How much can renewable energy save us?

[danielpalos]

The socialism of the law.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.

patents may or may not be cost competitive; but, a legal monopoly ensures capital can be generated.

the subjective value of morals has no bearing on the science of economics. full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about, since we can never compete with merely, cheap labor.

ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles. how is that bad for any private sector?

fiat money can be printed at an official Mint, almost as if by magic. its use, is as a medium of exchange.

A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.

A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.

full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,

Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.

ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.

Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.

Nobody said they did. the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

Yes, it is. And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics. Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Nobody said they did.

Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.

Yes, it is.

Prove it.

The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

And,

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.

attention deficit disorder, much?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A legal monopoly is a form of subsidy since it may be used to generate capital.

A legal monopoly doesn't keep prices low.

full employment of resources is what a first world economy should always be about,

Thanks for admitting that your stupid idea to subsidize unemployment is not what a first world economy should be about.

ensuring money circulates in our private sector can help eliminate business cycles.

Subsidizing non-productivity will not help eliminate business cycles.

Nobody said they did. the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

Yes, it is. And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics. Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Nobody said they did.

Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.

Yes, it is.

Prove it.

The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

And,

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.

attention deficit disorder, much?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody said they did. the rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

Yes, it is. And, it is why no one takes the right wing seriously about economics. Moving the goal posts is a function of Government.

Nobody said they did.

Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.

Yes, it is.

Prove it.

The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

And,

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.

attention deficit disorder, much?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody said they did.

Great, so we agree a patent is not a subsidy.

Yes, it is.

Prove it.

The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

And,

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.

attention deficit disorder, much?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
conservatives point out their errors.

 

[danielpalos]

The rationale for that public sector income transfer and subsidy, is included in our Constitution.

And,

What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.

attention deficit disorder, much?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
conservatives point out their errors.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

income transfers are a requirement. Taxes is the Means. The common defense and general welfare, is the End.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What transfer and subsidy are you talking about? Be specific.

attention deficit disorder, much?

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
conservatives point out their errors.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

income transfers are a requirement. Taxes is the Means. The common defense and general welfare, is the End.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

Like the left-wing fantasy that a patent is a subsidy? DERP!

 

[danielpalos]

attention deficit disorder, much?

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
conservatives point out their errors.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

income transfers are a requirement. Taxes is the Means. The common defense and general welfare, is the End.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

Like the left-wing fantasy that a patent is a subsidy? DERP!

It is an income transfer and that form of subsidy. It comes from the (other) Peoples' tax monies. Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trying to follow your confused posts.
Are you talking about
A) Patents
B) Subsidies for unemployed
C) Legal monopolies
D) Fiat money

If you're talking about patents, I've already shown how it doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
It certainly doesn't involve a transfer of public sector income.

this is why, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Idiot socialists don't understand economics, that's why they shut down when
conservatives point out their errors.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

income transfers are a requirement. Taxes is the Means. The common defense and general welfare, is the End.

all you have, is right wing fantasy.

Like the left-wing fantasy that a patent is a subsidy? DERP!

It is an income transfer and that form of subsidy. It comes from the (other) Peoples' tax monies. Only the right wing, never gets it.

It is an income transfer and that form of subsidy.

A patent is neither an income transfer nor a subsidy.

It comes from the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

A patent has nothing to do with tax money

Only the right wing, never gets it.

The right wing gets your ignorance, that's why we mock you.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement. It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement. It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy

It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
How does it fit income transfer?

It is not free.

I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement. It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy

It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
How does it fit income transfer?

It is not free.

I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy. Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.

spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement. It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy

It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
How does it fit income transfer?

It is not free.

I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy. Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.

spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy

In economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb resources or create output. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.[1] Examples of certain transfer payments include welfare (financial aid), social security, and government making subsidies for certain businesses (firms).

The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.

Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

No.
Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
It's not a subsidy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.

Read your own article snowflake. It says nothing of the sort.

Either you did not, or are incapable of understanding what the article says.

It clearly states that the subsidies make it cheaper, not actual cost of production. Further it uses the taxes on other fuels figured into those fuels which inflate the actual cost of production there. You are
woefully ignorant.

Either you are a liar, or you are unable to read with comprehension. Or both.

The case is even clearer when federal subsidies are considered: Tax credits drive renewable energy’s costs down to $31/MWh for wind and $43/MWh for solar. These low prices are not only cheaper than building new natural gas plants, but they are cheaper than many fossil fuel power plants on their marginal cost (i.e. costs for operating, maintaining, fueling, etc.) alone.

When you add subsidies in, then there absolutely no comparison. In fact, I, for one, think the subsidies should be removed. Not needed anymore.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Compare this with the cheapest form of conventional fuel-fired generation today — natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants whose LCOE averages $63/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Coal is dead. Natural gas will follow in a couple of decades. Wind and solar will continue to decline in price, and grid scale batteries will make them 24/7, and create a distributed grid far more robust than our present grid.

Will save us approximately nothing in the long run. Because for every GWatt of Wind/Solar you need to build or have a GWatt of RELIABLE power backup.. And a lot of Homer Simpsons eating doughnuts at the Nat Gas plant while the wind blows for 20 minutes.. .

Fucking bullshit, old man. Right now the solution to that is being built and sold worldwide from North Carolina, Nevada, and other places.

Britain Is About to Take a Great (Battery) Leap Forward

Grid-scale electricity storage will move closer to commercial reality on Friday when the U.K.’s grid operator offers contracts to companies to help balance the network, a key measure needed to help balance increasing supply from renewables.

National Grid Plc will announce the winners of a bidding round for as much as 200 megawatts of storage capacity, which is about the size of a small power plant.

It’s likely to be the storage industry’s biggest award this year in global market expected to install $5.1 billion of equipment in 2020, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Storage plays a key role in the greening of utilities’ networks by allowing grid managers to handle higher volumes of intermittent power from the wind and sun.

The program is a “major boost for energy storage,”’ said Logan Goldie-Scot, analyst for BNEF in London. “Previously, activity had for the most part been limited to standalone demonstration projects” funded by the U.K. power regulator, Ofgem.

http://www.brattle.com/system/news/..._Distributed_Electricity_Storage_in_Texas.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Todd, nice diversion of the topic. However, back to the topic. Wind and solar are going to put coal out of business in the short run, and gas out of business in the long run. And all to the betterment of the grid in reliability and robustness.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, nice diversion of the topic. However, back to the topic. Wind and solar are going to put coal out of business in the short run, and gas out of business in the long run. And all to the betterment of the grid in reliability and robustness.

Everyone who wants to install wind and solar should be free to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement. It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy

It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
How does it fit income transfer?

It is not free.

I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy. Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.

spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy

In economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb resources or create output. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.[1] Examples of certain transfer payments include welfare (financial aid), social security, and government making subsidies for certain businesses (firms).

The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.

Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

No.
Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
It's not a subsidy.

Yes, it is: it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.

in economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only the right wing, is that fantastical. Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy that promotes that public policy.

Our Congress has the power to tax to raise money for patent law enforcement. It is not free.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Our patent laws are both an income transfer and a subsidy

It doesn't fit the definition of subsidy.
How does it fit income transfer?

It is not free.

I know, it pays for itself a thousand times over.

The right wing only knows how to project, spend, and finance.

Which makes them so much more knowledgeable than you.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy, along with public policy. Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

Only because of that legal preference, via command economics.

spend and finance is not difficult; taxing and spending require some planning.

Yes, it does. an income transfer can be a subsidy

In economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system. These payments are considered to be non-exhaustive because they do not directly absorb resources or create output. In other words, the transfer is made without any exchange of goods or services.[1] Examples of certain transfer payments include welfare (financial aid), social security, and government making subsidies for certain businesses (firms).

The government isn't transferring money by granting a patent.
It doesn't fit the definition. So not a subsidy, not an income transfer.

Enforcement is the cost of that subsidy.

No.
Enforcement of patents is a constitutionally allowed government expense.
It's not a subsidy.

Yes, it is: it is a form of subsidy via the socialism of the law.

in economics, a transfer payment (or government transfer or simply transfer) is a redistribution of income in the market system.

Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

Nope. Obviously.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, given the present price of solar and wind, I really think that the subsidies should be discontinued. The industry has arrived, it is working well, and should not need any further help. Combine that with the existing grid scale batteries already in production, and you have sources that are 24/7, and far cheaper that fossil fuels, with almost no externalities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well now, given the present price of solar and wind, I really think that the subsidies should be discontinued. The industry has arrived, it is working well, and should not need any further help. Combine that with the existing grid scale batteries already in production, and you have sources that are 24/7, and far cheaper that fossil fuels, with almost no externalities.

Is Ivanpah making money yet?