How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Michael Hardner]

that is quite the list... a lot of the usual suspects... quite the absence of actual scientists actively working/publishing in climate science related pursuits. One wonders why the infamous Oregon Petition wasn't dredged up!!!

Too many people have bought into the idea that many climate scientists disagree with global warming. The uninformed must be helped to understand that delusion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Too many people have bought into the idea that many climate scientists disagree with global warming. The uninformed must be helped to understand that delusion.

In other words, they must be "helped" to see things as you do?

[Michael Hardner]

In other words, they must be "helped" to see things as you do?

No. There are valid points of view that differ from mine, and there are invalid points of view that differ from mine. Some of my points of view may be invalid too - challenge me and we'll see what happens.

Defining climate scientists as anyone who ever got a degree is not on.

[charter.rights]

No. There are valid points of view that differ from mine, and there are invalid points of view that differ from mine. Some of my points of view may be invalid too - challenge me and we'll see what happens.

Defining climate scientists as anyone who ever got a degree is not on.

The anti-climate change supporter believes he is a little more on......

[TimG]

Defining climate scientists as anyone who ever got a degree is not on.

Asking climate scientists for their opinion on economic/technology problems is not on either.

If you are going to get upset about such things you need to always recognize the root cause: alarmists who hide under the skirts of scientists in order to stifle debate over political choices.

[Michael Hardner]

Asking climate scientists for their opinion on economic/technology problems is not on either.

If you are going to get upset about such things you need to always recognize the root cause: alarmists who hide under the skirts of scientists in order to stifle debate over political choices.

Political discourse is flawed on both sides in any case.

Alarmists and deniers feel that their opinions are as valid as experts: climate scientists, or economists.

[bush_cheney2004]

Alarmists and deniers feel that their opinions are as valid as experts: climate scientists, or economists.

Well, as opinions go, they are just as "valid". Many "experts" never expected an end to the Berlin Wall.

Edited August 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Well, as opinions go, they are just as "valid". Many "experts" never expected an end to the Berlin Wall.

Again, calling up such exceptional ground breaking changes as a reason to make everyone seem the same. "Experts can't be trusted ! See what happened to Gallileo" followed by the elevation of everyman to the level of expert.

You're not usually so socialist.

[waldo]

BTW, there is a simple test to determine if a someone selling renewable technology has something worthwhile. Check if subsidies or mandates are required to sell it. If subsidies are required it is worthless technology.

oh my! “Worthless”! Uhhhh... about all those fossil-fuel subsidies… a dated one-year old article – feel free to provide more timely info: Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables, figures show - New analysis shows that government support for fossil fuel industry is about 10 times that offered to renewable energy firms

Despite repeated pledges to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and criticism from some quarters that government support for renewable energy technologies is too generous, global subsidies provided to renewable energy and biofuels are dwarfed by those enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

That is the conclusion of a major report released late last week by analyst Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which analyses subsidies and incentive schemes offered globally to developers of renewable energy and biofuel technologies and projects.

The report concludes that in 2009 governments provided

subsidies worth between $43bn (£27bn) and $46bn to renewable energy and biofuel industries

, including support provided through feed-in tariffs, renewable energy credits, tax credits, cash grants and other direct subsidies.

In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that

$557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry

.

without regard to taxation, consumption or production subsidies... per the IEA, just with R&D alone, the subsidies for fossil fuels and renewables are almost on par:

as we've been down this path before, don't bother back-peddling to your 'per energy unit' comparative go-to... quite naturally, with an existing many decades old production/infrastructure/consumer base, there is, obviously, more energy being produced from fossil-fuel sources.

No matter how much you wish to deny it - the subsidy per unit of energy produced is the only metric that matters. So go ahead and rant and rave about the miniscule developed world fossil fuel subsidies. It is not going change the fact that any government that tries to subsidize renewables has pissed money down the drain and ends up paying a political price once consumers get the bill.

nonsense... you favour that metric because you believe you can manipulate with it. Again, quite naturally, after decades of lead time, obviously... more energy is being produced by fossil-fuels. In any case, by a factor of 10:1, 10 times the value of subsidies for fossil-fuels as compared to renewables, you claim, by a ten-fold factor, that fossil-fuels are, wait for it... "worthless!", since they receive an incredible amount of subsidies. Oh my! But wait... now you've weasel worded attempting to play the developed against the developing world, suggesting fossil fuel subsidies are "miniscule" for the developed world. Care to drop some numbers to that end... and while you're at it... why not explain why BigOil still needs fossil-fuel subsidies... at all?

[waldo]

If you are going to get upset about such things you need to always recognize the root cause: alarmists who hide under the skirts of scientists in order to stifle debate over political choices.

again... I believe this will be the fourth time in recent posts I've asked you to clarify your delineation between scientists and TimG's alarmists. Again, just who resides within the complement of TimG's alarmists?

[TimG]

nonsense... you favour that metric because you believe you can manipulate with it.

I use the metric because it tells us how scalable a technology is. Renewables need such a large subsidy that it is economically impossible to scale them up to the level we would need to replace fossil fuels. The fossil fuel subsidies are almost entirely in the developing world and those that are actually under control of the developed world governments are so small that if they were eliminated it would have zero effect on fossil fuel use.

In terms of subsidies here is a report for the US by an alarmist outfit which means fossil fuel subsidies have been exagerarted as a much as possible: http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

According to those numbers direct subsidies of fossil fuels are $16 billion/year.

However, they inflate the tax break numbers by including tax credits that are available to all companies:

Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil.

The 'Foreign Tax Credit' allows companies to reduce taxes paid to the US government because they had to pay taxes to a foreign government. If they did not get this credit they would be paying tax twice on the same income. Therefore, it is absurd to include this credit a 'subsidy' and since they admit makes up the majority of their 'tax credit subsidies' I would say the total subsidies of fossil fuels in the US is no more $30 billion. This makes it the same as the $30 billion for renewables and carbon storage.

That said, I suspect there are other fossil fuel "subsidies" which, like the foreign tax credit, are not really subsidies but for the sake of argument I will assume that they can be cut.

However, what makes these numbers really damning is the subsidy per BTU since 85% of US energy consumption is fossil fuels and the majority of the remaining 15% are nuclear and hydro. You have $30 billion in subsidies supporting the production of less than 10% of energy production.

If you scaled those subsidies up to produce 85% of the energy the government would be spending mroe than $250 billion/year on renewable subsidies. An amount that is clearly unaffordable which is why I say renewables are useless.

Edited August 12, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I know the facts. I have done the research. And the fact is most renewables are not remotely cost effective and people are not willing to pay the sky high power bills that go with them.

In the few cases where renewables are cost effective they are limited by geography - i.e. when geography cooperates they are great but the technology is useless to teh majority of people without the right geography.

BTW, there is a simple test to determine if a someone selling renewable technology has something worthwhile. Check if subsidies or mandates are required to sell it. If subsidies are required it is worthless technology.

Lastly, all renewables have maintainance costs and depreciation. It is never a one time cost. You have to keep paying to replace worn out equipment. If you spent 20 years deploying millions of solar panels by the time you finished you would need to replace the first ones you installed. IOW. costs go on forever.

Here is a good article that gives you an idea of the costs involved:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

It puts the cost at $100 trillion sucked out of the global economy at a time when governments are scrambling to pay for their existing commitments. No one will pay that price. It is a lot more than going without a few lattes.

BTW, there is a simple test to determine if a someone selling renewable technology has something worthwhile. Check if subsidies or mandates are required to sell it. If subsidies are required it is worthless technology.

Thats horse-shit. All energy sources were heavily subsidized while at the point in their development lifecycle that most renewables are now, and most of technologies renewables need to compete against are STILL subsidized. They are giving massive tax breaks, research grants, and direct subsidies on an ongoing basis plus all kinds of other public help. Based on your logic ALL sources of energy are not worth while.

If you spent 20 years deploying millions of solar panels by the time you finished you would need to replace the first ones you installed. IOW. costs go on forever.

No relevance. The same is true for all technologies.

I know the facts. I have done the research. And the fact is most renewables are not remotely cost effective and people are not willing to pay the sky high power bills that go with them.

You fail to mention that the cost of renewables is coming down very quickly and will come down even faster once scale of production is ramped up. And at the same time the cost of most conventional energy is rising quickly.

Edited August 12, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

Thats horse-shit. All energy sources were heavily subsidized while at the point in their development lifecycle that most renewables are now, and most of technologies renewables need to compete against are STILL subsidized.

Fossil fuels subsidies are minscule compared to renewable subsidies today when you look at the subsidy per BTU. More importantly, subsidies given during the development of a technology were ended or significantly reduced once the technology was ready to be deployed at a large scale. What we have now are loony governments thinking they can get the large scale deployment of renewables with subsidies. It is not going to happen.

If renewables need subsidies to encourage their large scale deployment then they are useless techonologies.

You fail to mention that the cost of renewables is coming down very quickly and will come down even faster once scale of production is ramped up. And at the same time the cost of most conventional energy is rising quickly.

The cost of natural gas has gotten very cheap. It is unlikely that renewables like solar or wind will be viable without subsidies in the foreseeable future.

If I am wrong - great. But subsidies are not going to make that renewable nirvana anymore likely since there is already a huge economic incentive to invent a better renewable.

Edited August 12, 2011 by TimG

[Sandy MacNab]

In other words, they must be "helped" to see things as you do?

Thus, to aid the perpetuation of illiteracy, ignorance and poverty.

[Michael Hardner]

Thus, to aid the perpetuation of illiteracy, ignorance and poverty.

You're not adding much to this. We recently "helped" you to understand the difference between a nameless moniker on an online petition and a climate scientist - and you didn't even thank us !

TimG puts in a great effort here to discuss his points, which is a good thing because this is a discussion board. Name calling and drive-by slanders aren't in his tool-box.

Although I agree with his opponents' arguments more than I agree with him, his style is a good one to follow.

[Sandy MacNab]

You have bought into the big lie. One glance at this list and I can tell these aren't climate scientists.

And you are? You think that Al Gore and Suzuki are climate scientists! Hell, you probably believed in Santa Claus until you were 17 too. You have absolutely NO IDEA what qualifies one to be knowledgeable about climate and the factors that influence it. One glance at your posts and I can tell that you probably never went beyond grade 9 or, if you did, never had a university level course in any of the major sciences.

[Michael Hardner]

And you are? You think that Al Gore and Suzuki are climate scientists! Hell, you probably believed in Santa Claus until you were 17 too. You have absolutely NO IDEA what qualifies one to be knowledgeable about climate and the factors that influence it. One glance at your posts and I can tell that you probably never went beyond grade 9 or, if you did, never had a university level course in any of the major sciences.

This is called a strawman argument: on the one hand you TELL me that I think Gore and Suzuki are climate scientists (I don't think that) then you tell me I have no idea.

Then you say I didn't go beyond grade 9.

Take a position I actually have, then criticize it and I'll get back to you. Leave out any personal stuff, especially stuff that you have made up.

Your arguments are very poor.

[dre]

I use the metric because it tells us how scalable a technology is. Renewables need such a large subsidy that it is economically impossible to scale them up to the level we would need to replace fossil fuels.

Complete nonsense. THese technologies have only seen large scale capital investment for the last ten years, and they progressing rapidly.

Go and look where the nuclear industry was at after 10 years of development.... the private sector had never built a single plant and the whole industry was 100% subsidized. Back then you would have `blathering on about how nuclear energy will never work, because it requires such huge subsidies.

Whether you like it or not government research, grants, subsidies, and investment has been required during this part of the development life cycle for EVERY SINGLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY WE USE. And the reason you apply a double standard here is entirely idealogical. It has nothing to do with the merit of any of these technologies what-so-ever. Its about your little trip with global warming

You can whine and stomp your feet all you want, but we ARE going to continue to develop these technologies and some of them will play an important part in the future.

[TimG]

Go and look where the nuclear industry was at after 10 years of development.... the private sector had never built a single plant and the whole industry was 100% subsidized. Back then you would have `blathering on about how nuclear energy will never work, because it requires such huge subsidies.

Show me where a government mandated that nuclear power be deployed at large scale and used subsidies to make that happen. Once nuclear got past the R&D phase the plants were built based on economics.

Whether you like it or not government research, grants, subsidies, and investment has been required during this part of the development life cycle for EVERY SINGLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY WE USE.

What you can't seem to understand is the difference betwen R&D and wide scale deployment. Renewables are old technology. They have been around for decades yet we are still subsidizing them. R&D subsidies should end when the technology goes into wide scale production.

You can whine and stomp your feet all you want, but we ARE going to continue to develop these technologies and some of them will play an important part in the future.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think they will ever been commerically viable because of their unreliability. Edited August 12, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Fossil fuels subsidies are minscule compared to renewable subsidies today when you look at the subsidy per BTU. More importantly, subsidies given during the development of a technology were ended or significantly reduced once the technology was ready to be deployed at a large scale. What we have now are loony governments thinking they can get the large scale deployment of renewables with subsidies. It is not going to happen.

If renewables need subsidies to encourage their large scale deployment then they are useless techonologies.

The cost of natural gas has gotten very cheap. It is unlikely that renewables like solar or wind will be viable without subsidies in the foreseeable future.

If I am wrong - great. But subsidies are not going to make that renewable nirvana anymore likely since there is already a huge economic incentive to invent a better renewable.

If renewables need subsidies to encourage their large scale deployment then they are useless techonologies.

Nope thats wrong too. Initial deployments and pilot projects are a part of the development process and this stage is almost always subsidized. And we arent subsizing large scale deployments.

The cost of natural gas has gotten very cheap. It is unlikely that renewables like solar or wind will be viable without subsidies in the foreseeable future.

Pretty silly statement to make about a technology thats changing so quickly, and is constantly getting cheaper as it gets more mature and attracts more investment. And it depends on what you mean by forseeable future.

[dre]

Show me where a government mandated that nuclear power be deployed at large scale and used subsidies to make that happen. Once nuclear got past the R&D phase the plants were built based on economics.

What you can't seem to understand is the difference betwen R&D and wide scale deployment. Renewables are old technology. They have been around for decades yet we are still subsidizing them. R&D subsidies should end when the technology goes into wide scale production.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think they will ever been commerically viable because of their unreliability.

What you can't seem to understand is the difference betwen R&D and wide scale deployment. Renewables are old technology. They have been around for decades yet we are still subsidizing them. R&D subsidies should end when the technology goes into wide scale production.

Nope in terms of capital investment (which is what generates advances) technologies like wind and solar are in their infancy. They are rapidly changing and investment is still driving costs down fast. Thats how we measure if a technology is mature or not. R&D isnt just tinkering in the lab. It includes pilot projects, limited implementations, and usually years of subsidies.

Once nuclear got past the R&D phase the plants were built based on economics.

:lol:

[TimG]

Nope thats wrong too. Initial deployments and pilot projects are a part of the development process and this stage is almost always subsidized. And we arent subsizing large scale deployments.

You don't have a clue what is going on do you? Governments ARE subsidizing large scale deployment of these technologies and that I what I object to. It is simply not affordable and the subsidies are not going to make it more affordable because the companies are hooked on them.

Pretty silly statement to make about a technology thats changing so quickly, and is constantly getting cheaper as it gets more mature and attracts more investment. And it depends on what you mean by forseeable future.

The industry is already as mature as it is going to get as long as it depends on subsidies.

[dre]

You don't have a clue what is going on do you? Governments ARE subsidizing large scale deployment of these technologies and that I what I object to. It is simply not affordable and the subsidies are not going to make it more affordable because the companies are hooked on them.

The industry is already as mature as it is going to get as long as it depends on subsidies.

Sorry theres no way anyone on earth would consider these technologies mature. Its literally assinine. The cost of wind power has come down 10 fold in the last 15 years as capital investment has increased. Solar has come down just as much and there has been a constant string of breakthroughs.

Thats the exact definition of an immature industry. It still changes rapidly in response to investment and r&d. And most of the companies involve are doing just that... researching better designs, scalable manufacturing processes, storage technologies, grid interfaces etc.

THese technologies are very early on in their development life cycle. We have some prototype plants, and a few wind farms but nothing on real scale yet. And the technologies that we will need to partner them with are also immature but improving quickly.

I figure it will take about 20 years of ongoing development for these technologies to either prove out or fail. Time is on their side though because all the other alternatives are going UP in price quickly while they are coming down. And event if they prove to be viable it will still take many decades after that before we take full advantage of renewables.

These technologies arent going to get abandoned no matter how much you piss and moan.

Edited August 12, 2011 by dre

[Topaz]

Wasn't the reason why the first electric car failed was the Big 3 bought out the idea and now all 3 are investing time and money in both electric autos and gas powered autos? The only thing about the electric car, from what I've heard, is your hydro bill will double while charging your car. Anyone know the difference in price between a tank of gas vs hydro? I wonder how long it will be before we can say, "Scottie, beam me up!" different way of traveling.

[TimG]

I figure it will take about 20 years of ongoing development for these technologies to either prove out or fail.

And in 20 years you will still be insisting that the are not "mature" and need subsidies.

Time is on their side though because all the other alternatives are going UP in price quickly while they are coming down.

Except for natural gas.

And event if they prove to be viable it will still take many decades after that before we take full advantage of renewables.

If they are not viable today we should not be mandating that utlities use them. Pilot projects sure. No feed in tariffs. No renewable mandates.