The World Can Be Powered by Alternative Energy

[TimG]

So we are ok with subsidizing fossil fuels companies that are PRIVATE and PROFITABLE and pollute freely to the tune of a little north of $4B/yr in the US alone but we are not ok with subsidizing for renewables?

The US spends over $1 TRILLION a year on fossil fuels it collects $10 billion a year in oil extraction royalties and between $25 and 50 billion in taxes on gasoline. $4 billion is a rounding error that is swamped by the revenue that would be lost of fossil fuels consumption ended.

The US also already spends $16 billion a year on renewables and gets diddly squat. Adding another 4 billion is not going to change anything.

Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

If someone is in that situation then they should not be posting on a public forum or at least, they should simply acknowledge that they cannot respond because they don't have the knowledge. Posting a response that says 'you are wrong because you have no qualifications even though I cannot explain why you are wrong' is extremely childish and goes against the entire point of a discussion forum.

Contrast RM's response with Kimmy's on the Dark Matter thread - Pliny is clearly wrong from the perspective of anyone who has studied physics but Kimmy made a valiant effort to explain why he is wrong in her own words. That is what a discussion forum is about.

Are you still moaning about this? I'll bet you're sorry you posted the link to a blog written by a guy who almost finished his history degree, aren't you?

[TimG]

Are you still moaning about this? I'll bet you're sorry you posted the link to a blog written by a guy who almost finished his history degree, aren't you?

You are unbelievable. I could have posted the two criticisms made as my own opinion with no reference to outside sources. If had done that you could have responded by saying you will ignore me because I have no "credentials" (at least none I am going tell you about) but that would have make you look even more idiotic since everyone else in this thread is posted their own opinions with nary a comment from you (Why aren't you telling them that they have nothing useful to say because they have no "credentials"?)

Unfortunately, I provided links because the blog had more detailed expositions of the points in the naive assumption that I was dealing with an adult interested in a discussion rather than an intellectually dishonest child. In the future I will remember that I am dealing with a child and adjust my posts accordingly.

Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

The US spends over $1 TRILLION a year on fossil fuels it collects $10 billion a year in oil extraction royalties and between $25 and 50 billion in taxes on gasoline. $4 billion is a rounding error that is swamped by the revenue that would be lost of fossil fuels consumption ended.

The US also already spends $16 billion a year on renewables and gets diddly squat. Adding another 4 billion is not going to change anything.

Ive found the numbers aren't very transparent through my own research and the fact I've also found ones that contradicted my own previously, I won't even ask you to source your's. Its beside the point. I still wanna know why you think it's ok for PRIVATE and PROFITABLE companies to receive subsidies when they provide no inherently greater good than any other business that provides jobs and adds to the economy? Why do they deserve subsidization but renewables don't? How is that not contradictory to your assertions of "true cost" and "free markets" you espouse? This is a basic question of philosophy.

[TimG]

I still wanna know why you think it's ok for PRIVATE and PROFITABLE companies to receive subsidies

I don't. True subsidies should be terminated. The only reservation I have is opponents of the oil industry tend to call things subsidies when they are good reasons for them including:

1) industry neutral tax rules that have to be in place when a corporation pays taxes to multiple governments.

2) subsidies directly linked to increasing royalty revenues.

Also the US is notorious for handing out cash/preferential tax treatment to it corporations in return for campaign funding. It seems silly to focus on one industry when every industry is at the trough. If I was American I would want to see all such kickbacks eliminated. Fortunately, the problem is not as bad in Canada and the subsidies here tend to fall into the two categories above.

Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

You are unbelievable. I could have posted the two criticisms made as my own opinion with no reference to outside sources. If had done that you could have responded by saying you will ignore me because I have no "credentials" (at least none I am going tell you about) but that would have make you look even more idiotic since everyone else in this thread is posted their own opinions with nary a comment from you (Why aren't you telling them that they have nothing useful to say because they have no "credentials"?)

Unfortunately, I provided links because the blog had more detailed expositions of the points in the naive assumption that I was dealing with an adult interested in a discussion rather than an intellectually dishonest child. In the future I will remember that I am dealing with a child and adjust my posts accordingly.

Nice ad hominem attack.

Edited August 21, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

Nice ad hominem attack.

It is perfectly legitimate comment given the nature of your comments on this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[13] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

Your response to my arguments were designed to sabotage meaningful discussion of the op and to belittle someone who disagreed with you. It added nothing to the discussion. Calling behavior childish is a statement of fact - it is not an ad hom.

If you actually wish to discuss the op then respond to the points made rather than making excuses to ignore them.

Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

2) subsidies directly linked to increasing royalty revenues.

There is zero need to subsidize for royalty revenues when the price of a barrel of oil is at the price it is. Hell. The US doesn't even collect on deep water drilling leases despite it's viability. There is no reason to subsidize something that is already commercially viable which is anywhere and everywhere you can still a drill in the groud, but the US still does and the us taxpayers get to foot the bill directly and indirectly. Just for the sake of comparison, that's a GW of solar capacity every year or 181 TWh of wind production tax credit... Edited August 21, 2013 by FutureCanadian

[TimG]

There is zero need to subsidize for royalty revenues when the price of a barrel of oil is at the price it is.

The oil being found now costs a lot more to extract so companies are not making more money because the price of oil is higher. Increase the cost of finding the oil and companies will not invest or go elsewhere because the ROI is not large enough. This means royalties paid to the government decreases over time.

Keep in mind that royalty revenues are currently double the cost of the subsidies that you gave so encouraging oil discovery is a way for governments to directly increase revenues. This is much better than the usual 'jobs' argument that politicians give because direct money in exceeds money out.

Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

The oil being found now costs a lot more to extract so companies are not making more money because the price of oil is higher.

Lol. Wut? The cost of extraction is dependent on the means of extraction, not the price of oil. If anything, the price of oil now has increased more costly, riskier drilling (offshore). Companies that are utilizing fracking are making bank because its cheaper and effective AND the price of oil. Does one really think it not dubious to ignore x in x-y=z?

Increase the cost of finding the oil and companies will not invest or go elsewhere because the ROI is not large enough. This means royalties paid to the government decreases over time.

So what happens when the price of oil declines and costs remain the same? Uh oh. Looks the government would be in trouble....and yet still subsidizing. Stinks we can't control global oil prices.

Keep in mind that royalty revenues are currently double the cost of the subsidies that you gave so encouraging oil discovery is a way for governments to directly increase revenues.

That made sense when the price of a barrel of oil was $38 and oil companies weren't raking in 11 figures hand over fist. Royalties will be paid no matter what in this enviornment. Profits are to be had. Not all subsidization occurs on public lands anyways. They shouldn't be there at all. Maybe we'd be better off subsidizing demand for oil to increase the price and increase royalties that way. Then we could help the little guy instead of profitable, private corporations. Lulz. Like that would happen.

[TimG]

If anything, the price of oil now has increased more costly, riskier drilling (offshore).

That is kind of the point. Subsidies for oil exploration always go to the most expensive sources of oil because the cheap oil sources have already been found and exploited. So the companies that benefit from such subsidies are spending more money to extract. Wells that already produce cheap oil make lots of money but they are not eligible for these kinds of subsidies so are irrelevant to your argument.

So what happens when the price of oil declines and costs remain the same?

A mathematical impossibility since cheap oil sources have peaked, The only way this could happen is if there was a large decline in demand for oil. I don't see that happening any time soon. If it did happen there would be carnage in oil sector and many many people would be losing jobs which would create much bigger problems for politicians. Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

That is kind of the point. Subsidies for oil exploration always go to the most expensive sources of oil because the cheap oil sources have already been found and exploited. So the companies that benefit from such subsidies are spending more money to extract. Wells that already produce cheap oil make lots of money but they are not eligible for these kinds of subsidies so are irrelevant to your argument.

The "costliness" is relative to other forms of extraction. Offshore is viable without subsidies and still doesn't have to pay royalties.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/oil_royalties

By the way, fracking is getting subsidized and it isn't "expensive" extraction either. Oops.

A mathematical impossibility since cheap oil sources have peaked, The only way this could happen is if there was a large decline in demand for oil. I don't see that happening any time soon. If it did happen there would be carnage in oil sector and many many people would be losing jobs which would create much bigger problems for politicians.

That wasnt the point. The point is the price of oil determines royalties in as far as subsidies remain constant. If the price drops then subsides actually become necessary to maintain production, but the price has risen substantially in the last decade and all forms of extraction are commercially viable and these companies are making billions yet we are still subsidizing them and declining royalties in some instances. Spin it however you want, that is corporate handouts to the T for dirty fossil fuels. Looks like everybody is winning but the common citizen/taxpayer.

[dre]

Actually, you are the one who is shamelessly twisting history to fit the narrative that you want to believe.

No im not. Every single thing I said is true and easily verifiable. And its still true today! 80% of the worlds oil is control by NOCs and the vast majority of the worlds nuclear plants are run by public tax payer backed public utilities.

Like I said... you are whining about the government providing some paltry incentives for private companies to develop renewables... and ignoring the fact that the government went much much much further with other sources of energy including commercialization and even delivery to end users. You are ignoring the fact that national petro companies run 80% of the global petroleum industry, and almost the entire nuclear industry.

If we were to use that as a model the government would be creating a ministry of windfarms, and a solar ministry, and they would be building all these projects with tax payer dollars. The reality is that the model being used for renewables is way closer to the private enterprise model that you constantly soil your underpants over.

Edited August 21, 2013 by dre

[TimG]

No im not. Every single thing I said is true and easily verifiable. And its still true today! 80% of the worlds oil is control by NOCs

Now you are moving the goal posts. What you wanted to imply is oil subsidized because it is owned by NOCs. This is demonstrably false. NOCs exist because oil is huge money maker for governments. It is not a subsidy. Nuclear is often tightly linked to governments because of the risks/regulatory environment and there are subsidies - but the subsidies are in the order of 1-2 cent/kWh. IOW - it is not huge given the amount of useful base load power nukes generate.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the subsidies in Japan:

http://www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit113/nit113articles/nit113cost.html

The source is an "anti-nuclear public interest organization dedicated to securing a safe, nuclear-free world.".

yet they claim subsidies of 1.5 yen/kWh. IOW - peanuts.

[dre]

Iim not moving any goal posts. Im just pointing out that theres way more government intervention in these other industries, way more subsidization, and way more public control and management.

NOCs exist because oil is huge money maker for governments.

No NOCs exist because energy is a public priority and most of the governments of the world are struggling to meet demand. Sometimes they make money sometimes they dont.

And your fall back position of "its the per kw subsidies that matter" is total and complete fallacy. You are comparing mature industries to ones that are in their infancy in terms of capital investment and commercialization. This is just a little mental game you play with yourself so that you can ignore the fact that conventional energy sources recieve the vast majority of global subsidies, and during early implementation recieved 10 times as much from the government as renewables get today. Which is why this argument keeps going nowhere for you. The whole "renewables get unfair subsidies compared to conventional sources" argument is so damn easy to destroy and debunk using readily available information and uncontraversial sources.

And you earlier link proves my point nicely...

Nuclear energy costs not included in the above calculation
The Japanese government spends more than any other government on energy research and development. Nuclear energy receives 64% of this, by far the greatest portion. By comparison, only 8% is spent on renewable energy, while 12% is spent on energy efficiency etc.. It is reasonable to say that this R&D funding is necessary in order for nuclear energy to be able to continue.

The government's nuclear energy budget is published in an official nuclear energy white paper. The nuclear energy budget for the last 10 years is shown in figure 1 below. It amounts to about 500 billion yen each year.

Around one third is from general revenue. The rest is from special accounts. There are two special accounts, one for the "diversification of electric power" and one for "site establishment". The funds for these special accounts come from a special purpose tax called the Electric Power Development Tax. Currently the tax is collected from consumers via their electricity bills at the rate of 400 yen per 1,000 kWh. The revenue is distributed in accordance with the Law for the Adjustment of Areas Adjacent to Power Generating Facilities.

The government builds and runs these plants, because no investor with half a brain would commit so much as a yen.

But luckily none of it matters. Theres a significant commitment in both the public and private sector to changing the status quo and investment in alt energy is going to continue whether you like it or not. Wind, solar, coal gassification, thorium, natgas, biofuels etc. Nobody cares what people like you think.

Edited August 21, 2013 by dre

[TimG]

Iim not moving any goal posts. Im just pointing out that theres way more government intervention in these other industries, way more subsidization, and way more public control and management.

We were discussing **subsidies**. Bringing up "other types of government involvement" is an irrelevant distraction.

You are comparing mature industries to ones that are in their infancy in terms of capital investment and commercialization.

Rewnewables have been with us for thousands of years. They are NOT an industry in its infancy. The trouble is they keep trying new tech because the old ones don't measure up. There is no reason to believe the new ones will fair any better - all this evolution does is give you a perpetual excuse to claim it is an 'industry in its infancy'. Nonsense. 100 years from now you would claim the same thing. At some point there needs to be ground rules: subsidies for R&D but no subsidies for production.

Nobody cares what people like you think.

Actually many do. The harebrained renewanable subsidies are getting slashed around the world from Ontario to Germany. Politicians seem to be learning that they need to focus their efforts on technologies that are likely to produce via able solutions. Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

Actually many do. The harebrained renewanable subsidies are getting slashed around the world from Ontario to Germany. Politicians seem to be learning that they need to focus their efforts on technologies that are likely to produce via able solutions.

Yup! Investment in renewables has been "slashed" from 40 billion to 260 in the last decade! ROFLMAO.

[TimG]

Yup! Investment in renewables has been "slashed" from 40 billion to 260 in the last decade! ROFLMAO.

As they say there is sucker born every minute since most of the growth is developing countries. As for the "earlier adopters" like Germany? They are giving up:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-germany-solar-subsidies.html

Germany to pull plug on solar subsidies by 2018

The state support was justified in large part by Germany's much-heralded "energy revolution" in which it is phasing out nuclear power and aiming to produce 80 percent of its power with renewable resources by 2050.

But solar energy is notoriously unreliable as a power source and Germany has seen its market hobbled by oversupply and ferocious competition from players such as China.

Merkel, campaigning for a third term, has promised an overhaul of subsidies for renewable energy after the September general election, amid criticism particularly from the energy industry.

Berlin "has so far invested 216 billion euros ($278 billion) in renewables and the biggest chunk went to solar, the technology which does least to ensure the power supply," said the head of industrial group Siemens, Peter Loescher, in an interview published in the business daily Handelsblatt on Monday.

Sanity is gradually returning but it is difficult road because there are many deluded people who cannot understand that just because something can produce energy that does not mean it makes sense to use it. Edited August 21, 2013 by TimG

[FutureCanadian]

Rather surprised that the normally prudent Germans failed to have any foresight about obvious problems with renewables. So successful they don't know what to do. I'll applaud them for being one if the first to take the pain for others to learn from.

[dre]

As they say there is sucker born every minute since most of the growth is developing countries. As for the "earlier adopters" like Germany? They are giving up:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-germany-solar-subsidies.html

Germany to pull plug on solar subsidies by 2018
Sanity is gradually returning but it is difficult road because there are many deluded people who cannot understand that just because something can produce energy that does not mean it makes sense to use it.

Huh... it says in your article that they are ending subsidies in 2018 because they will have reached their target for installed capacity.

You conveniently quoted around this part here... Im sure it was just a little accident

Peter Altmaier of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union had fought to set a ceiling of solar power capacity above which the government would no longer offer its financial backing.

He said Monday that the limit of 52 gigawatts would be reached by 2017 or 2018. Currently solar panels installed in Germany generate 34 gigawatts of power

Sounds to me like exactly how subsidies are supposed to work!

As they say there is sucker born every minute since most of the growth is developing countries.

Yeah! Developing countries like the US!

Edited August 21, 2013 by dre

[Accountability Now]

Ive found the numbers aren't very transparent through my own research and the fact I've also found ones that contradicted my own previously, I won't even ask you to source your's. Its beside the point. I still wanna know why you think it's ok for PRIVATE and PROFITABLE companies to receive subsidies when they provide no inherently greater good than any other business that provides jobs and adds to the economy? Why do they deserve subsidization but renewables don't? How is that not contradictory to your assertions of "true cost" and "free markets" you espouse? This is a basic question of philosophy.

Either you don't understand or care to understand the fickle nature of these private and profitable companies. These are multi national business people who will invest in the best area possible and only care about how much money is to be made.They aren't going to invest in Canada or the US just because they live here. As such, IF the government of that given area wants them to invest in their country then they need to insure the companies are given enough incentives to make it more attractive than other areas. Keep in mind, there are other areas in the world that produce oil and they have no problem investing there. As an example of how fickle these guys are, just look at Suncor and the cancelation of the Voyageur project. It was an 11.6billion dollar upgrader which they cancelled recently after already sinking 3.5 billion into it. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/suncor-cancels-voyageur-project-takes-hit-to-profit/article10453855/). They have no problem flipping the switch if they feel they can make more money elsewhere or at another time. Its not just oil companies that do this....Tim Hortons back in 2009 returned to Canada after previously incorporating in the US due to cheaper corporate taxes. Once the Feds lowered the rates, they came back. Its all about the money with big business.

As for your comment "when they provide no inherently greater good than any other business that provides jobs and adds to the economy?"

1. The royalties are worth it especially considering we don't know how long oil will be the major player in the market. In 2008, oil companies in Canada got 2.8 billiion in subsidies according to a GSI report (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2010/Tax%20and%20Royalty%20Related%20Subsidies%20to%20Oil%20Extraction%20from%20High%20Cost%20Fields%20November%202010%205MB.pdf) However, over the next 35 years Alberta is expected to recieve 1.2 Trillion dollars in royalties which is about 34 billion per year. This does not include corporate income tax provincially or federally. I think its safe to say that the government gets its money back with a great return. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/27/alberta-oil-sands-royalties-ceri_n_1382640.html)

2. You say they provide no other good than other businesses that provides jobs however you are missing the point that the Oil and Gas industry provide so many more jobs. The 2011 Brookings study (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/7/13%20clean%20economy/0713_clean_economy.pdf) tried to combat the idea that oil/gas jobs were so good. They showed that 2.4 million jobs in the US were directly attributed to oil/gas versus 2.7 million in green ecomony jobs. Note the wording....green ecomony (not energy). Green ecomony means everything and anything that benefits the environment such as public transit, forestry/conservation, waste management, waste water treatment and a whole bunch of other jobs that exists regardless of renewable versus oil. But....when you look furhter you will see the break out show that direct jobs from renewable energy sources add up to ~138,000. This versus 2.4 million in the oil and gas....and 9.2million indirect as quoted by other sources. That's a lot of jobs. Can they be replaced by renewable jobs someday....maybe. But in the mean time the government has to go with the forces that drive the economy.

[FutureCanadian]

Amazing the difference between the normative and the descriptive! As long as everyone else is doing it! Sigh...

[Accountability Now]

Amazing the difference between the normative and the descriptive! As long as everyone else is doing it! Sigh...

I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just making a statement. Either way....do you care to elaborate?