# Wind And Solar Power Are Driving Up Electricity Prices, Expert Says



## bripat9643

The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.

Shellenberger Blames Renewables | The Daily Caller​
_A prominent environmental activist took the unusual road of not only blaming rising electricity costs squarely on renewable sources, but also for deriding the mainstream media for ignoring the connection.

Michael Shellenberger, the president and founder of Environmental Progress, explained in a Forbes blog post Monday how the unreliability of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, is the main reason why electricity bills around the world have been getting higher.

Despite renewable energy technology slowly becoming more affordable, Shellenberger notes, electricity costs are still rising because of the unpredictable nature of wind and solar. Both sources produce excess energy when consumers don’t need them, and they don’t produce enough when needed the most.

For example, solar panels produce large amounts of energy throughout the day, but are unable to generate power at night when residents are more dependent on electricity to keep the lights on. Wind energy is notably unpredictable given how wind fluctuates substantially from day-to-day. The end result becoming other, more reliable sources of energy are relied upon to churn out power at a moment’s notice when renewables flop. Better yet, regions that produce too much wind and solar power have to pay — not sell — others to take the power off their hands, further spiking costs._​


----------



## OnePercenter

There's nothing informative about anything that Bripat posts. The fact is my former property in Coronado California generated enough energy to charge the batteries which ran the house power throughout the night.


----------



## WheelieAddict

"expert" "  
"dailycaller"


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> There's nothing informative about anything that Bripat posts. The fact is my former property in Coronado California generated enough energy to charge the batteries which ran the house power throughout the night.



It's really much more of a dependability factor.  Maybe those batteries can keep a house powered one night, but what about the next night if no wind comes along? 

Our wind is so strong here at times you can almost use a milk carton for a kite.  Yet very few places invested in wind power.  In the entire area of  Cleveland, I'm only aware of four or five windmills and most of them  are small ones. 

One of our customers  outside of Cleveland but still near Lake Erie where the winds come  from had a windmill.  One day I  made a delivery there and noticed the windmill was gone.  I asked the owner of the company WTF  happened to the windmill?  He was a big  lib  and pro-environment kind of guy.  He  just  waived  his hands  down and said Ahhhhh.  

Generally by electric  bill for my home is about $55.00 a  month.  Think of how  many years  it  would take me to break even if  I invested in solar panels  or  a windmill.


----------



## HappyJoy

Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.

I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company. 

Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.



Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee. 

I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.


----------



## Rosy

bripat9643 said:


> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> Shellenberger Blames Renewables | The Daily Caller​
> _A prominent environmental activist took the unusual road of not only blaming rising electricity costs squarely on renewable sources, but also for deriding the mainstream media for ignoring the connection.
> 
> Michael Shellenberger, the president and founder of Environmental Progress, explained in a Forbes blog post Monday how the unreliability of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, is the main reason why electricity bills around the world have been getting higher.
> 
> Despite renewable energy technology slowly becoming more affordable, Shellenberger notes, electricity costs are still rising because of the unpredictable nature of wind and solar. Both sources produce excess energy when consumers don’t need them, and they don’t produce enough when needed the most.
> 
> For example, solar panels produce large amounts of energy throughout the day, but are unable to generate power at night when residents are more dependent on electricity to keep the lights on. Wind energy is notably unpredictable given how wind fluctuates substantially from day-to-day. The end result becoming other, more reliable sources of energy are relied upon to churn out power at a moment’s notice when renewables flop. Better yet, regions that produce too much wind and solar power have to pay — not sell — others to take the power off their hands, further spiking costs._​



The environmental whack jobs have also forgotten that the electricity powering their Tesla often comes from Nukes


----------



## Two Thumbs

If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?



WheelieAddict said:


> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"



can you laugh off Forbes?


facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.

it's a scam


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> Shellenberger Blames Renewables | The Daily Caller​
> _A prominent environmental activist took the unusual road of not only blaming rising electricity costs squarely on renewable sources, but also for deriding the mainstream media for ignoring the connection.
> 
> Michael Shellenberger, the president and founder of Environmental Progress, explained in a Forbes blog post Monday how the unreliability of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, is the main reason why electricity bills around the world have been getting higher.
> 
> Despite renewable energy technology slowly becoming more affordable, Shellenberger notes, electricity costs are still rising because of the unpredictable nature of wind and solar. Both sources produce excess energy when consumers don’t need them, and they don’t produce enough when needed the most.
> 
> For example, solar panels produce large amounts of energy throughout the day, but are unable to generate power at night when residents are more dependent on electricity to keep the lights on. Wind energy is notably unpredictable given how wind fluctuates substantially from day-to-day. The end result becoming other, more reliable sources of energy are relied upon to churn out power at a moment’s notice when renewables flop. Better yet, regions that produce too much wind and solar power have to pay — not sell — others to take the power off their hands, further spiking costs._​


Ain't life a bitch for the rich monopoly holders of power distribution?


----------



## Moonglow

Two Thumbs said:


> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
Click to expand...

Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??


----------



## Indeependent

Two Thumbs said:


> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
Click to expand...

Like Forbes stating Trump will cause a crash about a month into his presidency?
Yes, I can laugh off the neo-Con Forbes.
LIke Forbes stating that Off-Shoring and Business Visas and unemployed Americans are good?
Yes, I can laugh off the neo-Con Forbes.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Moonglow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
Click to expand...

of course not

I just like the hypocrassy of leftists that get their panties in a knot over one but not the other.


I've long been a supporter of nuclear, it's still the best option for those that don't live in fear of the fiction


----------



## Two Thumbs

Indeependent said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Forbes stating Trump will cause a crash about a month into his presidency?
> Yes, I can laugh off the neo-Con Forbes.
> LIke Forbes stating that Off-Shoring and Business Visas and unemployed Americans are good?
> Yes, I can laugh off the neo-Con Forbes.
Click to expand...

unrelated subjects

but feel free to follow the links to a site you can agree with


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
Click to expand...


Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.* 
The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas. 
The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry. ​America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies


----------



## Moonglow

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.
> 
> 
> Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
> Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*
> The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.
> The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry.​America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
Click to expand...

Most of them dumb folks have no idea that most ag and energy sector industries are supported by da govt.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

You deny the truth because you for some reason have to push your rhetoric of party affiliation...


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.
> 
> 
> Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
Click to expand...

The cost of finding oil is a business expense.  Why shouldn't it be deductible just like any other business expense?  I can deduct the cost of my laptop, computer bag, any software I purchase, headphones, you name it.  Are those subsidies?



Seawytch said:


> Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*
> The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.


Those may be legitimate subsidies, but you have to subtract them from the hundreds of billions the oil companies pay in taxes every year.  State and federal excise taxes on gasoline come to about $100 billion.  Then there are the income taxes that oil companies pay.


Seawytch said:


> The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry.





Seawytch said:


> America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies



Those are very few, and the taxes paid on oil and gasoline are massive in comparison.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.
> 
> 
> Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cost of finding oil is a business expense.  Why shouldn't it be deductible just like any other business expense.  I can deduct the cost of my laptop, computer bag, any software I purchase, headphones, you name it.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*
> The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those may be legitimate subsidies, but you have to subtract them from the hundreds of billions the oil companies pay in taxes every year.  State and federal xxcise taxes on gasoline come to about $100 billion.  Then there are the income taxes that oil companies pay.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are very few, and the taxes paid on oil and gasoline are massive in comparison.
Click to expand...

What was surprising, though, was the extent to which these companies were able to delay or defer the payment of the federal taxes they accrued. Most of the companies in our study deferred more than they actually paid. When the deferred taxes are subtracted from the amount these 20 companies owe, their average “current” tax rate drops to 11.7 percent. The independent oil and gas companies in the bottom half of our list, excluding the ones that recorded losses for the period, deferred almost all of the federal income taxes they accrued during the last five years, reporting an average current tax rate of just 3.7 percent.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...about-oil-and-gas-company-corporate-tax-rates


----------



## Moonglow

You gonna tell me about da family business of oil?


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.
> 
> 
> Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cost of finding oil is a business expense.  Why shouldn't it be deductible just like any other business expense.  I can deduct the cost of my laptop, computer bag, any software I purchase, headphones, you name it.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*
> The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those may be legitimate subsidies, but you have to subtract them from the hundreds of billions the oil companies pay in taxes every year.  State and federal xxcise taxes on gasoline come to about $100 billion.  Then there are the income taxes that oil companies pay.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are very few, and the taxes paid on oil and gasoline are massive in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was surprising, though, was the extent to which these companies were able to delay or defer the payment of the federal taxes they accrued. Most of the companies in our study deferred more than they actually paid. When the deferred taxes are subtracted from the amount these 20 companies owe, their average “current” tax rate drops to 11.7 percent. The independent oil and gas companies in the bottom half of our list, excluding the ones that recorded losses for the period, deferred almost all of the federal income taxes they accrued during the last five years, reporting an average current tax rate of just 3.7 percent.
> https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...about-oil-and-gas-company-corporate-tax-rates
Click to expand...

Deferred taxes still have to be paid, eventually.


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.
> 
> 
> Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cost of finding oil is a business expense.  Why shouldn't it be deductible just like any other business expense.  I can deduct the cost of my laptop, computer bag, any software I purchase, headphones, you name it.
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*
> The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those may be legitimate subsidies, but you have to subtract them from the hundreds of billions the oil companies pay in taxes every year.  State and federal xxcise taxes on gasoline come to about $100 billion.  Then there are the income taxes that oil companies pay.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are very few, and the taxes paid on oil and gasoline are massive in comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was surprising, though, was the extent to which these companies were able to delay or defer the payment of the federal taxes they accrued. Most of the companies in our study deferred more than they actually paid. When the deferred taxes are subtracted from the amount these 20 companies owe, their average “current” tax rate drops to 11.7 percent. The independent oil and gas companies in the bottom half of our list, excluding the ones that recorded losses for the period, deferred almost all of the federal income taxes they accrued during the last five years, reporting an average current tax rate of just 3.7 percent.
> https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...about-oil-and-gas-company-corporate-tax-rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deferred taxes still have to be paid, eventually.
Click to expand...

Not if you save them for a bad year...


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
Click to expand...


i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.



> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.



Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.

All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.

BTW, you're welcome somebody needs to save you morons from yourselves.


----------



## Moonglow

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
Click to expand...

I'm unwilling to cut down my trees..


----------



## Seawytch

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what they pay...because these are the tax breaks they shouldn't keep getting.
> 
> 
> Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The cost of finding oil is a business expense.  Why shouldn't it be deductible just like any other business expense?  I can deduct the cost of my laptop, computer bag, any software I purchase, headphones, you name it.  Are those subsidies?
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these _smaller_ companies aren't actually _small_. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.*
> The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those may be legitimate subsidies, but you have to subtract them from the hundreds of billions the oil companies pay in taxes every year.  State and federal excise taxes on gasoline come to about $100 billion.  Then there are the income taxes that oil companies pay.
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big tax breaks don't stop there. For instance, accounting rules worth about $2 billion a year to the industry let companies deduct more for the cost of developing wells as oil prices rise. But it gives you a flavor of what we're talking about here -- bonuses that aren't even available to every company in the industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are very few, and the taxes paid on oil and gasoline are massive in comparison.
Click to expand...


So link to them.


----------



## HappyJoy

Moonglow said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm unwilling to cut down my trees..
Click to expand...


I didn't have any trees at that height and I placed my panels on my roof where that won't be a future issue.


----------



## Moonglow

HappyJoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm unwilling to cut down my trees..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have any trees at that height and I placed my panels on my roof where that won't be a future issue.
Click to expand...

Do you still get juice when the mains from the electric company is down and out?


----------



## HappyJoy

Moonglow said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm unwilling to cut down my trees..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have any trees at that height and I placed my panels on my roof where that won't be a future issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you still get juice when the mains from the electric company is down and out?
Click to expand...


Nope, if the utility company goes down then so do I. The only way to avoid that is to have a battery back up and go off the grid. Batteries right now are not cost effective but as the price continues to drop it's something I'm hoping to invest in. However in reality the only thing I could save by going off the grid altogether is about $20 bucks a month which is all my utility bill is today and that's not for using energy but just being connected.

Also, you really are on your own at that point and I imagine if you're the only house to lose power on your street that it must be a pretty lonely feeling.


----------



## Moonglow

HappyJoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm unwilling to cut down my trees..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have any trees at that height and I placed my panels on my roof where that won't be a future issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you still get juice when the mains from the electric company is down and out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, if the utility company goes down then so do I. The only way to avoid that is to have a battery back up and go off the grid. Batteries right now are not cost effective but as the price continues to drop it's something I'm hoping to invest in. However in reality the only thing I could save by going off the grid altogether is about $20 bucks a month which is all my utility bill is today and that's not for using energy but just being connected.
> 
> Also, you really are on your own at that point and I imagine if you're the only house to lose power on your street that it must be a pretty lonely feeling.
Click to expand...

If my power goes so does two miles of homes on my road....I'm the first one off the junction...


----------



## HappyJoy

Moonglow said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm unwilling to cut down my trees..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have any trees at that height and I placed my panels on my roof where that won't be a future issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you still get juice when the mains from the electric company is down and out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, if the utility company goes down then so do I. The only way to avoid that is to have a battery back up and go off the grid. Batteries right now are not cost effective but as the price continues to drop it's something I'm hoping to invest in. However in reality the only thing I could save by going off the grid altogether is about $20 bucks a month which is all my utility bill is today and that's not for using energy but just being connected.
> 
> Also, you really are on your own at that point and I imagine if you're the only house to lose power on your street that it must be a pretty lonely feeling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If my power goes so does two miles of homes on my road....I'm the first one off the junction...
Click to expand...


When we lose power it's pretty epic. I live in a development that is pretty remote and our power lines can be difficult to get to and a portion use wood poles. During several storms a couple of years ago a series of the poles snapped and it took a couple days to fix them, smack dab in the middle of summer.  At least they replaced with metal poles.


----------



## initforme

As well as the us is producing alot more oil yet prices are racing up.  But we should fall on our knees and thank the oil companies.  If American companies are exporting oil made here that makes me go hmmmmmmm.  We were told all extra oil made would be kept here.  Lists.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> BTW, you're welcome somebody needs to save you morons from yourselves.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, we need salvation from environmentalists.  

Yes I  will focus on government kick backs because without it, the investment will not  pay off. In fact you  would likely be at a loss in the long run.


----------



## HappyJoy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> BTW, you're welcome somebody needs to save you morons from yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, we need salvation from environmentalists.
> 
> Yes I  will focus on government kick backs because without it, the investment will not  pay off. In fact you  would likely be at a loss in the long run.
Click to expand...


Actually the investment will pay off regardless, it's a matter of an additional 2-3 years without the tax subsidy and immediately adds value to my property. You're trying really hard (in reality just being lazy) to show that solar panels are not a good investment and you can't and it's obvious you're just reaching for something.

Piss off, I'm saving money.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing informative about anything that Bripat posts. The fact is my former property in Coronado California generated enough energy to charge the batteries which ran the house power throughout the night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really much more of a dependability factor.  Maybe those batteries can keep a house powered one night, but what about the next night if no wind comes along?
> 
> Our wind is so strong here at times you can almost use a milk carton for a kite.  Yet very few places invested in wind power.  In the entire area of  Cleveland, I'm only aware of four or five windmills and most of them  are small ones.
> 
> One of our customers  outside of Cleveland but still near Lake Erie where the winds come  from had a windmill.  One day I  made a delivery there and noticed the windmill was gone.  I asked the owner of the company WTF  happened to the windmill?  He was a big  lib  and pro-environment kind of guy.  He  just  waived  his hands  down and said Ahhhhh.
> 
> Generally by electric  bill for my home is about $55.00 a  month.  Think of how  many years  it  would take me to break even if  I invested in solar panels  or  a windmill.
Click to expand...


I didn't have wind power, solar only.

If you had solar and wind, you'd get a check every month from your power company.


----------



## OnePercenter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> BTW, you're welcome somebody needs to save you morons from yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, we need salvation from environmentalists.
> 
> Yes I  will focus on government kick backs because without it, the investment will not  pay off. In fact you  would likely be at a loss in the long run.
Click to expand...


Why would you NOT get some of you money back, Hannity did. 

Begala: Sean Hannity is a 'welfare queen' (opinion) - CNN


----------



## IsaacNewton

The US supposedly became oil independent again because of fracking and the new abundance of oil, yet gasoline prices are climbing through the roof. 

Wind and solar are still emerging energy technologies so costs compared to return will be higher and start coming down, which they have been, over time until they are cheaper than fossil fuels which is becoming reality. 

But some cling to the past like whalers clinging to the whale oil industry. Their industry vanished and was replaced by newer more efficient means, as the oil industry is experiencing now. Embrace the horror.


----------



## jc456

ask the Germans.  that's all you need to do. Ask the Germans.


----------



## bripat9643

IsaacNewton said:


> The US supposedly became oil independent again because of fracking and the new abundance of oil, yet gasoline prices are climbing through the roof.
> 
> Wind and solar are still emerging energy technologies so costs compared to return will be higher and start coming down, which they have been, over time until they are cheaper than fossil fuels which is becoming reality.
> 
> But some cling to the past like whalers clinging to the whale oil industry. Their industry vanished and was replaced by newer more efficient means, as the oil industry is experiencing now. Embrace the horror.



Uh, wrong.  Emerging technologies are successful because the are cheaper than existing technology, not because they are more expensive.  Kerosene was far cheaper than whale oil.  Cars were cheaper than a horse and buggy.  They were also much cleaner and healthier.  They didn't leave mountains of horse manure around that attracted flies.

Snowflakes delude themselves into believing that solar and wind power are following the same tragectory as any other technology.  That idea couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> Shellenberger Blames Renewables | The Daily Caller​
> _A prominent environmental activist took the unusual road of not only blaming rising electricity costs squarely on renewable sources, but also for deriding the mainstream media for ignoring the connection.
> 
> Michael Shellenberger, the president and founder of Environmental Progress, explained in a Forbes blog post Monday how the unreliability of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, is the main reason why electricity bills around the world have been getting higher.
> 
> Despite renewable energy technology slowly becoming more affordable, Shellenberger notes, electricity costs are still rising because of the unpredictable nature of wind and solar. Both sources produce excess energy when consumers don’t need them, and they don’t produce enough when needed the most.
> 
> For example, solar panels produce large amounts of energy throughout the day, but are unable to generate power at night when residents are more dependent on electricity to keep the lights on. Wind energy is notably unpredictable given how wind fluctuates substantially from day-to-day. The end result becoming other, more reliable sources of energy are relied upon to churn out power at a moment’s notice when renewables flop. Better yet, regions that produce too much wind and solar power have to pay — not sell — others to take the power off their hands, further spiking costs._​



Interesting theory- no data to support the theory.

He also is a big proponent of Nuclear power(as am I) and of course supports efforts to combat human caused global warming. 

You agree with him on everything right?


----------



## Seawytch

jc456 said:


> ask the Germans.  that's all you need to do. Ask the Germans.



Ask them how to get 85% of their energy from renewable resources?

Germany Breaks A Solar Record — Gets 85% Of Electricity From Renewables | CleanTechnica


----------



## Tax Man

My electric bill is $10.50 a month and that is just to remain connected to the grid. My solar and batteries power the house for days without direct sun. Even in the rain mine produce some power.


----------



## HappyJoy

Tax Man said:


> My electric bill is $10.50 a month and that is just to remain connected to the grid. My solar and batteries power the house for days without direct sun. Even in the rain mine produce some power.



How much were your batteries and are able to disconnect from the grid if you wanted to?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

IsaacNewton said:


> The US supposedly became oil independent again because of fracking and the new abundance of oil, yet gasoline prices are climbing through the roof.
> 
> Wind and solar are still emerging energy technologies so costs compared to return will be higher and start coming down, which they have been, over time until they are cheaper than fossil fuels which is becoming reality.
> 
> But some cling to the past like whalers clinging to the whale oil industry. Their industry vanished and was replaced by newer more efficient means, as the oil industry is experiencing now. Embrace the horror.



What horror?  

Yes, technology will make it cheaper someday, but it has to come  at it's own time.  You on the left make  it sound like we just love oil, but the only reason we love oil is because there is nothing reasonable enough to replace it for energy purposes.


----------



## J.E.D

Two Thumbs said:


> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
Click to expand...

Get back to me when the govt stops subsidizing rich people with permanent lower tax rates


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

OnePercenter said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing informative about anything that Bripat posts. The fact is my former property in Coronado California generated enough energy to charge the batteries which ran the house power throughout the night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really much more of a dependability factor.  Maybe those batteries can keep a house powered one night, but what about the next night if no wind comes along?
> 
> Our wind is so strong here at times you can almost use a milk carton for a kite.  Yet very few places invested in wind power.  In the entire area of  Cleveland, I'm only aware of four or five windmills and most of them  are small ones.
> 
> One of our customers  outside of Cleveland but still near Lake Erie where the winds come  from had a windmill.  One day I  made a delivery there and noticed the windmill was gone.  I asked the owner of the company WTF  happened to the windmill?  He was a big  lib  and pro-environment kind of guy.  He  just  waived  his hands  down and said Ahhhhh.
> 
> Generally by electric  bill for my home is about $55.00 a  month.  Think of how  many years  it  would take me to break even if  I invested in solar panels  or  a windmill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have wind power, solar only.
> 
> If you had solar and wind, you'd get a check every month from your power company.
Click to expand...


I don't know  if you would or not.  The only point I'm  making is that alt energy is  not feasible right now. 

I talked to several local people who looked into this.  Democrats and Republicans alike.  They said when you calculate the equipment cost,  the time and money to get the permits, the construction costs, it's just not profitable.  As for solar, half of the year our roofs are covered with snow up north.  

And like I said, we live in a very windy area.  In fact our electric company was  looking  into a huge windmill to put on Lake Erie.  I don't know whatever happened to that project, but I don't  see any windmills on Lake Erie today.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

J.E.D said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when the govt stops subsidizing rich people with permanent lower tax rates
Click to expand...


You shouldn't use words you don't know the  meaning of.  Taking less of peoples money is not a subsidy.


----------



## J.E.D

Ray From Cleveland said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when the govt stops subsidizing rich people with permanent lower tax rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't use words you don't know the  meaning of.  Taking less of peoples money is not a subsidy.
Click to expand...

So, making tax breaks for rich people permanent, while making tax breaks for individuals temporary means what exactly in your fantasy world?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

J.E.D said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when the govt stops subsidizing rich people with permanent lower tax rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't use words you don't know the  meaning of.  Taking less of peoples money is not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, making tax breaks for rich people permanent, while making tax breaks for individuals temporary means what exactly in your fantasy world?
Click to expand...


It means they're taking less money from everybody.  This is a good thing.


----------



## Tax Man

HappyJoy said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> My electric bill is $10.50 a month and that is just to remain connected to the grid. My solar and batteries power the house for days without direct sun. Even in the rain mine produce some power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much were your batteries and are able to disconnect from the grid if you wanted to?
Click to expand...

My batteries are part of the whole package. I want to disconnect from PG&E but they say I have to stay hooked up to sell the power back to them.


----------



## Tax Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing informative about anything that Bripat posts. The fact is my former property in Coronado California generated enough energy to charge the batteries which ran the house power throughout the night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really much more of a dependability factor.  Maybe those batteries can keep a house powered one night, but what about the next night if no wind comes along?
> 
> Our wind is so strong here at times you can almost use a milk carton for a kite.  Yet very few places invested in wind power.  In the entire area of  Cleveland, I'm only aware of four or five windmills and most of them  are small ones.
> 
> One of our customers  outside of Cleveland but still near Lake Erie where the winds come  from had a windmill.  One day I  made a delivery there and noticed the windmill was gone.  I asked the owner of the company WTF  happened to the windmill?  He was a big  lib  and pro-environment kind of guy.  He  just  waived  his hands  down and said Ahhhhh.
> 
> Generally by electric  bill for my home is about $55.00 a  month.  Think of how  many years  it  would take me to break even if  I invested in solar panels  or  a windmill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have wind power, solar only.
> 
> If you had solar and wind, you'd get a check every month from your power company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know  if you would or not.  The only point I'm  making is that alt energy is  not feasible right now.
> 
> I talked to several local people who looked into this.  Democrats and Republicans alike.  They said when you calculate the equipment cost,  the time and money to get the permits, the construction costs, it's just not profitable.  As for solar, half of the year our roofs are covered with snow up north.
> 
> And like I said, we live in a very windy area.  In fact our electric company was  looking  into a huge windmill to put on Lake Erie.  I don't know whatever happened to that project, but I don't  see any windmills on Lake Erie today.
Click to expand...

For those who live in the far north it is not really a good deal to have solar.


----------



## grainbely

Two Thumbs said:


> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
Click to expand...

It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.


----------



## J.E.D

Ray From Cleveland said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when the govt stops subsidizing rich people with permanent lower tax rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't use words you don't know the  meaning of.  Taking less of peoples money is not a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, making tax breaks for rich people permanent, while making tax breaks for individuals temporary means what exactly in your fantasy world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means they're taking less money from everybody.  This is a good thing.
Click to expand...


Fail


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> There's nothing informative about anything that Bripat posts. The fact is my former property in Coronado California generated enough energy to charge the batteries which ran the house power throughout the night.



I doubt that would work in Milwaukee.


----------



## bripat9643

grainbely said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.
Click to expand...

Coal companies have not been allowed to pollute streams since the 1960s.  And modern coal fired power plants are clean.

You're full of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely you don't expect us to believe the petroleum industry doesn't get support from govt's in the forms of tax breaks and billions in subsidies...??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  In fact, it pays hundreds of billions in taxes to the government every year.  The claim that the government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is snowflake propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You deny the truth because you for some reason have to push your rhetoric of party affiliation...
Click to expand...


When have you ever posted anything true?


----------



## evenflow1969

Rosy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> Shellenberger Blames Renewables | The Daily Caller​
> _A prominent environmental activist took the unusual road of not only blaming rising electricity costs squarely on renewable sources, but also for deriding the mainstream media for ignoring the connection.
> 
> Michael Shellenberger, the president and founder of Environmental Progress, explained in a Forbes blog post Monday how the unreliability of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, is the main reason why electricity bills around the world have been getting higher.
> 
> Despite renewable energy technology slowly becoming more affordable, Shellenberger notes, electricity costs are still rising because of the unpredictable nature of wind and solar. Both sources produce excess energy when consumers don’t need them, and they don’t produce enough when needed the most.
> 
> For example, solar panels produce large amounts of energy throughout the day, but are unable to generate power at night when residents are more dependent on electricity to keep the lights on. Wind energy is notably unpredictable given how wind fluctuates substantially from day-to-day. The end result becoming other, more reliable sources of energy are relied upon to churn out power at a moment’s notice when renewables flop. Better yet, regions that produce too much wind and solar power have to pay — not sell — others to take the power off their hands, further spiking costs._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental whack jobs have also forgotten that the electricity powering their Tesla often comes from Nukes
Click to expand...

We have Davis Bessey in Ohio for a nuke plant and that is the most expensive electric in the state!


----------



## bripat9643

Seawytch said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ask the Germans.  that's all you need to do. Ask the Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask them how to get 85% of their energy from renewable resources?
> 
> Germany Breaks A Solar Record — Gets 85% Of Electricity From Renewables | CleanTechnica
Click to expand...

Germans pay 3 times what we pay for their energy.


----------



## Rosy

evenflow1969 said:


> Rosy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> Shellenberger Blames Renewables | The Daily Caller​
> _A prominent environmental activist took the unusual road of not only blaming rising electricity costs squarely on renewable sources, but also for deriding the mainstream media for ignoring the connection.
> 
> Michael Shellenberger, the president and founder of Environmental Progress, explained in a Forbes blog post Monday how the unreliability of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, is the main reason why electricity bills around the world have been getting higher.
> 
> Despite renewable energy technology slowly becoming more affordable, Shellenberger notes, electricity costs are still rising because of the unpredictable nature of wind and solar. Both sources produce excess energy when consumers don’t need them, and they don’t produce enough when needed the most.
> 
> For example, solar panels produce large amounts of energy throughout the day, but are unable to generate power at night when residents are more dependent on electricity to keep the lights on. Wind energy is notably unpredictable given how wind fluctuates substantially from day-to-day. The end result becoming other, more reliable sources of energy are relied upon to churn out power at a moment’s notice when renewables flop. Better yet, regions that produce too much wind and solar power have to pay — not sell — others to take the power off their hands, further spiking costs._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental whack jobs have also forgotten that the electricity powering their Tesla often comes from Nukes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have Davis Bessey in Ohio for a nuke plant and that is the most expensive electric in the state!
Click to expand...


The sad thing is that the new environazies no longer care about nuke power because all they release in operation is steam, until the two headed animals start showing up


----------



## grainbely

bripat9643 said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coal companies have not been allowed to pollute streams since the 1960s.  And modern coal fired power plants are clean.
> 
> You're full of shit.
Click to expand...

You are incredibly misinformed. Incredibly. This sounds like a coal sponsored psa. I suggest you take a few hours to look this stuff up on Google. Put some non biased effort in. You have to honestly try to find the opposing perspectice.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> Wind And Solar Power Are Driving Up Electricity Prices


*You LIE!!!!!



*


----------



## HappyJoy

Tax Man said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> My electric bill is $10.50 a month and that is just to remain connected to the grid. My solar and batteries power the house for days without direct sun. Even in the rain mine produce some power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much were your batteries and are able to disconnect from the grid if you wanted to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My batteries are part of the whole package. I want to disconnect from PG&E but they say I have to stay hooked up to sell the power back to them.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see. OK, batteries for me were a bit expensive and around here most solar companies don't sell them yet. 

My dad used to work for PG&E, god he hated that place.


----------



## KissMy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US supposedly became oil independent again because of fracking and the new abundance of oil, yet gasoline prices are climbing through the roof.
> 
> Wind and solar are still emerging energy technologies so costs compared to return will be higher and start coming down, which they have been, over time until they are cheaper than fossil fuels which is becoming reality.
> 
> But some cling to the past like whalers clinging to the whale oil industry. Their industry vanished and was replaced by newer more efficient means, as the oil industry is experiencing now. Embrace the horror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What horror?
> 
> Yes, technology will make it cheaper someday, but it has to come  at it's own time.  You on the left make  it sound like we just love oil, but the only reason we love oil is because there is nothing reasonable enough to replace it for energy purposes.
Click to expand...


You LIE!!! - You hate Progress! E85 is $1.47 but you still run imported OPEC oil at $2.60


----------



## Rosy

bripat9643 said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coal companies have not been allowed to pollute streams since the 1960s.  And modern coal fired power plants are clean.
> 
> You're full of shit.
Click to expand...

While coal is cleaner than it ever has been, not all coal plants use the newest scrubbers as of yet


----------



## jc456

Seawytch said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ask the Germans.  that's all you need to do. Ask the Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask them how to get 85% of their energy from renewable resources?
> 
> Germany Breaks A Solar Record — Gets 85% Of Electricity From Renewables | CleanTechnica
Click to expand...

It's too bad you are so naive.  You miss so much.  here read up on the impact of that 35%.  I bet you love people being put out eh?

100% Renewables by 2050 -- Germany Pays the Price for its Ambition

"First, Germany’s fabled manufacturing sector cannot afford much higher energy costs than its rivals. Hence, Germany offers substantial discounts to heavy energy users, such as its automobile plants. As a consequence Germany faces lawsuits from the European Union that charge it with illegal subsidies of heavy industry. Second, German households must bear the financial burden of paying among the highest electricity costs in the world as utilities pass the higher costs of renewables on to them. Third, Germany’s landscape is being ruined by unsightly wind turbines that spoil pastoral landscapes in virtually every community. Fourth, the supply of renewables variesdramatically in the course of a day or week."


----------



## bripat9643

Rosy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coal companies have not been allowed to pollute streams since the 1960s.  And modern coal fired power plants are clean.
> 
> You're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While coal is cleaner than it ever has been, not all coal plants use the newest scrubbers as of yet
Click to expand...

Of course they all don't run the newest scrubbers, but they all use scrubbers, and their emmisions are virtually undetectable.


----------



## Two Thumbs

J.E.D said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when the govt stops subsidizing rich people with permanent lower tax rates
Click to expand...

The Spoiled Adult Children Epidemic: Has it Affected You?


----------



## Two Thumbs

grainbely said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.
Click to expand...

  and lots of them, no assumptions, actual court cases.


----------



## Two Thumbs

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wind And Solar Power Are Driving Up Electricity Prices
> 
> 
> 
> *You LIE!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

you just proved him right.


----------



## Coyote

Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?


----------



## bripat9643

Coyote said:


> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?


As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.


----------



## KissMy

*Tax Cuts Cause Electricity Prices to Explode!!!*


----------



## grainbely

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you idiots, but you don't get to decide what your taxes pay for a la carte based on your dim world view. It's common for governments to use tax funds to basically subsidize different industries either for national security, defense, or otherwise. One of the biggest whining gripes from the right  is this "waaa I don't want my tax money paying for that." Too bad. Grow up. Taxation is apparently hard to understand and accept on the right.


----------



## Syriusly

Coyote said:


> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?



Don't be sensible!

That has no place here at USMB.....


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
Click to expand...


LOL 'the form of energy you prefer'- do you prefer electricity or what steam?

What has the Trump administration done regarding this issue?

Well it has tried to force rate payers more to pay for coal fired power plants
Regulators reject Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants


_Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States.

_


----------



## jc456

Coyote said:


> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?


there is a thing called practical.  why can't we move toward practical.  Nuclear Power is far cheaper than any renewable wind or solar.  just is.  why not promote it?


----------



## jc456

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL 'the form of energy you prefer'- do you prefer electricity or what steam?
> 
> What has the Trump administration done regarding this issue?
> 
> Well it has tried to force rate payers more to pay for coal fired power plants
> Regulators reject Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants
> 
> 
> _Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States.
> _
Click to expand...

Billy the Kid rejected them?  wow.


----------



## Syriusly

jc456 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> there is a thing called practical.  why can't we move toward practical.  Nuclear Power is far cheaper than any renewable wind or solar.  just is.  why not promote it?
Click to expand...


Actually I am in favor of nuclear- but 'far cheaper'? Nuclear requires a huge amount of construction costs. I am more concerned about preventing the closure of current nuclear power plants than trying to build more- though I think that they should be considered equally with solar and wind- nuclear is a better alternative than coal.


----------



## jc456

KissMy said:


> *Tax Cuts Cause Electricity Prices to Explode!!!*


more leftist fake news.  you all really don't have any dignity at all.  amazing. and you don't give a fk either.  that's even worse.

Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform

"On the heels of companies dishing bonuses of up to $3,000 to over one million workers due to the anticipated benefit of President Trump’s tax reform victory, several major utilities have announced plans to cut rates in a consumer payback related to the lower taxes.

Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco, Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain Power and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate cut due to the tax reform.

The taxpayer advocate group Americans for Tax Reform is pulling together the list of utilities expected to apply for a rate cut as it has for more than 100 major firms planning to pay out bonuses, higher wages and increased benefits due to the expected windfall they plan to receive when corporate taxes are cut."


----------



## jc456

Syriusly said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> there is a thing called practical.  why can't we move toward practical.  Nuclear Power is far cheaper than any renewable wind or solar.  just is.  why not promote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am in favor of nuclear- but 'far cheaper'? Nuclear requires a huge amount of construction costs. I am more concerned about preventing the closure of current nuclear power plants than trying to build more- though I think that they should be considered equally with solar and wind- nuclear is a better alternative than coal.
Click to expand...

dude, that's just punking.  of course the facilities would need to be built.  You know that panels and windmills need to be built as well.  Are they subsidized?  yes.  that is truly a stupid rabbit hole to go down.


----------



## bripat9643

grainbely said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break it to you idiots, but you don't get to decide what your taxes pay for a la carte based on your dim world view. It's common for governments to use tax funds to basically subsidize different industries either for national security, defense, or otherwise. One of the biggest whining gripes from the right  is this "waaa I don't want my tax money paying for that." Too bad. Grow up. Taxation is apparently hard to understand and accept on the right.
Click to expand...

You're the kind of imbecile who would volunteer to be a gaurd in a concentration camp and then tell the inmates to "grow up.   You don't get to do what you want."

You're a Stalinist jackass, in other words.  Perhaps you're the kind of servile worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat, but most people have a much more well adjusted attitude towards oppression.

What I understand is that you just posted the reason government is a bad thing.  You didn't make the case for government. You made the case against it.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL 'the form of energy you prefer'- do you prefer electricity or what steam?
> 
> What has the Trump administration done regarding this issue?
> 
> Well it has tried to force rate payers more to pay for coal fired power plants
> Regulators reject Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants
> 
> 
> _Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States.
> _
Click to expand...

Nice diversion. What does that have to do with forcing me to subsidize so-called "green energy?"


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL 'the form of energy you prefer'- do you prefer electricity or what steam?
> 
> What has the Trump administration done regarding this issue?
> 
> Well it has tried to force rate payers more to pay for coal fired power plants
> Regulators reject Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants
> 
> 
> _Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice diversion. What does that have to do with forcing me to subsidize so-called "green energy?"
Click to expand...


You are no more 'forced' to subsidize green energy than I am forced to subsidize dirty coal.

We pay taxes.


----------



## Syriusly

jc456 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> there is a thing called practical.  why can't we move toward practical.  Nuclear Power is far cheaper than any renewable wind or solar.  just is.  why not promote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am in favor of nuclear- but 'far cheaper'? Nuclear requires a huge amount of construction costs. I am more concerned about preventing the closure of current nuclear power plants than trying to build more- though I think that they should be considered equally with solar and wind- nuclear is a better alternative than coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, that's just punking.  of course the facilities would need to be built.  You know that panels and windmills need to be built as well.  Are they subsidized?  yes.  that is truly a stupid rabbit hole to go down.
Click to expand...


Nuclear construction costs are huge- to use a Trump phrase. 

If you ignore the enormous up front costs of building nuclear power plants then you will never be able to argue effectively for them.


----------



## jc456

Syriusly said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> there is a thing called practical.  why can't we move toward practical.  Nuclear Power is far cheaper than any renewable wind or solar.  just is.  why not promote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am in favor of nuclear- but 'far cheaper'? Nuclear requires a huge amount of construction costs. I am more concerned about preventing the closure of current nuclear power plants than trying to build more- though I think that they should be considered equally with solar and wind- nuclear is a better alternative than coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, that's just punking.  of course the facilities would need to be built.  You know that panels and windmills need to be built as well.  Are they subsidized?  yes.  that is truly a stupid rabbit hole to go down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear construction costs are huge- to use a Trump phrase.
> 
> If you ignore the enormous up front costs of building nuclear power plants then you will never be able to argue effectively for them.
Click to expand...

how many panels and how many windmills you need to create enough energy to power a city?  come on asshat you're gonna lose this one.   First you have the material to make the panel or windmill, then you have to install it, run cable to it, and repeat about fifty times to get enough energy to turn on a city block. oh and you then kill wild life with them.  you don't see the costs cause it's subsidized.  bigly to quote trump.

oh, oh , then the panels are only good 9 hours a day and the windmill only good when the wind blows.  so no 24 hour stability with either.  so what has to happen? you need alternative power from coal or natural gas plants.  yeah,  keep going.


----------



## KissMy

jc456 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax Cuts Cause Electricity Prices to Explode!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> more leftist fake news.  you all really don't have any dignity at all.  amazing. and you don't give a fk either.  that's even worse.
> 
> Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform
> 
> "On the heels of companies dishing bonuses of up to $3,000 to over one million workers due to the anticipated benefit of President Trump’s tax reform victory, several major utilities have announced plans to cut rates in a consumer payback related to the lower taxes.
> 
> Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco, Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain Power and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate cut due to the tax reform.
> 
> The taxpayer advocate group Americans for Tax Reform is pulling together the list of utilities expected to apply for a rate cut as it has for more than 100 major firms planning to pay out bonuses, higher wages and increased benefits due to the expected windfall they plan to receive when corporate taxes are cut."
Click to expand...

Government Deficit Printing Money Causes Inflation!!! You are spreading Fake News Propaganda that never happened & will not ever happen! There is NO Tax Cut without Cutting Spending, because they tax US harder with Inflation from Deficits! Big Spending Repubtards are Bankrupting US!!!


----------



## jc456

KissMy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax Cuts Cause Electricity Prices to Explode!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> more leftist fake news.  you all really don't have any dignity at all.  amazing. and you don't give a fk either.  that's even worse.
> 
> Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform
> 
> "On the heels of companies dishing bonuses of up to $3,000 to over one million workers due to the anticipated benefit of President Trump’s tax reform victory, several major utilities have announced plans to cut rates in a consumer payback related to the lower taxes.
> 
> Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco, Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain Power and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate cut due to the tax reform.
> 
> The taxpayer advocate group Americans for Tax Reform is pulling together the list of utilities expected to apply for a rate cut as it has for more than 100 major firms planning to pay out bonuses, higher wages and increased benefits due to the expected windfall they plan to receive when corporate taxes are cut."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government Deficit Printing Money Causes Inflation!!! You are spreading Fake News Propaganda that never happened & will not ever happen!
Click to expand...

the only way to stop a deficit is to spend within the limits of incoming cash.  so stop spending stops deficit printing.


----------



## KissMy

jc456 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax Cuts Cause Electricity Prices to Explode!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> more leftist fake news.  you all really don't have any dignity at all.  amazing. and you don't give a fk either.  that's even worse.
> 
> Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform
> 
> "On the heels of companies dishing bonuses of up to $3,000 to over one million workers due to the anticipated benefit of President Trump’s tax reform victory, several major utilities have announced plans to cut rates in a consumer payback related to the lower taxes.
> 
> Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco, Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain Power and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate cut due to the tax reform.
> 
> The taxpayer advocate group Americans for Tax Reform is pulling together the list of utilities expected to apply for a rate cut as it has for more than 100 major firms planning to pay out bonuses, higher wages and increased benefits due to the expected windfall they plan to receive when corporate taxes are cut."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government Deficit Printing Money Causes Inflation!!! You are spreading Fake News Propaganda that never happened & will not ever happen! There is NO Tax Cut without Cutting Spending, because they tax US harder with Inflation from Deficits! Big Spending Repubtards are Bankrupting US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only way to stop a deficit is to spend within the limits of incoming cash.  so stop spending stops deficit printing.
Click to expand...

You are RETARDED!!! The only way to stop spending is to STOP SPENDING!!! Deficits Increase Spending! Repubtards are BIG SPENDERS!!!


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL 'the form of energy you prefer'- do you prefer electricity or what steam?
> 
> What has the Trump administration done regarding this issue?
> 
> Well it has tried to force rate payers more to pay for coal fired power plants
> Regulators reject Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants
> 
> 
> _Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice diversion. What does that have to do with forcing me to subsidize so-called "green energy?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are no more 'forced' to subsidize green energy than I am forced to subsidize dirty coal.
> 
> We pay taxes.
Click to expand...


Wrong, douchebag.   The government spends many billions on so-called "green energy." It spends nothing on coal."


----------



## jc456

KissMy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax Cuts Cause Electricity Prices to Explode!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> more leftist fake news.  you all really don't have any dignity at all.  amazing. and you don't give a fk either.  that's even worse.
> 
> Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform
> 
> "On the heels of companies dishing bonuses of up to $3,000 to over one million workers due to the anticipated benefit of President Trump’s tax reform victory, several major utilities have announced plans to cut rates in a consumer payback related to the lower taxes.
> 
> Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco, Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain Power and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate cut due to the tax reform.
> 
> The taxpayer advocate group Americans for Tax Reform is pulling together the list of utilities expected to apply for a rate cut as it has for more than 100 major firms planning to pay out bonuses, higher wages and increased benefits due to the expected windfall they plan to receive when corporate taxes are cut."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government Deficit Printing Money Causes Inflation!!! You are spreading Fake News Propaganda that never happened & will not ever happen! There is NO Tax Cut without Cutting Spending, because they tax US harder with Inflation from Deficits! Big Spending Repubtards are Bankrupting US!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the only way to stop a deficit is to spend within the limits of incoming cash.  so stop spending stops deficit printing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are RETARDED!!! The only way to stop spending is to STOP SPENDING!!! Deficits Increase Spending! Repubtards are BIG SPENDERS!!!
Click to expand...

huh?  wtf kind of mumbo jumbo you call that?


----------



## jc456

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL 'the form of energy you prefer'- do you prefer electricity or what steam?
> 
> What has the Trump administration done regarding this issue?
> 
> Well it has tried to force rate payers more to pay for coal fired power plants
> Regulators reject Energy Secretary Rick Perry's plan to subsidize coal and nuclear plants
> 
> 
> _Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice diversion. What does that have to do with forcing me to subsidize so-called "green energy?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are no more 'forced' to subsidize green energy than I am forced to subsidize dirty coal.
> 
> We pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, douchebag.   The government spends many billions on so-called "green energy." It spends nothing on coal."
Click to expand...

he knows that, but that doesn't help his argument so he has to make it up to make his point which he loses every time.


----------



## toobfreak

bripat9643 said:


> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.



Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.

The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.


----------



## grainbely

bripat9643 said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break it to you idiots, but you don't get to decide what your taxes pay for a la carte based on your dim world view. It's common for governments to use tax funds to basically subsidize different industries either for national security, defense, or otherwise. One of the biggest whining gripes from the right  is this "waaa I don't want my tax money paying for that." Too bad. Grow up. Taxation is apparently hard to understand and accept on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the kind of imbecile who would volunteer to be a gaurd in a concentration camp and then tell the inmates to "grow up.   You don't get to do what you want."
> 
> You're a Stalinist jackass, in other words.  Perhaps you're the kind of servile worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat, but most people have a much more well adjusted attitude towards oppression.
> 
> What I understand is that you just posted the reason government is a bad thing.  You didn't make the case for government. You made the case against it.
Click to expand...

Wtf sort of drug induced fantasy are you living. If you can't handle how the federal budget and taxes work thats your problem and doesn't make me a Marxist. Christ, you absolute lunatics on this board are a total joke.


----------



## Moonglow

HappyJoy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm paying 20 bucks (almost entirely for utility fees) for my electric bill and spent 18k on a solar system. My average bill before was about $200. I have a 15 year warranty on most of it.
> 
> I know I also use a lot more electricity now, crank up the a/c and I still have plenty to sell back to my utility company.
> 
> Yeah, I think I'm saving money and now I can waste electricity like a Repuplican and still save energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure,  if nothing  breaks down.  A warranty is different from  a guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm not concerned about it breaking down, they have proven to be reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that the taxpayers subsidized you for your solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, for a portion. The feds gave me back 30% of the cost plus my state (red state) kicked in an additional $1k. So, basically I ended up only paying about $11k out of pocket. I also sell back my unused energy to the utility company so that nothing is lost.
> 
> All my neighbors, almost all of them republicans also have solar. Is that why I live in a Republican welfare state that sees more incoming federal dollars than it pays out? Nope, but the only thing that you're going to read from this post is that you paid for a portion of my solar.
> 
> BTW, you're welcome somebody needs to save you morons from yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, we need salvation from environmentalists.
> 
> Yes I  will focus on government kick backs because without it, the investment will not  pay off. In fact you  would likely be at a loss in the long run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the investment will pay off regardless, it's a matter of an additional 2-3 years without the tax subsidy and immediately adds value to my property. You're trying really hard (in reality just being lazy) to show that solar panels are not a good investment and you can't and it's obvious you're just reaching for something.
> 
> Piss off, I'm saving money.
Click to expand...

What's the bill look like for the 200 amp set up?


----------



## Moonglow

grainbely said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break it to you idiots, but you don't get to decide what your taxes pay for a la carte based on your dim world view. It's common for governments to use tax funds to basically subsidize different industries either for national security, defense, or otherwise. One of the biggest whining gripes from the right  is this "waaa I don't want my tax money paying for that." Too bad. Grow up. Taxation is apparently hard to understand and accept on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the kind of imbecile who would volunteer to be a gaurd in a concentration camp and then tell the inmates to "grow up.   You don't get to do what you want."
> 
> You're a Stalinist jackass, in other words.  Perhaps you're the kind of servile worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat, but most people have a much more well adjusted attitude towards oppression.
> 
> What I understand is that you just posted the reason government is a bad thing.  You didn't make the case for government. You made the case against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wtf sort of drug induced fantasy are you living. If you can't handle how the federal budget and taxes work thats your problem and doesn't make me a Marxist. Christ, you absolute lunatics on this board are a total joke.
Click to expand...

It's better than TV and safer than clinical work...


----------



## grainbely

Two Thumbs said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> "expert" "
> "dailycaller"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you laugh off Forbes?
> 
> 
> facts are the taxpayer is keeping these green companies alive with our tax dollars, not our pay checks.
> 
> it's a scam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bigger and far more immoral scam to poison third parties with coal runoff and exhaust and force them to pay for it themselves or tax payers to pay for it. The old energy companies were not paying the true cost of business and instead would cut corners and criminally harm public health or the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and lots of them, no assumptions, actual court cases.
Click to expand...

Try Google, bruh. I'm not here to teach you.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Not even debatable, simply look at what happened to rates in go green EU.......energy poverty anyone....classss......Buhler


----------



## bripat9643

grainbely said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break it to you idiots, but you don't get to decide what your taxes pay for a la carte based on your dim world view. It's common for governments to use tax funds to basically subsidize different industries either for national security, defense, or otherwise. One of the biggest whining gripes from the right  is this "waaa I don't want my tax money paying for that." Too bad. Grow up. Taxation is apparently hard to understand and accept on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the kind of imbecile who would volunteer to be a gaurd in a concentration camp and then tell the inmates to "grow up.   You don't get to do what you want."
> 
> You're a Stalinist jackass, in other words.  Perhaps you're the kind of servile worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat, but most people have a much more well adjusted attitude towards oppression.
> 
> What I understand is that you just posted the reason government is a bad thing.  You didn't make the case for government. You made the case against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wtf sort of drug induced fantasy are you living. If you can't handle how the federal budget and taxes work thats your problem and doesn't make me a Marxist. Christ, you absolute lunatics on this board are a total joke.
Click to expand...

You "handle it" only because you're a servile Stalinist worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat.  I want to live in a free country, not the kind of people's Republic that you endorse and defend.


----------



## grainbely

bripat9643 said:


> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grainbely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to anyone that BOTH renewables and nonrenewables have a place in our energy future?  It is not a zero sum game where there can only be one?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the government don't tax me to pay for it, or prevents me from using the form of energy I prefer, then I could care less what kind of energy you use.  Unfortunately we both know that people on your side of the issue want to do exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to break it to you idiots, but you don't get to decide what your taxes pay for a la carte based on your dim world view. It's common for governments to use tax funds to basically subsidize different industries either for national security, defense, or otherwise. One of the biggest whining gripes from the right  is this "waaa I don't want my tax money paying for that." Too bad. Grow up. Taxation is apparently hard to understand and accept on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the kind of imbecile who would volunteer to be a gaurd in a concentration camp and then tell the inmates to "grow up.   You don't get to do what you want."
> 
> You're a Stalinist jackass, in other words.  Perhaps you're the kind of servile worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat, but most people have a much more well adjusted attitude towards oppression.
> 
> What I understand is that you just posted the reason government is a bad thing.  You didn't make the case for government. You made the case against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wtf sort of drug induced fantasy are you living. If you can't handle how the federal budget and taxes work thats your problem and doesn't make me a Marxist. Christ, you absolute lunatics on this board are a total joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "handle it" only because you're a servile Stalinist worm who enjoys having stuff you don't want shoved down your throat.  I want to live in a free country, not the kind of people's Republic that you endorse and defend.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're unhappy with how things are going. The gop is in lower and if they don't fix it to your liking then I guess it stfu or leave.


----------



## Old Rocks

Wholesale electricity markets sometimes result in prices below zero. That is, sellers pay buyers to take the power. This situation arises because certain types of generators, such as nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind, cannot or prefer not to reduce output for short periods of time when demand is insufficient to absorb their output. Sometimes buyers can be induced to take the power when they are paid to do so.

Negative prices are rare in bilateral markets and more common—albeit still unusual—in Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO). In this article, we focus on negative bilateral spot prices, which occur predominantly in the Pacific Northwest. Negative prices in RTOs will be the subject of a follow-on article.

Technical and economic factors may drive power plant operators to run generators even when power supply outstrips demand. For example:


For technical and cost recovery reasons, nuclear plant operators try to continuously operate at full power.
The operation of hydroelectric units reflects factors outside of power demand, for example, compliance with environmental regulations such as controlling water flow to maintain fish populations.
Eligible generators can take a 2.2 ¢/kWh or $22/MWh production tax credit (PTC) on electricity sold. This means that some generators may be willing to sell their output for as low as -$22/MWh to continue producing power. Typically, wind generators are the largest such group in any region.
There are maintenance and fuel-cost penalties when operators shut down and start up large steam turbine (usually fossil-fueled) plants as demand varies over a day or a week. These costs may be avoided if the generator sells at a loss to attract a buyer when demand is low.
Negative prices in wholesale electricity markets indicate supply inflexibilities - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

*Put grid scale storage in the equation, and everyone comes out better. And that is the key to creating an all renewable grid. *


----------



## KissMy

Trump is bankrupting the USA. Oil is $71


----------



## evenflow1969

toobfreak said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!
Click to expand...

The laws of supply and demand show that so-called "green energy" can't exist without government subsidies and mandates, asshole.


----------



## BlackSand

Moonglow said:


> Ain't life a bitch for the rich monopoly holders of power distribution?



Nah ... Just for the people paying their electric bill in Louisiana when AEP decides to build a wind farm in Oklahoma to support their grid.
The stockholders charge the consumer for the upgrade that reduces the cost for generation after initial investment.

It's costs the consumer, not the shareholders to implement the wind farm.
Whether or not the consumers ever see the savings is debatable.

AEP - News Releases - AEP Announces $4.5 Billion Investment In 2,000-Megawatt Wind Farm And Dedicated Power Line To Benefit Customers In Four States

.​


----------



## evenflow1969

bripat9643 said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws of supply and demand show that so-called "green energy" can't exist without government subsidies and mandates, asshole.
Click to expand...

More electric equal less cost you can not beat the math but keep trying with your bull shit! Adding electric to the system can not raise cost you fucking idiot!


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws of supply and demand show that so-called "green energy" can't exist without government subsidies and mandates, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More electric equal less cost you can not beat the math but keep trying with your bull shit! Adding electric to the system can not raise cost you fucking idiot!
Click to expand...

What the hell does "adding more electric" mean?  Adding higher cost sources of power definitely increases the cost of power to the consumer, dumbass.


----------



## evenflow1969

bripat9643 said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The environmental wackos have been claiming that so-called "green energy" is cheaper, but the rest of us know better.  Now here's the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws of supply and demand show that so-called "green energy" can't exist without government subsidies and mandates, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More electric equal less cost you can not beat the math but keep trying with your bull shit! Adding electric to the system can not raise cost you fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell does "adding more electric" mean?  Adding higher cost sources of power definitely increases the cost of power to the consumer, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Renewables while running generate electricity there by raising supply higher  than there was before the electric was created there by raising total supply of electricity it can not raise the price of electric. It may or may not lower the cost dependiong on demand. How fucking stupid are you? Show any evidence to support the op claim at all. There is none! If I am firing up a coal plant my cost opf producing that electric does not go up because some one is running a windmill. That wind mill does not effect my cost of production one little bit no matter how you slice it!


----------



## BlackSand

bripat9643 said:


> What the hell does "adding more electric" mean?  Adding higher cost sources of power definitely increases the cost of power to the consumer, dumbass.



I'm pretty sure he is talking about the principle that growing peas in your garden will reduce your grocery bill (not necessarily recoup your resource costs).
Perhaps he is foolish enough to think that means peas are going to be cheaper for everyone at the grocery store ... 

.​


----------



## evenflow1969

BlackSand said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does "adding more electric" mean?  Adding higher cost sources of power definitely increases the cost of power to the consumer, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure he is talking about the principle that growing peas in your garden will reduce your grocery bill (not necessarily recoup your resource costs).
> Perhaps he is foolish enough to think that means peas are going to be cheaper for everyone at the grocery store ...
> 
> .​
Click to expand...

I think or I am pretty sure? If you do not understand the laws of supply and demand you do not belong in an adult conversation!


----------



## BlackSand

evenflow1969 said:


> ...
> How fucking stupid are you? Show any evidence to support the op claim at all. There is none! If I am firing up a coal plant my cost opf producing that electric does not go up because some one is running a windmill. That wind mill does not effect my cost of production one little bit no matter how you slice it!



I already did ... And that exact scenario.

AEP bought and is phasing out (coal) the Doley Hills Mining Company (was part of CLECO) ...
While building a $4.5 billion wind farm in Oklahoma ...
And our energy bills increased to pay for both endeavors.

.​


----------



## BlackSand

evenflow1969 said:


> I think or I am pretty sure? If you do not understand the laws of supply and demand you do not belong in an adult conversation!



You have no idea what you are talking about ...  

.​


----------



## evenflow1969

BlackSand said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> How fucking stupid are you? Show any evidence to support the op claim at all. There is none! If I am firing up a coal plant my cost opf producing that electric does not go up because some one is running a windmill. That wind mill does not effect my cost of production one little bit no matter how you slice it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already did ... And that exact scenario.
> 
> AEP bought and is phasing out (coal) the Doley Hills Mining Company (was part of CLECO) ...
> While building a 44.5 billion wind farm in Oklahoma ...
> And our energy bills increased to pay for both endeavors.
> 
> .​
Click to expand...

Thats because the regulators gave them that money becuase they greased the wheels for it. Principles of free market if the rate was actualy set by the market and not the regulaters your cost would not have gone up! You should have looked for a new provider! Renewable energy did not cost you politics cost you! The same dirty fucking money that you are supporting are the ones that cost you! Not the renewable sector! In Ohio we pay extra for Davis Bessy because the politicians made us not the free market! Get the fucking politicians out of it and free market rules prevail! As a conservative or at least claiming to be you should get behind that!


----------



## BlackSand

evenflow1969 said:


> Thats because the regulators gave them that money becuase they greased the wheels for it. Principles of free market if the rate was actualy set by the market and not the regulaters your cost would not have gone up! You should have looked for a new provider! Renewable energy did not cost you politics cost you! The same dirty fucking money that you are supporting are the ones that cost you! Not the renewable sector! In Ohio we pay extra for Davis Bessy because the politicians made us not the free market! Get the fucking politicians out of it and free market rules prevail! As a conservative or at least claiming to be you should get behind that!



I don't give a shit who you pay for your energy ... Or what stupid excuse you want to make.
As the OP stated ... Moving to green energy didn't save us anything and cost us more money ... Simple fact ... 

.​


----------



## evenflow1969

BlackSand said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> How fucking stupid are you? Show any evidence to support the op claim at all. There is none! If I am firing up a coal plant my cost opf producing that electric does not go up because some one is running a windmill. That wind mill does not effect my cost of production one little bit no matter how you slice it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already did ... And that exact scenario.
> 
> AEP bought and is phasing out (coal) the Doley Hills Mining Company (was part of CLECO) ...
> While building a $4.5 billion wind farm in Oklahoma ...
> And our energy bills increased to pay for both endeavors.
> 
> .​
Click to expand...

Want to complain complain about AEP owning your local government just like they do here in Ohio! What ever AEP wnats it gets! Free market is not setting your pricing the politians are!


----------



## Wyatt earp

evenflow1969 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws of supply and demand show that so-called "green energy" can't exist without government subsidies and mandates, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More electric equal less cost you can not beat the math but keep trying with your bull shit! Adding electric to the system can not raise cost you fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell does "adding more electric" mean?  Adding higher cost sources of power definitely increases the cost of power to the consumer, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renewables while running generate electricity there by raising supply higher  than there was before the electric was created there by raising total supply of electricity it can not raise the price of electric. It may or may not lower the cost dependiong on demand. How fucking stupid are you? Show any evidence to support the op claim at all. There is none! If I am firing up a coal plant my cost opf producing that electric does not go up because some one is running a windmill. That wind mill does not effect my cost of production one little bit no matter how you slice it!
Click to expand...


You stupid fuck , educate yourself do you know how much electricity is wasted and they don't have much of any storage capacity.





*Why Renewable Power Can Still Be Wasteful*
*Because we’ve incentivized its production—but not the infrastructure to transport it.*
By Daniel GrossJul. 29, 2016 12:38 PM


Renewable energy is synonymous with efficiency. Generating electricity with fossil fuels involves using labor and machines to dig up substances like coal or natural gas, which took eons to form; once burned, they can’t be replaced. But harness the wind that blows one night to turn wind turbines, and a similar amount of wind will probably blow the next day. The same sun that hits solar panels today will rise and perform the same magic tomorrow: You don’t have to mine the wind or transport the sun. Using fossil fuels to create electricity creates byproducts that have to be managed afterward, like emissions and coal ash. With renewables, there are no emissions or toxic byproducts.

Advertisement


 as the term of art goes. Wind turbines, for example, get turned off even though the blades are still turning; the production of solar plants sometimes gets dialed down. In early July in California, for about an hour one afternoon, some 292 megawatts of solar capacity was curtailed—enough to power thousands of homes.

Why do we have curtailment? Blame the herky-jerky way we roll out new technologies and build infrastructure in this country.



Inefficiencies in new economic infrastructure aren’t exactly new. Because the state doesn’t centrally plan and roll out new technologies in a completely rational fashion—matching demand, distribution, and supply—wrinkles and bubbles develop. Incentives may be available for one component of the technology but not for others. And so overinvestment in one stage of the process coincides with underinvestment in another stage. Which is why we have bubbles. The earliest telegraph lines from Boston to New York City stopped at the Hudson River—and messages had to be carried across the Hudson on a boat. In the 1990s, information would travel at rapid speeds across the country on fast cables but slow down in the last mile. (I wrote a book about this in 2007.)

The same has happened with wind and solar. There are significant government incentives to build wind and solar farms in the plains and deserts, where land is cheap and resources are plentiful. The U.S. renewable industries have figured out how to build and finance wind and solar farms at scale. But the transmission and the distribution systems, which don’t benefit from the same incentives, haven’t kept up. Transporting electricity involves stringing high-voltage lines across hundreds of miles of open space, across property owned by thousands of owners and multiple state lines. You can put up a giant solar farm or a wind farm in a matter of months. But as the travails of transmission-builder Clean Line Energy show, building the lines that will carry electrons from the places where they are created to the places they can be used can take _decades_


----------



## bripat9643

evenflow1969 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course.  Anyone but an idiot or a government accountant could see that as "green energy" grows (only by the forced application of marginal technologies not quite ready for prime time under the guise of environmentalism) that it could only ADD to our energy costs, not take from them.  The whole industry of green energy is nothing but for now a pipe dream for entrepreneurs wishing to milk government incentives by the use of technologies nowhere developed yet to make them competitive with much simpler means, and is nothing but a way of controlling society by the government, by trying to manipulate energy costs.
> 
> The REAL SOLUTION to energy is population control.  We need a planet with 1/3rd fewer people, and the best place to start is by sterilizing developing nations too poor to support the billions they keep producing then dumping on the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ya mean while laws of supply and demand say you be full of shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws of supply and demand show that so-called "green energy" can't exist without government subsidies and mandates, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More electric equal less cost you can not beat the math but keep trying with your bull shit! Adding electric to the system can not raise cost you fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell does "adding more electric" mean?  Adding higher cost sources of power definitely increases the cost of power to the consumer, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renewables while running generate electricity there by raising supply higher  than there was before the electric was created there by raising total supply of electricity it can not raise the price of electric. It may or may not lower the cost dependiong on demand. How fucking stupid are you? Show any evidence to support the op claim at all. There is none! If I am firing up a coal plant my cost opf producing that electric does not go up because some one is running a windmill. That wind mill does not effect my cost of production one little bit no matter how you slice it!
Click to expand...

You really are a fucking idiot.  You have no understanding of economics.  Renewables have higher costs.  Therefore they raise the price of electricity.  The Windmill's cost of production is higher.  Somehow you have decided you don't have to figure that cost into your calculations.


----------



## Tax Man

BlackSand said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't life a bitch for the rich monopoly holders of power distribution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah ... Just for the people paying their electric bill in Louisiana when AEP decides to build a wind farm in Oklahoma to support their grid.
> The stockholders charge the consumer for the upgrade that reduces the cost for generation after initial investment.
> 
> It's costs the consumer, not the shareholders to implement the wind farm.
> Whether or not the consumers ever see the savings is debatable.
> 
> AEP - News Releases - AEP Announces $4.5 Billion Investment In 2,000-Megawatt Wind Farm And Dedicated Power Line To Benefit Customers In Four States
> 
> .​
Click to expand...

That is the story of capitalism. Screw you I got mine!!


----------



## Tax Man

I went solar and $11.02 is my electric bill. That is for me to send my excess power to the grid.


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't life a bitch for the rich monopoly holders of power distribution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah ... Just for the people paying their electric bill in Louisiana when AEP decides to build a wind farm in Oklahoma to support their grid.
> The stockholders charge the consumer for the upgrade that reduces the cost for generation after initial investment.
> 
> It's costs the consumer, not the shareholders to implement the wind farm.
> Whether or not the consumers ever see the savings is debatable.
> 
> AEP - News Releases - AEP Announces $4.5 Billion Investment In 2,000-Megawatt Wind Farm And Dedicated Power Line To Benefit Customers In Four States
> 
> .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the story of capitalism. Screw you I got mine!!
Click to expand...

here's the story of leeches and moochers:  "gimme what you got."   It's also the story of muggers and armed robbers.


----------



## bripat9643

Tax Man said:


> I went solar and $11.02 is my electric bill. That is for me to send my excess power to the grid.


How much did you spend on the solar equipment?


----------



## BlackSand

Tax Man said:


> That is the story of capitalism. Screw you I got mine!!



Capitalism in no way told them to shut down/curtail the coal fired plant and switch to green energy ... 

On the other hand ... Thank goodness the government doesn't run the power company ...
If you measured what you could expect in service by how well the government manages things now ...
You would be better off investing in candles.

.​


----------



## Old Rocks

BlackSand said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because the regulators gave them that money becuase they greased the wheels for it. Principles of free market if the rate was actualy set by the market and not the regulaters your cost would not have gone up! You should have looked for a new provider! Renewable energy did not cost you politics cost you! The same dirty fucking money that you are supporting are the ones that cost you! Not the renewable sector! In Ohio we pay extra for Davis Bessy because the politicians made us not the free market! Get the fucking politicians out of it and free market rules prevail! As a conservative or at least claiming to be you should get behind that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit who you pay for your energy ... Or what stupid excuse you want to make.
> As the OP stated ... Moving to green energy didn't save us anything and cost us more money ... Simple fact ...
> 
> .​
Click to expand...

Why the bullshit when you can look up the actual costs?

Levelized Cost of Energy 2017


----------



## Old Rocks

The beginning of the future.


----------

