End Green Energy Subsidies Now!

[CowboyTed]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

And it's definitely not what idiot cabbie was referring to in his quote. He was referring to allowing oil companies to write off their expenses and not grasping the difference between that and handing them money. Which is what you want to do, just to different companies, as you said in your next sentence.

Developing a clean renewable at home means none of this crap...

Ideologue to the end. No, it doesn't, it means flushing trillions down the toilet. It is fracking that gives us actually cost effective energy independence, but that isn't part of your world, only government is part of your world. You love that renewable energy isn't economically viable on a large scale, that gives government the pretext to control it. When it is economically viable, the market will provide it on their own. That will be a terrible day for you as they won't need government.

Fracking is the real solution. It gets us out of the middle east and it also gets us out of government chosen winners and losers and to true, sustainable energy independence. Renewable energy will grow, but not by throwing government money at it. Then again, renewable energy isn't the actual goal of the left, government control is.

Kaz,

"It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties."

You said it yourself they would have not gone there if wasn't for Oil... The support of Red Team or Blue Team is insignificant after that... Both parties are welded to the idea of oil. The Lobbyists have done a great job here.
But sorry Kaz no Oil, No invade. Therefore oil has to accept the tab.
If there was no need to be in Saudi then Bin Laden would have probably not radicalized.


After that what they got directly is insignificant.


As for fracking, strange one... It is not all the white knight it has been made out to be...
How long can the fracking revolution last

So put on the 'America: enduring lifestyle' project... Governments all over the world invest in tech... Energy is the big player in this.... Look at Denmark and Windmill Technology... Countries are doing this to give them an advantage over other countries in attracting companies to move there. There is a number of parameters used and one big one is energy supply... We are just looking for the edge...

If America keeps going down the route it is taking it is leaving itself wide open to a fracking collapse and trip back to your oil dealer still stuck on the habit.. You will be tapping the arm and saying feed me, and the price will have gone way up....

EU is pushing the alternative energy routes (not all renewable), they are in a lot of public/private partnerships... I know you would not support that but they need massive investment into battery technology now... If we can store energy better then electric cars are real possibility... Ultra fast charging batteries are close(2 min for 300 miles driving)...

Electric Cars costs close to 10% fuel cost per mile, Electric infrasturce is there... A car the with an electric motor today (with about 60 miles charge) and a petrol generator will give 180 miles to the gallon for a regular car without charging(this is quite old concept). Using charging as well could bring down the use of oil dramatically.

Nuclear should also be on the agenda... New Technologies are saying that we can have smaller plants with nasty waste (just salt)...
A New Way to Do Nuclear - The New Yorker
This is also worth look at as well...

Imagine a world where cars run on electric motor today (with about 60 miles charge) and a petrol generator and safe nuclear to power it... The Libertarian in you has solved a lot of foreign policy.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

What subsidies do oil companies get? Are you referring to allowing them to write off their expenses again?

Only a liberal is too stupid to understand the difference between government giving out money and a business not paying income tax on it's expenses, which means it isn't income.

Oil companies lobby incessantly (to the tune of untold millions) to AVOID paying taxes.

There is NO REASON for this, as there is no cap on the price of gas - thus; tax brakes do not lower the price of gas.

If it's so fucking profitable, force them to pay their fair share of taxes.

Now, back to green energy, why shouldn't THEY get a tax break, if we are doing the same for oil?

By the way, most tax breaks for green energy, go directly to the consumer.

I get it, though - corporations are people too.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Unfortunately, yes, they are. That Oil companies pay taxes just like other companies is way, way past their comprehension. Then again, what isn't past their comprehension? I haven't been able to establish a baseline yet, they fail every test of comprehension.

No, that's already been covered; on average, they pay about 11%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind is already cheaper to build and puts out cheaper electricity than dirty coal. 3.7 cents a kilowatt, compared to 6.6 cents a kilowatt for the cheapest coal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Grid scale batteries will make renewable energy 24/7.

Alevo Unstealthed A New Gigawatt-Scale Grid Battery Contender Greentech Media

On Monday, the North Carolina-based, European-backed company announced plans to invest $1 billion in turning an old Philip Morris cigarette factory into a battery factory eventually capable of churning out "several gigawatts" per year, CEO Jostein Eikeland told me in an interview. Utility customers in North America are soon to be announced, and the company has already booked about 200 megawatts of orders, enough to fill the factory’s planned production next year, he said.

Alevo says its lithium-iron-phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries are the first to use an inorganic electrolyte based on sulfur, which prevents the chemical reactions that lead to heating, expansion and eventual failure for lithium-ion batteries. Test cells have lasted more than 40,000 cycles in “hammer tests” that completely discharge and then overcharge them over and over again, without significant degradation of performance, he said.

Renewables are not only cost competative, they are the future with the grid scale batteries coming online.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coming soon, a battery that will put the ICE out of business.

Sakti3 -- Battery Startup -- Aims To Hit 100 Per kWh


Honestly, this one wasn’t planned: last night, I wrote about a new study concluding that until EV battery costs get down to $100 per kWh, most US consumers would be better off going with an electric car with less than 100 miles of range rather than splurging for a long-range electric car. Now, battery startup Sakti3 is saying that its high-performance, sold-state lithium-ion batteries should be able to get down to $100 per kWh. That would make 100+ miles of range more logical for more people.

Of course, “could” is the key word right now, and no timeframe has been estimated, as far as I have seen. However, Sakti3 apparently has a lot going for it and support from some industry insiders.

 

[The Rabbi]

United States[edit]
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.






Hey rabbit. You should go after wiki for being able to post shit like this that you claim is wrong. Maybe you could do the edit to set them straight. Cause everybody don't seem to know that the oil and gas industry doesn't receive any subsidies.

You need to read your own quote, Sambo, and see what they are calling "subsidies." Depletion is not a subsidy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well that wasnt really my question. So I guess you need to find a grade schooler to help you with my posts.

The US subsidizes wind power for example in the billions every year. They siubsidize ethanol as well btw in a variety fo ways.
With cheaper traditional fuel the gap in cost will get bigger and bigger. Should we continue to subsidize green energy when the money could be better spent on other things. Like making sure we have a military capable of fighting wars.

A grade schooler knows that the gubbermint subsidizes big oil to the tune of billions more than green energy each year. And they are making money. Yet nowhere in the last 11 pages have you answered the people asking whether you think those subsidies should be ended as well. Do you?

A grade schooler knows that the gubbermint subsidizes big oil to the tune of billions more than green energy each year.

Maybe you need to find a smarter grade schooler, to show you your error?

 

[The Rabbi]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

.

I dont want to derail here, and I agree with you on the oil subsidies.
But you wrote "we arent in places like Indochina or Africa."
Hello? We spent almost 10 years in Indochina. We have had continuing adventures in Africa. Both places of course have oil as well.

 

[CowboyTed]

Coming soon, a battery that will put the ICE out of business.

Sakti3 -- Battery Startup -- Aims To Hit 100 Per kWh


Honestly, this one wasn’t planned: last night, I wrote about a new study concluding that until EV battery costs get down to $100 per kWh, most US consumers would be better off going with an electric car with less than 100 miles of range rather than splurging for a long-range electric car. Now, battery startup Sakti3 is saying that its high-performance, sold-state lithium-ion batteries should be able to get down to $100 per kWh. That would make 100+ miles of range more logical for more people.

Of course, “could” is the key word right now, and no timeframe has been estimated, as far as I have seen. However, Sakti3 apparently has a lot going for it and support from some industry insiders.

Old Rocks,
Thanks for that... They could add a small (engine) generator on to it just to charge the batteries... Without charging from the mains it gets 180+ miles/gallon....
But as the batteries they could be swapped... Thus upgrading your Car like a PC today... You could even give your batteries to your kids or have a leasehold on them...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

United States[edit]
Allocation of subsidies in the United States[edit]
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.






Hey rabbit. You should go after wiki for being able to post shit like this that you claim is wrong. Maybe you could do the edit to set them straight. Cause everybody don't seem to know that the oil and gas industry doesn't receive any subsidies.

Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances

This means as they deplete the resource, they get to write down the cost.
For instance, they buy a well that has 1 million bbls (estimated) and they extract 100,000 bbls
this year, they'd write off 10% of what they paid for the well.
That's standard business practice, not a special subsidy for oil.

oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls

You've got to be a really stupid liberal to think an exemption from the government telling you what
price you have to sell your product is a subsidy.

 

[CowboyTed]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

.

I dont want to derail here, and I agree with you on the oil subsidies.
But you wrote "we arent in places like Indochina or Africa."
Hello? We spent almost 10 years in Indochina. We have had continuing adventures in Africa. Both places of course have oil as well.

Compared to Oil the resources and manpower to secure a world supply has cost the US economy trillions.... These have to be considered indirect subsidies(and the US didn't even get the Iraq Oil)....

Adventures in Africa and Indochina has been very small and much shorter compared to middle east....

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yes, I spent quite a few years at GE Energy including Nuclear and Energy Services. Mad Cabbie doesn't know what he is talking about. He never does.

I stated that oil companies, in general pay approximately 11% federal income tax.

If you have figures to refute my claim, by all means post them or STFU.

 

[g5000]

I dont get any subsidies. BUt thanks for trying.

So you don't take any deductions or credits or exemptions on your taxes?

 

[g5000]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies.

Now let's introduce some facts:

The oil and gas industries have received approximately $446.96 billion in subsidies from the United States, as opposed to just $5.93 billion for renewables, since 1918. In fact, the average annual subsidization of fossil fuels is more than 13x greater than the average annual subsidization of renewable energy, even though fossil fuels have been receiving government support for 70 years longer than renewables have.

In 2011, worldwide pre-tax subsidies for fossil fuels reached $480 billion. On a post-tax basis, in which carbon emissions, environmental damage, and negative public health effects are taken into account, worldwide government subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $1.9 trillion.

Eliminating the 12 subsidies for fossil fuels in the U.S. would save $41.4 billion over 10 years without increasing fuel prices, reducing employment, or weakening U.S. energy security.

An April, 2014 Gallup poll found that 67% of all Americans – Democrat and Republican – support increased government investment in renewable technologies like wind and solar.

http://www.energyfactcheck.org/slid...t-than-support-for-conventional-fossil-fuels/

 

[jasonnfree]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

And it's definitely not what idiot cabbie was referring to in his quote. He was referring to allowing oil companies to write off their expenses and not grasping the difference between that and handing them money. Which is what you want to do, just to different companies, as you said in your next sentence.

Developing a clean renewable at home means none of this crap...

Ideologue to the end. No, it doesn't, it means flushing trillions down the toilet. It is fracking that gives us actually cost effective energy independence, but that isn't part of your world, only government is part of your world. You love that renewable energy isn't economically viable on a large scale, that gives government the pretext to control it. When it is economically viable, the market will provide it on their own. That will be a terrible day for you as they won't need government.

Fracking is the real solution. It gets us out of the middle east and it also gets us out of government chosen winners and losers and to true, sustainable energy independence. Renewable energy will grow, but not by throwing government money at it. Then again, renewable energy isn't the actual goal of the left, government control is.

Fracking's great. Gets rid of billions of gallons of fresh water that we don't need.

 

[g5000]

Coal gets all kinds of breaks in the tax code.

Coal also gets discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, low interest loans, grants.

According to the Energy Information Administration, coal received $557 billion in subsidies in 2008.

See page xiii for the huge differences between the subsidies provided to fossil fuels versus renewables.

 

[dblack]

The subsidy/incentive game is more or less the same as pork spending. We can get fairly broad consensus it should stop, but no one wants to let go of their favorite carve outs. (home mortgage deduction, for example).

 

[jasonnfree]

The subsidy/incentive game is more or less the same as pork spending. We can get fairly broad consensus is should stop, but no one wants to let go of their favorite carve outs. (home mortgage deduction, for example).

Home mortgage deduction helps people to become home owners. Supported by the real estate industry also, of course.

 

[dblack]

The subsidy/incentive game is more or less the same as pork spending. We can get fairly broad consensus is should stop, but no one wants to let go of their favorite carve outs. (home mortgage deduction, for example).

Home mortgage deduction helps people to become home owners. Supported by the real estate industry also, of course.

And, most importantly, the mortgage industry. The banksters gonna get their cut.

 

[jasonnfree]

The subsidy/incentive game is more or less the same as pork spending. We can get fairly broad consensus is should stop, but no one wants to let go of their favorite carve outs. (home mortgage deduction, for example).

Home mortgage deduction helps people to become home owners. Supported by the real estate industry also, of course.

And, most importantly, the mortgage industry. The banksters gonna get their cut.

Until we nationalize the banks, or get politicians that aren't owned by the banks, the gangsters will always get their cut. Still, home mortgage deduction helps the average person be a home owner.