Henry Payne by Henry Payne

Henry Payne

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, about 2 years ago

    Good toon. How much did WE spend per Chevy Volt again? 80k?

  2. cjr53

    cjr53 said, about 2 years ago

    1. The developers are not that stupid.
    2. We need to start somewhere, before the fossil fuels run out.
    3. Are the conservatives that blind to the finite supply of oil that can be pumped out of the ground?

  3. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    volt salse are really going up, and it is a hybrid. One question for the denier folks: how long does it take for plant material to become oil? coal? How much pressure and temperature at what depth? Peat burns, but makes a really poor fuel for steam engines.

  4. 4my10851cs

    4my10851cs said, about 2 years ago

    President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed
    Green Energy Failures

    It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

    The truth is that the problem is widespread.
    The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

    The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

    So far, 36 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
    The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies :(figures are not totaled because of the confusion (Ha!) between mere millions and more meaningful Billions)

    1. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
    2. Solyndra ($535 million)*
    3. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
    4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
    5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
    6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
    7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
    8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
    9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
    10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
    11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
    12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
    13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
    14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
    15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
    16. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
    17. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
    18. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
    19. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
    20. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
    21. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
    22. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
    23. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
    24. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
    25. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
    26. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
    27. GreenVolts ($500,000)
    28. Vestas ($50 million)
    29. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
    30. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
    31. Navistar ($39 million)
    32. Satcon ($3 million)*
    33. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
    34. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

    *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

  5. BC

    BC said, about 2 years ago

    @cjr53

    1~No but the government is.
    2~Not in yours or my lifetime.
    3~Who are we saving it for anyway?

  6. cubefarmer

    cubefarmer said, about 2 years ago

    @dtroutma

    Reality check failed, the federal govt bought more Volts than the entire rest of the country.

  7. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, about 2 years ago

    He got twilite zoned back to the days when some areas of cities in the USA had 110 volt DC power.
    ………………………………………………………..
    The chevey volt requires premium for its engine.
    How stupid is that?

  8. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 2 years ago

    Spencer Tracey did a great movie about Thomas Edison. In one memorable scene, he’s about to light up Menlo Park and the gas companies providing natural gas to light homes in apartment buildings and factories(a rather flammable danger) respond to one of their own who is concerned this new technology will hurt their business. Don’t worry, he’s told. It will never work and even if it does, no one will ever really trust it.
    Since that time, there has been concerted efforts by our cannibalistic corporations to suppress, impede, and control new competing technologies. I understand that’s how capitalism works, but it is not how a nation advances or a people reach for the stars.
    Considering the myriad things on which our legislators, on both sides, have wasted our money, I do not begrudge any of the money on 4my10851cs’s list.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  9. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, about 2 years ago

    Where in the world do people think electricity comes from? Electricity fairies? Right now, almost all electricity comes from fossil fuels. Which is more efficient? Having a vehicle haul the fossil fuel around and burn it, or having it burned somewhere in the countryside, then having the heat converted into electricity, then having the electricity shipped over long lines, then using the electricity to charge batteries, then using the batteries to power the vehicle?


    I have heard that power plants are much more efficient than vehicles (diesel is about 40% efficient, internal combustion about 28%), and that the losses in modern conversion and transmission are practically non-existent, so the same fossil fuel shipped as electricity could provide more than twice as many miles as if the fuel was burned by the vehicle, saving lots of money and fossil fuels.


    Of course, I haven’t seen those number actually add up. It goes against what I was taught in school.


    But, as Thomas Friedman says, the old education left people who can’t find jobs. Thermodynamics is not only useless, it’s completely wrong. The only reason no one has built a John Galt engine is because those mooching Thermodynamics teachers told their students it was impossible, so no one will try, and venture capitalists won’t fund entrepreneurs who never had their minds ruined by a university.


    Students need Marketing professors who will teach them that nothing is impossible for an American entrepreneur, and how to raise the venture capital to fund it.

  10. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, about 2 years ago

    We are in the early stages of the fossil fuel age. No one knows how much oil, coal, nat. gas, etc. there is.

  11. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, about 2 years ago

    I wonder how many gas stations there were in 1911.

  12. Plods with Beer ( did I mention beer? )

    Plods with Beer ( did I mention beer? ) GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Not very grounded, is it?

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 2 years ago

    @Mr. King

    yeah, you may want to do a little more research on that.

    Ok hybrid cars are a good beginning. Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels. Yes, the tech is in it’s infancy and will get better. Now look at a quote from the LA Times on electric car sales>

    “General Motors Co.has sold 8,817 Chevrolet Volts in the first half of this year, a 221% increase. That includes 1,760 sold in June. Volt sales have been helped by the car’s recent qualification for the California rebate and carpool lane permits. About 28% of its sales last month were in California.

    Toyota Motor Co.has sold 4,374 of its Prius plug-ins through June, about 60% in California. The company has forecast that it will sell about 15,000 Prius plug-ins this year.

    By comparison,Nissan Motor Co.sold only 3,148 all-electric Leafs in this year’s first half, down 18.8% from a year earlier. Just 535 of those sales took place last month.

    Mitsubishi has sold 333 of its i-MiEV electric-only car."

    Now look at a WSJ article about total car sales in 2012 so far.

    http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

    So the approximate 25K electric and hybrid vehicles sold in the US this year is cause for saying the outsell the other 15 million vehicles sold?

    Like I said the idea and the direction is on solid ground. But the tech is not taking over any time soon.

  14. comicsssfan

    comicsssfan said, about 2 years ago

    @4my10851cs

    Don’t forget they also vastly underestimate the amount of money these wars cost. The wars cost in the trillions.

  15. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 2 years ago

    @SkepticCal

    I don’t have any idea.

    Don’t the taxpayers fork over 7500 bucks on each one anyway?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).