……ahem….uh….isn’t that a little strange? YET….2 companies, who had “theory only” designs, who were backed by some wall street connections, went public and made millions…..and of course, have all but dropped out of sight…..disgusting, huh?

By: Stan Stein

Stan Stein — Mon, 21 May 2012 12:25:00 +0000

America, infortunately, probably the most altruistic nation on the planet when it comes to OTHER countries, but to our own people…not so much.
Virtually all social, economic, environmental and political problems are caused by the equivelent of a bunch of rouge teenage junkies running something…..get the drugs….er….money, at all costs……those costs being paid by you and I.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:49:00 +0000

Well put.

By: Green Cage Security, Inc.

Green Cage Security, Inc. — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 01:33:00 +0000

Mr. Hammond, wouldn’t your customers still have to depend on one MAJOR factor in their ROI schedule, and that would be wind. Renewable Energy should be subsidize by our government, this would also means that our government is”encouraging” the use of clean technology. For years federal tax dollars have been spent assisting private oil companies with their exploration for fossil fuel. Would it not be reasonable to say that when Clean energy technology is used our local air we breathe improves, the water we drink improves, our short and long term physical health improves, and Americans have more disposable money to circulate into the American and Global economy. Why wouldn’t a smart government not “invest” into this level of ROI. Furthermore, the reason for your state’s regulation of your cogeneration property, think “Fossil Fuel Loyalist or plainly put LOBBYIST!. I say if we should spend Taxpayer’s money, let it be a smart investment so that they can have a good return of their invested dollars. Just look at China,Brazil,Russia,India,and Germany these countries understand the end game, which is leveraging Human Capital. The more independent they are on their energy consumption, the longer their population will live to be consumers and producers of their nation. We have allowed policies that contributed to poor air quality, poor water quality, and a poor quality national food supply all of these are directly related to the quality of life for Americans. I’m pro- smart business. In final, There are two companies, Company A , focuses on making enormous profits at all cost, even at the cost of destroying their customers to their death. Then there is Company B, which also focuses on making enormous profits but they would like their customers to live as long as they can, so they can keep spending money with them. So which Company has a smarter business model?

By: Rick Hammond

Rick Hammond — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:36:00 +0000

You are speaking my language! I am in the business of selling “small wind” turbines to rural customers, in Minnesota. We are restricted to adding a maximum of 40 kw/hr to the electrical grid, because of the prevailing net metering law. Consequently, most of our customers need the 30% rebate from the Treasury Department in order to achieve a return on investment within a reasonable time frame. Most of these customers do not earn enough to make full use of the 30% tax credit. If we were allowed to put, say, 100kw/hr on the grid, we would not need any help from the Treasury Dept. Our turbines would produce enough “income” to handle any loan payments and achieve their ROI in an acceptable time.

By: Green Cage Security, Inc.

Green Cage Security, Inc. — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:58:00 +0000

With all due respect Mr. Farrell. Maybe you should look at the centuries of federal incentives that were granted to the fossil fuel industry and as I reply back to this post which represents a total disregard for an intellectual understanding of historical truths. Mr. Farrell, I was taught that if one wish not to speak kindly and with unequivocally honesty regarding a matter, then one should not speak upon that matter. So I’m kindly asking you to consider the unequivocally facts of an subject matter before you decide to publicly endorse such elementary content. If I’m misunderstanding your purpose to endorse this particular content, then please hereby accept this public apology. I do apologize.