German town goes off the grid with alternative energy.

[Guest]

Which is worse Oil spills like took place in the Gulf of Mexico or building a windmill on a peat bog?

Oh I know this, I know this... Don't tell me...

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 25 Feb 2013 - 17:08, said:

right Moonbox! Never saw and never looked at... right! Don't hesitate to respond to it then.

Okay. Will do. Don't feel bad about how dumb you look after. Edited February 26, 2013 by Moonbox

[shortlived]

Are you aware that Canada collects $3 billion per year with gasoline taxes? Are you aware that Alberta collects $12 billion per year in royalties on fossil fuel extraction?

These two numbers clearly demonstrate that the *net* subsidy in Canada is negative. i.e. fossil fuels bring Canadian governments more in direct revenues than they cost in 'tax subsides'. If you want money to pay for for programs this should be a good thing.

Wow 3 billion royalties on an industry that makes 70 billion dollars annually in alberta and comprises over 25% of provincial GDP that is so much Canadians are getting, oh sorry Albertans are getting for our collective resources being eaten up, and our environment being ruined, and our health being ruined, for American companies, and now Chinese profits. Bear in mind alberta was "created" by the federal government, it was only populated by first nations who are the real owners of the land, not the province of Alberta.

For an industry that is going to collapse over the next 20 years you sure have high expectations.

The problem is all the resource and wealth going to the US rather than Canadians, only alberta is seeing money from the environmental damages being caused nation wide by Alberta oil excavation.

This is a federal forum and having only one province benefit from damages to the rest of Canada, out of province workers who come back and cost other provinces millions for the health damages caused by the toxic environments of the Athabascan are just costs not input into how Alberta is costing other provinces while selfishly advancing solely its own interests. Alberta isn't a team player.

Canada doesn't need it. Fueling unneeded oil industry is fueling the destruction of our environment which will increasing cause environmental damage like forest fires, there are costs that come on nation wide because of the oil sands extraction.

Albertas not paying to fix those problems, its not even paying to fix its own environmental problems at home, it is spending the money on ignoring building an economy that can exist without oil, while letting the environment get destroyed. Totally irresponsible.

Look at what the oil producers in the middle east are doing, they are diversifying their economies and investing in a non oil based future.

http://www.undp.org.sa/sa/documents/ourwork/pr/long_term_strategy_2025.pdf

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[waldo]

Does TimG know that every year, the Canadian government gives more than $1.4 billion in tax subsidies to oil, coal, and gas companies. I do not understand those who are so against social services, but are advocates of big company handouts.

or ~ 2.8 billion annually (federal & provincial)... BigOil does not need these subsidy dollars! Even though the G20 has agreed to ("eventually") eliminate all fossil-fuel subsidies, MLW member, 'TimG', will hold tight to and cradle BigOil subsidies for as long as he can! Of course, Canadian governments should be directing those subsidy dollars to renewable energy alternatives...

[TimG]

Wow 3 billion royalties on an industry that makes 70 billion dollars annually in alberta and comprises over 25% of provincial GDP that is so much Canadians are getting

I said 12 billion in royalties which is close to 20% of the annual profit - that is a huge tax.

Also I was wrong on the gasoline tax: Canada collects close to $15 billion in taxes on gasoline each year.

So we are taking over $30 billion a year in direct fossil fuel related revenue and the government provides tax incentives (meaning the government does not actually spend money) of a mere $2 billion per year?

There is no rational argument to support the premise that fossil fuels are subsidized in Canada.

[shortlived]

I said 12 billion in royalties which is close to 20% of the annual profit - that is a huge tax.

Also I was wrong on the gasoline tax: Canada collects close to $15 billion in taxes on gasoline each year.

So we are taking over $30 billion a year in direct fossil fuel related revenue and the government provides tax incentives (meaning the government does not actually spend money) of a mere $2 billion per year?

There is no rational argument to support the premise that fossil fuels are subsidized in Canada.

Kindly post a link to your figures.

except that they are subsidized.

You give someone a buck its giving someone a buck. It changes the tax treatment.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[waldo]

Wow 3 billion royalties on an industry that makes 70 billion dollars annually in alberta and comprises over 25% of provincial GDP that is so much Canadians are getting, oh sorry Albertans are getting for our collective resources being eaten up, and our environment being ruined, and our health being ruined, for American companies, and now Chinese profits. Bear in mind alberta was "created" by the federal government, it was only populated by first nations who are the real owners of the land, not the province of Alberta.

For an industry that is going to collapse over the next 20 years you sure have high expectations.

.

.

Albertas not paying to fix those problems, its not even paying to fix its own environmental problems at home, it is spending the money on ignoring building an economy that can exist without oil, while letting the environment get destroyed. Totally irresponsible.

Look at what the oil producers in the middle east are doing, they are diversifying their economies and investing in a non oil based future.

http://www.undp.org.sa/sa/documents/ourwork/pr/long_term_strategy_2025.pdf

or... Norway. Alberta has little diversification to speak of... and what actual/practical plans exist to diversify off the non-renewable resource that it is so tied to???

one can see just how Alberta has squandered its 'riches' when examining the relatively weak position its HTF holds when comparing 'oil sovereign wealth funds':

[shortlived]

Gasoline is bought from the US not alberta. US refineries make the money from gasoline consumption not oil.

Refining makes way more than oil extraction. Yet there is a Big Oil Mafia controlled monopoly out of the US that won't let Canada produce its own gasoline supply.

What does a gas tax have to do with alberta oil? Alberta oil is oil not gas.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[shortlived]

The HTF appears to be sitting at about 16.5 billion now but alberta is writing a deficit.. how is that? Oh and what is albertas provincial debt?

subtract even only the municipal debt and that is down to 9 billion what is the province at?

The 4 billion + deficit in alberta easily out paces any gains in the AHTF. this year alone if actually not borrowing money the fund would be non existant..

You can't put on the illusion of "surplus" when the federal and provincial debt is well over 1 trillion dollars today as a result of intentionally uneconomical fiscal policies.

Albertas debt is higher than its oil surplus fund. It is a borrower country, how is that possible... squandering money. This while Alberta has ridiculously high prices, why? Because there is money there no other reason.

The rosey future isn't there change is coming denial of the ever increasing environmental pressure that will rain down on the oil sands, as well as the reality of new technologies reducing oil dependence such as natural plant fibre processing and carbon materials, as well as non fuel based batteries for vehicles and even aircraft... this is just the world we walk towards.

micronuclearization is here. oil is a false messiah.

we need to look to the future. we need to choose the right path.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Kindly post a link to your figures.

Why don't you post a link to yours?

58 billion liters per year.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37c-eng.htm

25 cent per liter tax (GST not included because it is value add).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada

14.5 billion per year.

Up to date figures for Alberta's tale are 11.2 billion (12 billion was from 2009).

http://budget2012.alberta.ca/newsroom/charts-graphs.pdf

In short: no rational argument can be made that fossil fuels are subsidized since the revenue produced by them far exceeds any subsidy.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

If the oil/gas industry is going that good, why are they getting subsidies in the first place?

[shortlived]

Why don't you post a link to yours?

58 billion liters per year.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37c-eng.htm

25 cent per liter tax (GST not included because it is value add).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada

14.5 billion per year.

Up to date figures for Alberta's tale are 11.2 billion (12 billion was from 2009).

http://budget2012.alberta.ca/newsroom/charts-graphs.pdf

In short: no rational argument can be made that fossil fuels are subsidized since the revenue produced by them far exceeds any subsidy.

Are you ignoring the fact gasoline is not oil?

The federal government giving money to oil companies that give money to alberta is subsidized by the federal government.\

You see oil companies would pay federal tax rather than receive a federal subsidy. Getting a tax deduction through subsidy is still a subsidy much like people living in the north get a living in the north credit. It is a subsidy. Your denial of this is ignoring the simple truth. Yes oil companies pay some taxes to the federal government but they are selling Canadian materials to do so, it is canadas wealth to begin with. And no those royalties do not go to the federal government they go to alberta so yes the federal government does subsidized Albertan oil companies. Its giving a separate corporate tax rate to oil companies.

You are in denial if you don't see that.

Alberta ain't spending on the rest of Canada.

They don't even have enough to pay their own bills.

Edited February 26, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

If the oil/gas industry is going that good, why are they getting subsidies in the first place?

Most (if not all) of the tax credits go to companies that find new wells which means future revenues for governments.

It is called 'investment'. It is good for Canadians.

Edited February 26, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

The federal government giving money to oil companies that give money to alberta is subsidized by the federal government.

The claim was that fossil fuel subsidies mean consumers don't pay the true price for fossil fuels. This claim is clearly false since gasoline taxes far exceed the value of any subsidies.

[shortlived]

you keep aluding to gasoline taxes without recognizing gasoline is not oil, and gasoline is imported from the us.... you are saying quiche is eggs. quiche ain't eggs. If buy quiche from your neighbour I'm not buying your eggs.

You seem to have this convoluted system in mind that doesn't represent reality.

The claim was that fossil fuel subsidies mean consumers don't pay the true price for fossil fuels. This claim is clearly false since gasoline taxes far exceed the value of any subsidies.

Fosil fuel subsidies do nothing, It is a global market, it means they make more money and sell for the market price... it is supply and demand what don't you get, it is just their profit on an industry that already provides profit. it is giving them money, that's it.

this almost makes me want to eat gas..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiche

mmmhhh

these look so good.

a fair exchange would be money for oil. you know start a reserve or something rather than just giving them money for nothing. cause you know we are only giving them the oil to begin with.

Edited February 27, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

Fosil fuel subsidies do nothing

Well, for you to say that I think you would have to know exactly why the government provides 'subsidies'. Since you clearly don't know your opinion is not worth much.

I don't know what the breakdown is for your numbers but the last time I looked these so-called 'subsidies' went to companies that took risks developing new royalty generating wells. IOW - these subsidies directly result in new revenue for the government.

Of course, you could argue that the oil companies would develop these wells anyways but you could make that argument about any government subsidy from R&D to movies to green energy. So unless you want to argue that all government subsidies should be eliminated you don't have much of argument.

The only argument presented that is even superficially logical was the idea that subsidies mean fossil fuels are too cheap because of the subsidies. You appear to the acknowledging that there is no merit to that argument.

So that leaves the question? Why are these subsidies a problem given the fact that the government does believe it increases their tax base?

Edited February 27, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Most (if not all) of the tax credits go to companies that find new wells which means future revenues for governments.

It is called 'investment'. It is good for Canadians.

Why does the oil industry get special treatment? Any other company that wants to do new things or expands has to spend their own money. Taxpayers pay for the subsidy, and we are also paying the tax on this stuff.

[TimG]

Why does the oil industry get special treatment? Any other company that wants to do new things or expands has to spend their own money. Taxpayers pay for the subsidy, and we are also paying the tax on this stuff.

The argument is always the same no matter what industry (auto, sports, farming, movies, tech): politicians want to create/preserve jobs in Canada and increase the tax base. You can argue that point but as long as other industries are getting these subsidies then the oil industry is not been treated specially. It is simply one of many industries which the politicians have anointed to be special enough to justify this treatment.

That said, oil subsidies are unique because oil exploration leads to royalty revenues in addition to the usual jobs and spin off benefits. This makes it much easier to justify from a direct economic perspective.

Edited February 27, 2013 by TimG

[shortlived]

IOW - these subsidies directly result in new revenue for the government

OK, and how does that differ from any other business?

So that leaves the question? Why are these subsidies a problem given the fact that the government does believe it increases their tax base?

See the above...

oh and why doesn't the government just do it itself if it makes so much money, why not save the tax payer and develop their own resources? You know cut out the middleman?

Like Venezuela pocketed like 130 billion each year... why doesn't Canada just make oil revenue and you know cut tax rates by 50% on personal income taxes?

You know who this really makes money for.. oil companies. That's it.

What's that, all the foreigners who make money off our resources wouldn't like it...

who exactly got the good end of this one? We get the pollution, health issues, and destroyed ecosystems, and they get the money?

Under stooge rule Canada is going into debt with this awesome deal and has been since 1867 or so.

Since this latest troope came in public debt to gdp has soared to nearly 100% and undoubtedly their goal and making it impossible to pay off the debt so their corporate masters can the banks can continue to reap interest year after year as we get less and less for our tax dollars

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ca&v=143

This is NOT acceptable.

This is just poor management at its finest.

Edited February 27, 2013 by shortlived

[Accountability Now]

oh and why doesn't the government just do it itself if it makes so much money, why not save the tax payer and develop their own resources? You know cut out the middleman?

The Feds owned Petro Canada until 2009 when Suncor took over. Not sure why it sold but they were doing it for a while.

[TimG]

Like Venezuela pocketed like 130 billion each year... why doesn't Canada just make oil revenue and you know cut tax rates by 50% on personal income taxes?

...

This is just poor management at its finest.

ROTFL. Venezuela is a text book example of how governments destroy the value of their resources.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2012/08/venezuelas-oil-industry

With so little attention paid to the actual business of extracting oil, it is little wonder that PDVSA’s production has fallen from 3m barrels a day in 1999 to 2.4m today, according to OPEC. In the same period, its foreign debt has risen fivefold. Moreover, oil union leaders say PDVSA’s industrial-safety procedures have deteriorated sharply.

Edited February 27, 2013 by TimG

[segnosaur]

Frankly, given the complexity of the situation, its probably beyond the ability of us mortals to actually DO a coprehensive comparison, taking all direct and secondary costs into effect.

and, to degrees, attempts toward more comprehensive studies, factoring externalities, have been done. I've presented a few in the past.

I have never seen one (at least one that does a complete job of factoring in such exterrnalities. Perhaps they exist (since I can't prove a negative) but I've never seen them.

In this thread, I simply drew a generalized consideration toward them in regards to the wide-sweeping, most generalized reference to "normalization".as I pointed out, at least in regards to the OP link reference, there is no direct and detailed reference to the town requiring subsidies to accomplish it's position. The only direct costing associates to the 2 references to biogas and the internal grid creation itself... the article states the town paid for half the biogas facility (with the EU providing the other half as a grant), and paid for creating the internal grid itself (directly from townspeople). The matter of how the solar installs were paid for isn't mentioned... nor, for that matter, is wind turbine costing mentioned.

Umm... the fact that people paid for the grid itself is a subsidy. Yes, people voluntarily (I assume) coughed up the money themselves, but it was still money that was coming from a source other than on the sale of electricity itself.

But none of that stopped TimG from another of his blanket statements on renewable subsidies.

Well, given the fact that the original post in thread seemed to argue how this town was a trendsetter, then it certainly makes sense to discuss the entire situation, including any factors (subsidies, their environment/economy, situations that make this community unique, etc.) that would make it impossible to replicate their success elsewhere.

If they can make a go of it, find... more power to them. But not everyone will have the same combination of factors that makes their situation possible.

Most definitely, no one had even mentioned per/kwh until I brought the point forward. Perhaps you should spend more time actually reading posts, hey?

First of all, not sure exactly what you're saying... looking back through the posts, you weren't the one who brought up subsidies per kwh... back in post 52 you were talking only about total subsidies... it was Bonham who first brought up the fact that we should be looking at subsidies per unit of energy.

Secondly, I read as much here as I can, but I do not have infinite time. So I pick and choose those that are of interest.

You attempted to hand-wave away the issue (by claiming oil/gas was 'established'). However, Solar and wind are both relatively established technologies. Yes, there may be improvements, but at this point they should be able to survive or die based on their own merits.

hand-wave??? Pointing out the fact... the most obvious fact, that fossil-fuels are mature/established is not "hand-waving".

No, what is hand-waving is your assumption that it actually matters.

Do you actually follow this subject? To suggest solar/wind technologies are established... oh wait... you did say "relatively established"... shows you know nothing about the ongoing advances in both wind and solar.

Wind power has been in use for electrical generation for over a century. Solar power has been used for decades.

I am quite aware of the trends in solar/wind power. Yes, I recognize that solar panels are improving in efficiency and dropping in cost. Yes, I know there are new technologies (such as Molten Salt) which will allow solar to provide power at night/when cloudy.

But that doesn't mean it should be the government stepping in to pay for actual implementation.

I do think the government has a role in energy research... they should be investing in technologies that might have promise but are further down the road and riskier (such that businesses won't invest in them themselves) - Nuclear fusion, oil-from-algae/bacteria, etc.

Since you speak of "on their own merits", can we put down as one favouring the abolition of current fossil-fuel subsidies?

Yes, I would like fossil fuel subsidies to be abolished. Heck, I'd even consider things like a carbon tax, if it could actually be handled properly.

Oh, by the by, do you think it's fair that fossil-fuels have had decades of historical subsidies to establish... and now... you suggest it's time for renewables to "survive or die on their own merits". Is that your fair and balanced assessment... or is that your particular brand of, as you say, "hand-waving"?

The fact that one form of energy (fossil fuel) gets an unfair subsidy does not mean that other forms of energy (solar/wind) should get an even greater subsidy (per unit of energy).

Re: the cost of renewable resources being cheaper in Australia compared to "new gas/oil" plants

A couple of things from the article that you should keep in mind:

-

The article points out that a good chunk of the cost from new fossil

fuel plants is from banks wanting to charge more for loans to construct

them. That doesn't sound like an argument based on pure economics

no

- the applicable article reference suggests it's entirely economics...

or do you have other motives you'd like to assign towards the...

bankers?

If a banker is making a purely economic decision, they will look at factors like the chance of defaulting on the loan, the amortization period, etc. If they are charging more because investing in fossil fuel plans looks bad, they end up basing their decisions at least partly on ethical grounds rather than economics.

no - the article is highly relevant,

The original article was talking about a town in germany, a rural location where their switch to renewables was subsidized (either from grants to build their biogas plants, or from townspeople doing their own donations/subsidizations).

particularly for the likes of you who are so adamant in

insisting that fossil-fuels are cheap, that renewables are expensive,

that renewables aren't viable

There will be cases where renewables are cheaper. There will be situations where they are more expensive.

However, even if all subsidies were removed from Fossil fuels, you'd still probably find that in most cases renewables can't compete yet.

, etc..you have the nerve.. the gall... to

slam Germany's deployment of renewables with a reference to subsidies. I

provided an accounting of the levels of German subsidies for hard coal,

lignite, nuclear and renewables - perhaps you should have another look

at that graphic, hey?

No, perhaps you should actually accept that what's important is not the total amount of the subsidies, but the subsidies per unit of power.

[waldo]

Umm... the fact that people paid for the grid itself is a subsidy. Yes, people voluntarily (I assume) coughed up the money themselves, but it was still money that was coming from a source other than on the sale of electricity itself.

what a ridiculous, irrelevant/unrelated assertion!

.

Well, given the fact that the original post in thread seemed to argue how this town was a trendsetter, then it certainly makes sense to discuss the entire situation, including any factors (subsidies, their environment/economy, situations that make this community unique, etc.) that would make it impossible to replicate their success elsewhere.

If they can make a go of it, find... more power to them. But not everyone will have the same combination of factors that makes their situation possible.

yes, the town is symbolic. Clearly, it brought out the usual MLW suspects who refuse to acknowledge any inroads renewable energy can make... is making - particularly when driven, overall, at large, by a German people/government with the foresight/want to champion and be a world-leader in the deployment of renewable energy.

.

No, what is hand-waving is your assumption that it actually matters.

.

.

No, perhaps you should actually accept that what's important is not the total amount of the subsidies, but the subsidies per unit of power.

no - again, pointing out the fact... the most obvious fact, that fossil-fuels are mature/established is not "hand-waving". It is clearly relevant - it most certainly matters when the 'per/kWh' metric is trotted out. Your refusing to acknowledge that the level of fossil-fuel generation is a direct reflection on its maturity, speaks to your purposeful and wanton obfuscation. To top it off you offer up another ridiculous assertion suggesting there is a maturity equivalency between fossil-fuels and renewable energy... bizarre!

.

But that doesn't mean it should be the government stepping in to pay for actual implementation.

that's certainly a most convenient and self-serving statement - one that allows you to, again, ignore the historical and continuing disproportionate level of subsidies provided to the fossil-fuel industry.

.

The fact that one form of energy (fossil fuel) gets an unfair subsidy does not mean that other forms of energy (solar/wind) should get an even greater subsidy (per unit of energy).

again, per/kWh is a reflection on the maturity of fossil-fuel industry deployments. But this is interesting - perhaps you could speak to why... even you... consider fossil-fuel subsidies to be, as you say, "unfair".

.

If a banker is making a purely economic decision, they will look at factors like the chance of defaulting on the loan, the amortization period, etc. If they are charging more because investing in fossil fuel plans looks bad, they end up basing their decisions at least partly on ethical grounds rather than economics.

nonsense - the relevant bank/banker decisions were strictly economic... or, if you don't agree, as I said, don't hesitate to attribute other motives to the bank/bankers. You seem to have conveniently ignored this request.

.

However, even if all subsidies were removed from Fossil fuels, you'd still probably find that in most cases renewables can't compete yet.

no - renewables are competing quite well against new... again... new,,, fossil-fuel deployments. Oh wait, clearly, you want to compare a many multi-decades build-up of a mature fossil-fuel base to the relatively immature state of renewable energy... of course you do!

[bush_cheney2004]

...yes, the town is symbolic. Clearly, it brought out the usual MLW suspects who refuse to acknowledge any inroads renewable energy can make... is making - particularly when driven, overall, at large, by a German people/government with the foresight/want to champion and be a world-leader in the deployment of renewable energy.

.

How dramatic ! Let's all remember what else the world got when the German people/government were driven by 'foresight to champion and be a world leader in renewable energy. Ironically,

WWII Bombs Impede German Offshore Wind Farms

http://en.haberler.com/wwii-bombs-impede-german-offshore-wind-farms-242898/

Edited February 28, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

particularly when driven, overall, at large, by a German people/government with the foresight/want to champion and be a world-leader in the deployment of renewable energy.

I think it was Moonbox that linked to the aircraft carrier as evidence that if you throw enough money at something being 'off the grid' is easy. The real question is whether any sane person would be interested if they had to pay the entire cost of this village's experiment (electricity rates that include the various subsidies provided by the German government are not the real cost). Edited February 28, 2013 by TimG