dre Posted August 12, 2011 Report Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) And in 20 years you will still be insisting that the are not "mature" and need subsidies. Except for natural gas. 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. If you want to talk about mandates vs subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of government action youll have to more specific. What law forced which private utilities to build solar plants or windfarmsÉ The cost of natural gas might be going down but the cost of building plants is going up. But good! Lets build some gas plants! That has no bearing though on whether we continue to develop wind or solar (we WILL do that), and natgas is only an option in some places. Edited August 12, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted August 12, 2011 Report Posted August 12, 2011 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. 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? Sure gasoline on average has about 10 KWH per litre. A litre costs about $1.20 right now I think. So about 12 cents per KWH. My grid authority meters electricity at about 8 cents per KWH. Thats just where I live though. If you live in the US where gas costs a lot less, and you buy power from a nuclear plant at 15 cents then gas would be cheaper. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Oleg Bach Posted August 12, 2011 Report Posted August 12, 2011 It's hard to breath ---------I want more green energy - could it be the 40 smokes a day for 40 years? Or is it the Pluuuushun? Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 If you want to talk about mandates vs subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of government action youll have to more specific. What law forced which private utilities to build solar plants or windfarmsIt is called the RPS and it forces utilities to buy a specific percentage renewable power:A Renewable portfolio Standard (RPS) is an obligation to have a set amount of electricityproduction from renewable sources. http://www.canbio.ca/documents/publications/Renewable_Harmonize_Final_Feb_16_2005.pdf And RPS is NOT a pilot project. It is an attempt to force people to use a technology which is not ready for full time deployment. Then we have the feed in tariffs where utilities are forced to pay way above market for renewable power - even if they can't use it. The cost of natural gas might be going down but the cost of building plants is going up. But good! Lets build some gas plants! That has no bearing though on whether we continue to develop wind or solar (we WILL do that), and natgas is only an option in some places.Nat gas is economic on its own merits. Wind and solar only get used because the government is forcing people to use or because it is providing massive subsidies. Quote
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 It is called the RPS and it forces utilities to buy a specific percentage renewable power: http://www.canbio.ca/documents/publications/Renewable_Harmonize_Final_Feb_16_2005.pdf And RPS is NOT a pilot project. It is an attempt to force people to use a technology which is not ready for full time deployment. Then we have the feed in tariffs where utilities are forced to pay way above market for renewable power - even if they can't use it. Nat gas is economic on its own merits. Wind and solar only get used because the government is forcing people to use or because it is providing massive subsidies. Actually there has been lots of natgas subsidies all around the world. And in the US the industry is currently lobbying for 10 billion in subsidies that would be part of the Natural Gas Act. And natgas has the same problem that corn ethanol does in that its crucial for all kinds of other purposes and using it as a primary transportation fuel will add volatility to the cost and supply. Natural gas is the primary raw material, or feedstock, used by the chemical industry to create ingredients for 96 percent of all manufactured goods. To put it simply, natural gas is to the chemical industry, and chemical products are to manufactured goods, as flour is to a bakery. Stable feedstock costs for the chemical industry mean greater certainty for other manufacturers, which helps keep consumer prices low and leaves more resources available for expansion and hiring throughout the economy.... So the chemical companies arent too happy about it. Anyhow like I said natural gas has no bearing on whether or not we develop renewables. That decision has already been made. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Actually there has been lots of natgas subsidies all around the world. And in the US the industry is currently lobbying for 10 billion in subsidies that would be part of the Natural Gas Act.FWIW I am against those subsidies too. Anyhow like I said natural gas has no bearing on whether or not we develop renewables. That decision has already been made.Natgas will make it less likely that renewables can survive without subsidy. That decision has already been made.No it has not. Hudak plans to gut the "green energy plan" in Ontario if he is elected and other politicians will realize that these "plans" are expensive white elephants. I would rather they realize this sooner than later. Quote
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 FWIW I am against those subsidies too. Natgas will make it less likely that renewables can survive without subsidy. No it has not. Hudak plans to gut the "green energy plan" in Ontario if he is elected and other politicians will realize that these "plans" are expensive white elephants. I would rather they realize this sooner than later. NO energy source has survived without subsidy. So that statement means nothing. And it doesnt matter what Hudak does. The ammount of both private and public capital spent on developing renewables and other clean technologies will continue to increase. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) NO energy source has survived without subsidy. So that statement means nothing.Again - not true. Only renewables are the targets of government attempts to mandate market share. And it doesnt matter what Hudak does. The ammount of both private and public capital spent on developing renewables and other clean technologies will continue to increase.I don't really care if the private sector invests. The issue is government policies that Hudack has promised to change. Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Again - not true. On renewables are the targets of government attempts to mandate market share. I don't really care if the private sector invests. The issue is government policies that Hudack has promised to change. I dont know enough about Hudak or Ontario or the green energy act to argue with you about that. From some quick reading I did do Ontario has some serious issues because its infrastructure plants and grids are old and have not been properly maintained. I read a bit about the feed in tarrifs, and I dont necessarily hate the concept as long as theres some kind of rigid sunset clause, but I also read about some PP's getting paid as much as 80 cents per hour. Thats definately ridiculous. Just because I support the idea of developing renewables doesnt mean I support any individual policy meant to promote them. Out here in BC we are paying an extra couple of cents for power generated by IPP's. That seems a little more reasonable, but Id like to see sunset clauses or phase-outs on those subsidies as well. I would also be open Ipps building Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Just because I support the idea of developing renewables doesnt mean I support any individual policy meant to promote them.Then we probably have some basis to agree on something. My pet peeve is the absurd policies like 20 year sweet heart FIT contracts with escalators clauses (i.e. the price goes up as the price of electricity rises). Or mandates to get X% from renewables without any thought to whether it is technically/economically feasible. I don't have an issue with government funding for pilot projects or R&D. Government can support the technology without trying to control the market for energy.Out here in BC we are paying an extra couple of cents for power generated by IPP's. That seems a little more reasonable, but Id like to see sunset clauses or phase-outs on those subsidies as well. I would also be open Ipps buildingThere is a need to open up the grid because the current regulations and market practices make it difficult for small IPPs to sell power - but there is a difference between eliminating regulatory road blocks and giving massive subsidies. The latter is simply not sustainable as Ontario is finding out. Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Then we probably have some basis to agree on something. My pet peeve is the absurd policies like 20 year sweet heart FIT contracts with escalators clauses (i.e. the price goes up as the price of electricity rises). Or mandates to get X% from renewables without any thought to whether it is technically/economically feasible. I don't have an issue with government funding for pilot projects or R&D. I can see deals like that being tempting for broke ass governments though. For example that deal they had with Samsung had the same kind of long term cost+ deal you are describing. But at the same time, Samsung was going to dump billions of dollars into the ONtaria economy, and build four factories that were going to employ thousands of people. So really those deals are just deffered payments in that case. Thaats similar to the IPP projects out here. The government has to pay a little more for the power, but they dont have to pay for the contruction of new plants. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wild Bill Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) NO energy source has survived without subsidy. So that statement means nothing. And it doesnt matter what Hudak does. The ammount of both private and public capital spent on developing renewables and other clean technologies will continue to increase. Not quite, Dr. Dre! People will invest in renewables ONLY if they are competitive with traditional sources. If the only way to make them competitive is to artificially bail them out with political subsidies then unless someone can find a way to make them become competitive they will command investment only as long as the politicians are willing to keep propping them up! This idea that if you subsidize renewables then eventually volumes will lower costs and make them competitive is a very dangerous game! How do you know what's a good bet and what isn't? It's hard enough for the private sector. Do you really think a politician like McGuinty would be a good assessor? Would Dalton be like Jimmy Buffet and be able to tell what renewables would be good investment bets? Lots of variables can screw up the whole idea! Maybe no one will be able to come up with cheaper and more efficient solar cells? Maybe battery technology hits a brick wall. A smart investor waits until technology improvements show some promise before putting in his money. McGuinty has just shoveled in OUR money, on blind faith! I'm one of the techies on this board and it seems like I have seen the same old articles in the media about how cheap solar power is just a year or two away for decades now. I have some magazines from the early 60's making those claims. I should dig them out and reference them for anybody who cares to research them. I'm NOT at all saying we WON'T see technical breakthroughs! It's just that breakthroughs don't fit schedules very well. Many engineers have pinned up cartoons on their desk's wall that show management flow charts, with someone giving a presentation and pointing to a box on the chart labeled "Engineering out-of-the-blue breakthrough HERE!" Real investors watch and wait and put their own money in only when and if the signs are coming together to reduce the risk. Dalton has just shoveled in OUR money! Then he's implemented policy YEARS BEFORE we can see if things are going to work out! Investing in politically subsidized programs leaves one very vulnerable. I have breakfast several Sundays a month with an old friend who has been a farmer all his life. He and other farmers watched McGuinty's MicroFit program carefully before some finally signed up. Many others signed up a few months later and promptly got screwed! The Liberals had realized that they had a far larger backlog of applications to process than they had ever expected. This meant 2 things. First, they were going to have to pay out far more money than they had thought, far faster in time frame. Second, they didn't have enough bureaucrats to process all the applications within months and months of time! So they just arbitrarily announced that they were not taking any more applications! What's more, all those who had put their applications in months earlier and were piled up in the backlog were screwed! They would not be allowed in the program at all! These farmers had spent money and effort researching the MicroFit program to see if their farm situation would not only fit the government criteria but make the farmer money! Now they were being told that they were out of luck! Worse yet, the Liberal changed the rules in the middle of the game! They announced that only roof-top solar panels would get the full rate. Ground-mounted installations would get much less. Most farmers have far more fields than roofs! Fortunately for some, the political flack got the Liberals to give in about those applications that had been waiting in the backlog and allowed them to be processed. They did NOT budge about the reduced rate for solar panels on the ground! It has often been said that when it comes to business politicians are very poor at picking winners. Now we're watching one trying to create a brand new industry! You can understand why some of us are a little skeptical! Edited August 13, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) But at the same time, Samsung was going to dump billions of dollars into the ONtaria economy, and build four factories that were going to employ thousands of people. So really those deals are just deferred payments in that case.Ever hear of the broken window fallacy? What it says is the increase in economic activity as a result of unnecessary costs like broken windows (a.k.a "green energy") is alway less than the opportunity cost if that money was put to more productive uses.There have been studies on countries with "green energy" plans and they estimate that 2 jobs are lost for everyone created as a result of the higher energy prices and taxes. IOW, there is no upside for Ontario with the Samsung. It simply a transfer of wealth from Ontarians to Samsung and the few workers that get employed. Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Not quite, Dr. Dre! People will invest in renewables ONLY if they are competitive with traditional sources. If the only way to make them competitive is to artificially bail them out with political subsidies then unless someone can find a way to make them become competitive they will command investment only as long as the politicians are willing to keep propping them up! This idea that if you subsidize renewables then eventually volumes will lower costs and make them competitive is a very dangerous game! How do you know what's a good bet and what isn't? It's hard enough for the private sector. Do you really think a politician like McGuinty would be a good assessor? Would Dalton be like Jimmy Buffet and be able to tell what renewables would be good investment bets? Lots of variables can screw up the whole idea! Maybe no one will be able to come up with cheaper and more efficient solar cells? Maybe battery technology hits a brick wall. A smart investor waits until technology improvements show some promise before putting in his money. McGuinty has just shoveled in OUR money, on blind faith! I'm one of the techies on this board and it seems like I have seen the same old articles in the media about how cheap solar power is just a year or two away for decades now. I have some magazines from the early 60's making those claims. I should dig them out and reference them for anybody who cares to research them. I'm NOT at all saying we WON'T see technical breakthroughs! It's just that breakthroughs don't fit schedules very well. Many engineers have pinned up cartoons on their desk's wall that show management flow charts, with someone giving a presentation and pointing to a box on the chart labeled "Engineering out-of-the-blue breakthrough HERE!" Real investors watch and wait and put their own money in only when and if the signs are coming together to reduce the risk. Dalton has just shoveled in OUR money! Then he's implemented policy YEARS BEFORE we can see if things are going to work out! Investing in politically subsidized programs leaves one very vulnerable. I have breakfast several Sundays a month with an old friend who has been a farmer all his life. He and other farmers watched McGuinty's MicroFit program carefully before some finally signed up. Many others signed up a few months later and promptly got screwed! The Liberals had realized that they had a far larger backlog of applications to process than they had ever expected. This meant 2 things. First, they were going to have to pay out far more money than they had thought, far faster in time frame. Second, they didn't have enough bureaucrats to process all the applications within months and months of time! So they just arbitrarily announced that they were not taking any more applications! What's more, all those who had put their applications in months earlier and were piled up in the backlog were screwed! They would not be allowed in the program at all! These farmers had spent money and effort researching the MicroFit program to see if their farm situation would not only fit the government criteria but make the farmer money! Now they were being told that they were out of luck! Worse yet, the Liberal changed the rules in the middle of the game! They announced that only roof-top solar panels would get the full rate. Ground-mounted installations would get much less. Most farmers have far more fields than roofs! It has often been said that when it comes to business politicians are very poor at picking winners. Now we're watching one trying to create a brand new industry! You can understand why some of us are a little skeptical! Not quite, Dr. Dre! People will invest in renewables ONLY if they are competitive with traditional sources. No no. People already ARE investing in renewables even though they arent competitive yet. Hell... people are investing in nuclear fussion even though it cant even produce any power at all. If the only way to make them competitive is to artificially bail them out with political subsidies then unless someone can find a way to make them become competitive they will command investment only as long as the politicians are willing to keep propping them up! The problem is pretty much all of the other players in the energy sector are subsidized too. And some of those industries were basically built from the ground up on public money. I'm one of the techies on this board and it seems like I have seen the same old articles in the media about how cheap solar power is just a year or two away for decades now. I have some magazines from the early 60's making those claims. I should dig them out and reference them for anybody who cares to research them. Im a techie too (IT consultant and software engineer), and in my last life I was an electrician. And Iv actually dont a couple of PV projects, and I can assure you that prices have come down radically since the 60s. I'm NOT at all saying we WON'T see technical breakthroughs! It's just that breakthroughs don't fit schedules very well. Many engineers have pinned up cartoons on their desk's wall that show management flow charts, with someone giving a presentation and pointing to a box on the chart labeled "Engineering out-of-the-blue breakthrough HERE!" We ARE seeing them constantly. In the last few years we have since a series of radical new designs. MultiJunction cells that broke the theoretical 38% efficiency boundary, and processes to make cells without expensive silicon substrates. And the price has been dropping fast. Its true you cant make breakthroughs happen on a schedule, but capital investment in R&D most certainly will accelerate the rate at which they emerge. Worse yet, the Liberal changed the rules in the middle of the game! They announced that only roof-top solar panels would get the full rate. Ground-mounted installations would get much less.Most farmers have far more fields than roofs! That sounds similar to the complaints Tim has. Im not going to argue with you on those points because I know very little about those policies. From talking to the two of you it sounds like the government had an overly aggresive green energy platform, that wasnt very well implemented. Thats unfortunate but it has nothing to do with the viability of any energy technologies. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Ever hear of the broken window fallacy? What it says is the increase in economic activity as a result of unnecessary costs like broken windows (a.k.a "green energy") is alway less than the opportunity cost if that money was put to more productive uses. There have been studies on countries with "green energy" plans and they estimate that 2 jobs are lost for everyone created as a result of the higher energy prices and taxes. IOW, there is no upside for Ontario with the Samsung. It simply a transfer of wealth from Ontarians to Samsung and the few workers that get employed. There WAS an upside. The broke ass government didnt have to pay for the generation capacity up front. They got to pay later instead, and a foreign company was going to dump 7 billion dollars into their economy. I dont know if it was a good deal or not. You would have to do a shitload of research to know that. You would need to know how much of that cost+ power was going to be purchased over the duration of the deal, and balance that against the 7 billion dollars + interest, jobs created, etc. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 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.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. bollocks! The subsidy 'per energy unit' metric for fossil-fuels is so low simply because so much of it is being produced... based on decades of concerted investment from BigOil. You favour it because it allows you to manipulate, as you say, the pea under the thimble. The majority of subsidies are to be found within non-OECD countries and are principally targeted at consumers. However, you are being disingenuous to classify OECD member fossil fuel subsidies as "miniscule", particularly as they are principally targeted at BigOil producers. 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.pdfAccording 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: 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. nonsense... now you're just making shit up. It's not the source I would reference, but let's work with what you've provided. If you bothered to actually read the report itself - here - you would see a full accounting presenting a line item breakout of the tax credits for fossil fuels versus renewables. You would also have read this key statement concerning the Foreign Tax Credit: The study excludes taxes and other expenditures associated with general energy consumption (such as accelerated depreciation provisions and tax-exempt debt), even if they disproportionately benefit certain energy sources, on the basis that they are made equally available to both fossil fuel and renewable energy, as well as other industries. A variation on this rule is the Foreign Tax Credit, which, while not aimed at energy sectors specifically, contains certain provisions that apply solely to fossil fuels. really, c'mon... it's your provided reference link - you don't get to arbitrarily change/challenge the study without providing a supporting reference source. Your say so, alone, just doesn't cut it! 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. again, nonsense. Here let me indulge with a lil' cut&paste to bust your assumption... the full line item accounting of fossil-fuel tax breaks, per your supplied reference (figures in millions; appropriate U.S. IRS tax code details provided): a.1. All fossil fuel tax expenditures (in millions) - Foreign Tax Credit ($15,300) - IRC Section 901. - Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels ($14,097)- IRC Section 45K. - Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Expensing ($7,100)- IRC Section 617. - Oil and Gas Excess Percentage over Cost Depletion ($5,441)- IRC Section 613. - Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery Costs ($1,575) - IRC Section 43. - Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains ($986) - IRC Section 631©. - Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners ($438) - 30 U.S.C. 922©. - Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from Fuel Excise Tax ($343) - IRC Section 6426(d). - Other-Fuel Exploration & Development Expensing ($342) - IRC Section 617. - Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion ($323)- IRC Section 613. - Deduction for Clean Fuel Vehicles and Refueling Property-Fossil Fuels ($209) – IRC Section 179A. - Exception from Passive Loss Limitations for Oil and Gas ($190) - IRC Section 469©(3). - Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. - Expensing Liquid Fuel Refineries ($164) - IRC Section 179C. - Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) - IRC Section 468. - Natural Gas Distribution Lines Treated as Fifteen-Year Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) Property ($138) - IRC Section 168(e)(3)(E)(viii). - Sulfur Regulatory Compliance Incentives for Small Diesel Refiners (Combined) ($109)- IRC Sections 179B and 45H. - 84-month Amortization Period for Coal Pollution Control ($102) - IRC Section 169(d)(5). - Expensing Advanced Mine Safety Equipment ($32) - IRC Section 179E. - Credit for Clean Fuel Vehicles and Refueling Property-Fossil Fuels ($14)- IRC Section 30C. - Natural Gas Gathering Lines Treated as Seven-year Property with Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Relief ($6) - IRC Section 168(e)(3,C)(iv). - Natural Gas Arbitrage Exemption ($6) - IRC Section 148B (4). - Amortization of Oil and Gas Geological and Geophysical Costs (-$145) - IRC Section 167(h). which is how your provided link reference arrives at a $54 billion fossil fuel tax credit for fossil fuels in the U.S... add in the $16 billion for direct budgeted fossil fuel subsidies, one arrives at the $70 billion fossil fuel subsidy figure in the U.S... more than double the subsidies allotted to renewables in the U.S. Quite the disparity, wouldn't you agree... hardly... as you say, "miniscule"... and these are just the figures from one OECD member country. Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 There WAS an upside. The broke ass government didnt have to pay for the generation capacity up front.The paid 3 billion for 2.5MW *capacity* of wind and solar. A 2.5MW capacity for nat gas would have cost no more than 2 billion. The difference is the nat gas plant can run 24x7 where as the wind and solar would be lucky to produce 20% of their nameplate capacity.In short, they paid at least 5 times what they would have needed to pay for the same capacity using nat gas. Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) bollocks! The subsidy 'per energy unit' metric for fossil-fuels is so low simply because so much of it is being produced.Those are the facts. Per unit of energy tells us how sustainable a subsidy is. Per unit of energy is the ONLY measure I am going to discuss. You don't like it because it allows you to grossly exaggerate the significance of fossil fuel subsidies.A variation on this rule is the Foreign Tax Credit, which, while not aimed at energy sectors specifically, contains certain provisions that apply solely to fossil fuels.As I said. The foreign tax credit allows companies to avoid double taxation. It does not affect renewable because renewable energy companies are not typically paying taxes to foreign governments. It is not a subsidy. Period. No matter how much you whine.As for the others, the next three items apply to domestic production which means you need to subtract the royalties that the US government collects ($10 billion/year). That brings the $54 billion down to $30 billion. On top of this there are a lot of taxes levied on fossil fuels that are not levied on renewables so they should be added in as well but it is not necessary to make my point. So the total subsidies (worst case) are around $46 billion which is still peanuts compared to the $300 billion being spent on renewables (after prorating for the amount of energy actually produced). So yes. Fossil fuel subsidies are minuscule compared to what is being dished out for renewables. Here is some data on consumption: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_home Fossil Fuels: 82 Quads/Year Renewables: 5.5 Quads/Year Subsidies: Fossil Fuels: $500 million/Quad/Year Renewables: $5.4 billion/Quad/Year 10x as much. Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Those are the facts. Per unit of energy tells us how sustainable a subsidy is. Per unit of energy is the ONLY measure I am going to discuss. You don't like it because it allows you to grossly exagearrate the significance of fossil fuel subsidies. bully for you... face the facts Jack... per a previous link supplied: a 10:1 fossil fuel disparity in subsidies. Again, the only reason the subsidy per unit of energy figure for BigOil is so low... is because so much of it is produced. And on that point alone, you weasel your way around the actual expenditure numbers. Since you have truly assumed the MLW position as head shill for Big Oil, perhaps you might answer the question you keep avoiding. Just why does BigOil continue to need subsidies... particularly in the face of year over year record profits? Just answer the question... As I said. The foreign tax credit allows companies to avoid double taxation. It does not affect renewable because renewable energy companies are not typically paying taxes to foreign governments. It is not a subsidy. Period. No matter how much you whine. I quoted you the pertinent part of your linked study... here, chew on it again... you can ignore it, but you can't hide from it: The study excludes taxes and other expenditures associated with general energy consumption (such as accelerated depreciation provisions and tax-exempt debt), even if they disproportionately benefit certain energy sources, on the basis that they are made equally available to both fossil fuel and renewable energy, as well as other industries. A variation on this rule is the Foreign Tax Credit, which, while not aimed at energy sectors specifically, contains certain provisions that apply solely to fossil fuels . until you provide a source reference to substantiate your attempt to change your referenced linked study... you are just making it up, on the fly. It's your linked study reference... you don't get to arbitrarily change your own source, no matter how much you... whine! I quoted you the line item accounting of fossil fuel tax breaks from your study... would you like to have the line item accounting for renewables also quoted from your supplied reference... cause you won't find the Foreign Tax Credit there... no matter how much you whine! As for the others, the next three items apply to domestic production which means you need to subtract the royalties that the US government collects ($10 billion/year). That brings the $54 billion down to $30 billion. On top of this there are a lot of taxes levied on fossil fuels that are not levied on renewables so they should be added in as well but it is not necessary to make my point. what point? The point that has you floundering... that has you fabricating... making it up as you go - that point? So the total subsidies (worst case) are around $46 billion which is still peanuts compared to the $200-500 billion being spent on renewables (after prorating for the amount of energy actually produced).So yes. Fossil fuel subsidies are minuscule compared to what is being dished out for renewables. prorating!!! Oh please, stop yourself now! Just walk away... no need to embarrass yourself any further. Here is some data on consumption:http://www.eia.gov/e...=us_energy_home Fossil Fuels: 82 Quads/Year Renewables: 5.5 Quads/Year Subsidies: Fossil Fuels: $500 million/Quad/Year Renewables: $5.4 billion/Quad/Year 10x as much. ah, yes... here it is! I won't even bother to question what wizardry you used to arrive at these latest quoted subsidy figures. It is enough to now realize your favoured go-to is the EIA (Energy Information Administration). You should note (or probably have noted), I have keyed to the IEA (International Energy Agency) for applicable numbers. Clearly, as king shill, you would know of the controversy (i.e., the politicization) behind the EIA's 2007 & 2010 reports: EIA's Politically Dictated “Garbage” Subsidy Report Obtained And Released Publicly The Checks and Balances Project has obtained a copy of the controversial Energy Information Administration report that was called “garbage” by EIA Acting Administrator Howard Gruenspecht . The polluter-friendly report was just delivered yesterday afternoon to the GOP House requesters, Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). Checks and Balances provided a copy to DeSmogBlog, which we’re providing to the public here: “Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010". Gabe Elsner, Deputy Director of the Checks and Balances Project, told DeSmogBlog that, “if it’s true that the Acting Administrator Gruenspecht called this report a “piece of garbage” he was right, because it deliberately leaves out the six other ways in which coal, oil and natural gas get government handouts. The fossil fuel welfare tab is tens or hundreds of times greater than the cost of pro-renewable policy support.” Elsner says that this report is essentially a re-issue of the 2007 Alexander study that was designed to defend public welfare to the fossil fuel industry, such as oil and gas industry subsidies. The new EIA analysis fails to take into account the full range of subsidies at play in the energy sector, and therefore delivers a favorable analysis of fossil fuels over renewables. By excluding a lot of the other avenues of direct federal support given disproportionately to fossil fuel interests, as well as financial tools designed to assist dirty energy companies, the report is just plain faulty, or “fuzzy math” as some guy once said. Missing from the EIA calculations are a plethora of advantages the dirty energy industry enjoys over clean tech companies, including outsized direct subsidies for mature industries, publicly funded pollution cleanup assistance, cheap insurance, low interest federal loans, extensive tax breaks, and – most gut wrenching in the wake of Tim DeChristopher’s imprisonment – insanely cheap public lands leases for oil and gas drilling, as well as access to public lands and tax credits to build transmission lines. Quote
dre Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 Per unit of energy tells us how sustainable a subsidy is. Per unit of energy is the ONLY measure I am going to discuss. You don't like it because it allows you to grossly exaggerate the significance of fossil fuel subsidies. No, per unit of energy tells you more about how mature a technology is. That number starts fairly high and goes down as an industry matures and scale of production increases. You would expect those numbers to be high for wind and solar because they are very young technologies in terms of considerable capital investment. What SHOULD really bother you is that industries that have already been in full scale operation for many decades are STILL recieving most the energy subsidy dollars. And they have been getting that money for decades. We have spent almost NOTHING comparatively on renewables. You claim you dont support subsidies except for during the intial R&D and Rollout phase which is where wind and solar are at. But you ignore the fact that industries that have already been up and running on a large scale for more than half a century are getting the bulk of the subsidies. Then you try to fall back on the whole narrative about PER UNITS but thats bogus because if you only support subsidies during the R&D phase then OF COURSE THE FOCKIN UNITS ARE GOING TO COST MORE. Initial r&d subsidies often dont yield any units at all! If you only believe emerging technologies should get subsidies then why the hell would you even bring up PER UNIT costs as an excuse for a well established industry getting most of the subsidies? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Again, the only reason the subsidy per unit of energy figure for BigOil is so low... is because so much of it is produced.Exactly! And this is because, unlike renewables, fossil fuels actually have the ability to generate energy in useful quantities. And that was as true 100 years ago as it is today. Also, unlike renewables, fossil fuels actually generate income for governments which offsets any subsidies.I quoted you the line item accounting of fossil fuel tax breaks from your study... would you like to have the line item accounting for renewables also quoted from your supplied reference...Your problem is you have no comprehension. You quote words but you don't understand what the words mean. Here is the wiki reference on 'Foreign Tax Credits' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_tax_credit Income tax systems that tax residents on worldwide income generally offer a foreign tax credit to mitigate the potential for double taxation. The credit may also be granted in those systems taxing residents on income that may have been taxed in another jurisdiction. The credit generally applies only to taxes of a nature similar to the tax being reduced by the credit (i.e., taxes based on income). IOW - you only get 'Foreign Tax Credits' if you have paid taxes to a foreign government. There is no extra money for oil companies. It is a rule designed to avoid double taxation. If there are special provisions for fossil fuels it is because there are many special taxes on fossil fuels. It is NOT a subsidy and by claiming it is a subsidy you simply demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
TimG Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) What SHOULD really bother you is that industries that have already been in full scale operation for many decades are STILL recieving most the energy subsidy dollars. And they have been getting that money for decades.It does bother me. But you don't fix a hairbrained policy by doubling down on it. Governments need to get their deficits under control and I see $70/billion per yer the US can save by eliminating all subsidies (at least the ones that are really subsidies). Edited August 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 I think I read something about subsidies subsiding (heh heh) over time for mature technologies. Was there some breakthrough that allowed oil/gas to be rolled out for mass use and also reduced the subsidy ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Saipan Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 People who do not use fossil fuel to heat heir homes should get big refund. And people like Al Gore who use way too much should be penalized. Quote
waldo Posted August 13, 2011 Report Posted August 13, 2011 bully for you... face the facts Jack... per a previous link supplied: a 10:1 fossil fuel disparity in subsidies. Again, the only reason the subsidy per unit of energy figure for BigOil is so low... is because so much of it is produced. And on that point alone, you weasel your way around the actual expenditure numbers. Since you have truly assumed the MLW position as head shill for Big Oil, perhaps you might answer the question you keep avoiding. Just why does BigOil continue to need subsidies... particularly in the face of year over year record profits? Just answer the question...Exactly! And this is because, unlike renewables, fossil fuels actually have the ability to generate energy in useful quantities. And that was as true 100 years ago as it is today. Also, unlike renewables, fossil fuels actually generate income for governments which offsets any subsidies. no - as C2E member dre so eloquently schooled you... it's nothing more than a reflection on maturity. The "per unit of energy" metric is just a means for you to continue to shuck&jive and attempt to avoid, at all costs, an acknowledgement that BigOil, for decades, continuing to present day, has received a brazillion times more subsidies than renewables. I note you, once again, failed to answer the question... surprise, surprise! I quoted you the pertinent part of your linked study... here, chew on it again... you can ignore it, but you can't hide from it: The study excludes taxes and other expenditures associated with general energy consumption (such as accelerated depreciation provisions and tax-exempt debt), even if they disproportionately benefit certain energy sources, on the basis that they are made equally available to both fossil fuel and renewable energy, as well as other industries. A variation on this rule is the Foreign Tax Credit, which, while not aimed at energy sectors specifically, contains certain provisions that apply solely to fossil fuels . until you provide a source reference to substantiate your attempt to change your referenced linked study... you are just making it up, on the fly. It's your linked study reference... you don't get to arbitrarily change your own source, no matter how much you... whine! I quoted you the line item accounting of fossil fuel tax breaks from your study... would you like to have the line item accounting for renewables also quoted from your supplied reference... cause you won't find the Foreign Tax Credit there... no matter how much you whine! Your problem is you have no comprehension. You quote words but you don't understand what the words mean. IOW - you only get 'Foreign Tax Credits' if you have paid taxes to a foreign government. There is no extra money for oil companies. It is a rule designed to avoid double taxation. If there are special provisions for fossil fuels it is because there are many special taxes on fossil fuels. It is NOT a subsidy and by claiming it is a subsidy you simply demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. no - you're too thick to actually read your own linked reference... cause... if you did, you would realize that only BigOil has received the tax break related to the Foreign Tax Credit. More pointedly, you would recognize the hand of the BigOil Politicos and LobbyMen at work - big time! You would realize that special... unique... provisions within the U.S. IRC Foreign Tax Credit were put in place to allow BigOil to characterize royalty payments to foreign governments as corporate income taxes. Why... isn't that double dipping? One would expect those crafty BigOil types would most certainly leverage the Foreign Tax Credit in regards direct taxes paid to foreign governments (if any)... but then... they get to pile on by designating royalty payments as corporate taxes as well. DoubleDip! As I said, if your thickness hadn't impeded your ability to read your own linked reference source, you also would have read inference that the DoubleDip was getting "out of hand" and another special section within the IRC Foreign Tax Credit was brought in to put a threshold limit on just how far BigOil could take that special double-dipping privilege. So... again... as stated previously, many times now, the Foreign Tax Credit is a tax break (ala royalty payments blended into corporate taxes) that only BigOil gets - not, repeat not, renewables! Do you get it yet? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.