RayRay's Source wrote on September 12, 2008 11:52 PM: Ray-

What is the source of water you speak of? You comment throughout the web on this source, but you never say what it is.

So what is it and why don't our agencies go after it?

Ray Walker wrote on September 11, 2008 07:39 AM: Renewable Energy, Jobs, ... WATER

Why not provide all three (3) for Nevada ?

Lake Mead is predicted to go dry soon. Maybe ... maybe not, but Lake Mead does produce 1800 megawatts of renewable energy when it is reasonably full. As a comparable, it will require 3.6 billion dollars to provide the same amount of wind power.

The accumulation of nearly a million acre feet a year would keep Lake Mead full and functioning. This could be accomplished with non-tributary water from the legally available, economically feasible fresh water Source.

The storage of the non-tributary water in Lake Mead would occur AFTER Nevada first used the water for domestic and commercial purposes.

Ample fresh water in perpetuity for Nevada should be considered as part of the equation to create and sustain jobs in Nevada.

WaterSource waterrdw@yahoo.com

Paul wrote on September 10, 2008 11:32 AM: If the current practice continues, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Brooks will be back here in a few months explaining why the renewables industry is stealing our incentives and running.

Currently the majority of renewable developers in NV are from not only out of state, but out of country. They have a make the dollar and run mentality and come to NV hiring unscruplious contractors how utilize cheap labor from not only out of state, but out of country.

Jobs are not jobs when our local economies fail to gain anything from them, it becomes a burden on our local gov't which is not funded as the money leaves the state. And these foriegn companies are relieved of paying business tax and sales tax as an incentive to get them to build here. They build here because the resources are here, and then we give them a free pass and ask not even that they employ local workers in return?

That is not good for our economy.

rustyrosco wrote on September 10, 2008 11:16 AM: "The study's authors advocate paying for the investment through auctioning carbon emissions permits based on an economywide cap-and-trade program that would limit companies' greenhouse gas outflows."

This will cost jobs. I suppose its okay unless its your job. And then the inevitable delays due to lawsuits, obstructionism for the new transmission lines that must be built. A 'green job boom' will cost other sectors because they will be delivering energy that is much more expensive then is already being done.

Energy Security wrote on September 10, 2008 11:10 AM: The $100 billion cited in the report would come from a federal mechanism charging companies for greenhouse gas emissions.

This means the government will create industry winners and losers.

This also mean the government will cause enployment in the losing industries.

The Global Warming legislation cost $6.7 trillion just on a static Congressional scoring base. But once the hedge fund managers George Soros John Paulson, and Philip Falcone get into this market and start the securitization of carbon emission allowance permit (a the cap causing a liquidity crises) then who know what you might pay to buy and run a new SUV or cool your house.

The system will be set up so that fee-collecting middlemen churn re-structured carbon emission instruments by reselling them. Soros’ tacit, in keeping with his “reflectivity” theory, is to cause people to make mistakes, that he can feed off of.

Harry Reid is repeating this claim by saying not every expert agrees on the quickest and most cost-effective path to get there, but all agree that the one thing we cannot afford is delay.

Once this is in place the government will not be able to control price just like the cost of gas.

John Galt wrote on September 10, 2008 10:35 AM: These people are clueless about the economy. When a business creates jobs, that's a benefit. When government mandates something, it takes money away from consumers and business. There is no job creation.

kdr81 wrote on September 10, 2008 09:15 AM: Tony,

Markets work very well so long as proper information is being transmitted. Government has a responsibility to ensure that information is transmitted. For example, government can require information disclosure. That is good government.

Enron was a company run by Harvard MBA grads who minipulated data and lied. Basically, they were acting like most local and state governments do - not being honest in the data they're reporting.

The difference between a profit seeking corporation and a non-profit seeking government is that the corporation only gets money if it convinces you to give it to them. If they screw up you won't want to pay them.

The government however, only has to threaten to send you to jail and you will pay whether or not you like what they do.

So while the market works except when it doesnt work some of the time, government rarely works at all.

kdr81 wrote on September 10, 2008 09:11 AM: What would happen if the $865 million were invested somewhere else in Nevada's economy?

How many jobs would be created?

You can't say it will create 15,000 jobs without subtracting the "what would have been"

It may be the case that this investment actually destroys jobs.

To simply suggests this investment creates jobs is to assume that the money will be used for clean energy or it will simply vanish into thin air. That simply isnt true.

Scot Rutledge wrote on September 10, 2008 08:37 AM: As one of the presenters for the report yesterday I can't help but think the reporter has missed the mark. The fact is we will see a carbon tax through a cap and trade system. The report focuses on creating a green economic recovery that provides incentives for development of renewable energy, efficiency, biofuels, and the infrastructure to deliver the energy and fuels. The reporter seemed more concerned with finding a narrow line of objection.

Andy Matthews is certainly correct in stating that the cap and trade system will negatively effect certain businesses and industry. When you consider the effect that those industries have had on our environment and public health, the tax is simply a way of correcting the market. The externalities caused by pollution are never fully realized on the balance sheets of many businesses. There is also no mention of the subsidies that have been enjoyed for decades by coal, oil and gas companies. Without those subsidies those industries would not have enjoyed the same success.

Renewables have been considerably shortchanged when it comes to subsidies.

I spoke with a colleague of Andy's last week about carbon tax and subsidies. We both agreed that subsidies distort the marketplace. We agreed that the economics of energy has proven this out in recent months with the cost of fossil fuels.

I agreed to release this report on behalf of CAP because I believe we must be responsible with the funds generated from a future cap and trade economy for carbon. Those dollars should be invested in America, not overseas. The revenue from carbon should be a part of the solution in ending our dependence on foreign oil and releasing us from the grip of a carbon constrained economy.

Tony wrote on September 10, 2008 06:03 AM: "Markets don't lie"

Then what the heck was Enron? The current mortgage fiasco? Markets work.... except for when they don't. Business is about being able to reap the profits and get someone else to take the losses (in this FDM/FRE case, the taxpayer).