Power Plant Closures

[elektra]

Just a pic to qualify my post, I am at work, and this what I work on.

 

[Kosh]

Funny but I have to ask how much government backing goes into wind and solar? Grants, tax rebates, price subsidies, etc.? You gave to admit that solar and wind only exist because of government support in one form or another.

.

Really? You mean like ANY 'NEW' energy? Why is oil or nukes getting support again?

Oil is one of the federal government's greatest sources of revenue. It didn't require any government support to get started as an industry.

Weird, so the SPECIAL tax breaks oil gets, and has for more than 100+ years should be ended right? Amounting to BILLIONS a year

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• 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.*
  

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Many of these subsidies were put in place when a barrel of oil was less than $12/barrel.

Other subsidies are design for them to invest into newer technologies that are less polluting and more environmentally friendly.

So what does the far left hate the environment?

 

[Kosh]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

 

[HenryBHough]

Of course the most effective way to reduce the use of energy would be for those who fear energy production most to simply stop using it.

If you're a true greenie you'll turn off that computer right now!

But you're NOT and you WON'T.

 

[bripat9643]

Oil is one of the federal government's greatest sources of revenue. It didn't require any government support to get started as an industry.

Weird, so the SPECIAL tax breaks oil gets, and has for more than 100+ years should be ended right? Amounting to BILLIONS a year

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• 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.

Every corporation in America is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business from it's gross revenues to arrive at taxable income. That's what the term "income" means, revenues minus expenses. Why anyone thinks oil companies should be the only corporations in America not allowed to deduct their expenses is baffling to me. It's probably not even constitutional.

• 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.*

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Your cite even admits that only small oil companies receive this benefit. Then it tries to claim that they are n the top 100 in size, so they aren't deserving. Tentatively I agree that this deduction should be ended, but it has never been necessary for the survival of the oil industry. It's just a pay-off by some Congressmen from oil producing states to their cronies in the oil business.

GAAWWWWDDDDD


"Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs"

Intangible drilling costs are one of the largest tax breaks available specifically to oil companies, allowing companies to deduct most of the costs of drilling new wells in the United States.

In order to determine taxable income, U.S. businesses can normally deduct expenses from revenues so they are only taxed on profits. Under normal income tax rules, a company that pays expenses in order to make future profits would need to deduct the expenses over the same time period as profits. The costs for drilling exploratory and developmental wells would need to be deducted as resources are extracted from the well.

The break for intangible drilling costs (IDCs) is an exception to the general rule. Independent producers can choose to immediately deduct all of their intangible drilling costs.

Intangible drilling costs are defined as costs related to drilling and necessary for the preparation of wells for production, but that have no salvageable value. These include costs for wages, fuel, supplies, repairs, survey work, and ground clearing. They compose roughly 60 to 80 percent of total drilling costs.

The deduction for intangible drilling costs has been permitted since the beginning of the income tax code, in order to recognize the risks involved in drilling developmental wells—not every well strikes oil. Only IDCs associated with domestic or offshore wells may be deducted; foreign wells cannot be expensed in this way.
The Tax Break-Down Intangible Drilling Costs Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

http://crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-intangible-drilling-costs

Uuhhhhh . . . your cite confirms what I said: drilling costs are a legitimate expense of doing business. The only issue is whether they should be deducted up front or amortized over the life of the well. Of course, a well that doesn't produce anything has no revenue to amortize the drilling costs over. So the alternative proposal has some insurmountable obstacles to overcome.

AND

"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."

Yeah? Exactly what I said.

 

[elektra]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

 

[Dad2three]

Really? You mean like ANY 'NEW' energy? Why is oil or nukes getting support again?

Oil is one of the federal government's greatest sources of revenue. It didn't require any government support to get started as an industry.

Weird, so the SPECIAL tax breaks oil gets, and has for more than 100+ years should be ended right? Amounting to BILLIONS a year

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• 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.*

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Many of these subsidies were put in place when a barrel of oil was less than $12/barrel.

Other subsidies are design for them to invest into newer technologies that are less polluting and more environmentally friendly.

So what does the far left hate the environment?

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives EVER have

ONCE MORE ANYONE?

ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON IN THE US? lol

 

[elektra]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

Yes 500 billion was spent, how much h do you think was spent, if you can not at least account for the expense there is no need to address anything you post.

Account for the money spent, how much?

This is my point, you do a Google search only on what you believe.

Now find real facts, account for the cost then we can break that down to account for what is consumed by the green/renewable energy industry.

 

[Dad2three]

Of course the most effective way to reduce the use of energy would be for those who fear energy production most to simply stop using it.

If you're a true greenie you'll turn off that computer right now!

But you're NOT and you WON'T.

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, so the SPECIAL tax breaks oil gets, and has for more than 100+ years should be ended right? Amounting to BILLIONS a year

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• 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.

Every corporation in America is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business from it's gross revenues to arrive at taxable income. That's what the term "income" means, revenues minus expenses. Why anyone thinks oil companies should be the only corporations in America not allowed to deduct their expenses is baffling to me. It's probably not even constitutional.

• 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.*

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Your cite even admits that only small oil companies receive this benefit. Then it tries to claim that they are n the top 100 in size, so they aren't deserving. Tentatively I agree that this deduction should be ended, but it has never been necessary for the survival of the oil industry. It's just a pay-off by some Congressmen from oil producing states to their cronies in the oil business.

GAAWWWWDDDDD


"Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs"

Intangible drilling costs are one of the largest tax breaks available specifically to oil companies, allowing companies to deduct most of the costs of drilling new wells in the United States.

In order to determine taxable income, U.S. businesses can normally deduct expenses from revenues so they are only taxed on profits. Under normal income tax rules, a company that pays expenses in order to make future profits would need to deduct the expenses over the same time period as profits. The costs for drilling exploratory and developmental wells would need to be deducted as resources are extracted from the well.

The break for intangible drilling costs (IDCs) is an exception to the general rule. Independent producers can choose to immediately deduct all of their intangible drilling costs.

Intangible drilling costs are defined as costs related to drilling and necessary for the preparation of wells for production, but that have no salvageable value. These include costs for wages, fuel, supplies, repairs, survey work, and ground clearing. They compose roughly 60 to 80 percent of total drilling costs.

The deduction for intangible drilling costs has been permitted since the beginning of the income tax code, in order to recognize the risks involved in drilling developmental wells—not every well strikes oil. Only IDCs associated with domestic or offshore wells may be deducted; foreign wells cannot be expensed in this way.
The Tax Break-Down Intangible Drilling Costs Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Uuhhhhh . . . your cite confirms what I said: drilling costs are a legitimate expense of doing business. The only issue is whether they should be deducted up front or amortized over the life of the well. Of course, a well that doesn't produce anything has no revenue to amortize the drilling costs over. So the alternative proposal has some insurmountable obstacles to overcome.

AND

"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."

Yeah? Exactly what I said.

Weird, so a Corp can ONLY write off the well IF it strike oil/gas? If not it can't amortize it? lol

86 out of 100 median market cap of $2 billion is 'small' huh? lol

 

[elektra]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

"Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return."

LIE

Weird, EVERYTHING you posit is right wing nonsense like ALL you listen to is Rushblow?

NO private Corp will ACCEPT the LIABILITY of Nuke energy, that's why conservatives LOVE BIG Gov't to backstop it. Weird right? lol



1) Myth:Wind, water, and solar technologies are much more expensive than are fossil
fuels.


Reality
:
First, it is important to differentiate between the “business” cost and the
“economic” cost of a fuel.
The 
business
 cost 
is
 the
 direct
 cost
 that 
a
 consumer
 pays

upon 
purchase
 of
 the 
fuel 
or
 use 
of 
electricity.
The
 economic 
cost
 is
 the
 direct
 cost

plus
 costs
 that
 the
 consumer
 pays
 through
 higher
 taxes,
 insurance
 rates,
 medical

bills,
 workers 
compensation 
costs,
and 
reduced 
property 
values,
 among 
other 
costs

Myths
 and
 Realities 
about
 Wind,
Water,
 and
 Sun 
(WWS) 
Versus
 Current
 Fuels

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/MythsvsRealitiesWWS.pdf

Much Talked About Myths about Renewable Energy
Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective




NREL: 87 To 97 Percent Of Solar PV Power Will Create No Pollution. A report by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explained that producing electricity with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system produces no greenhouse gases, greatly offsetting emissions from construction

NREL also found that a solar PV system can repay its "energy investment in about two years," and that during its "28 remaining years of assumed operation," a system that "meets half of an average household's electrical use" would avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to "offset the operation of two cars" for 28 years

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Carbon Savings From Solar Far Outweigh Disturbances From Development.

Solar Power in the Desert Are the current large-scale solar developments really improving California s environment eScholarship

The reality is your links do not address construction or maintenance costs. Your links also do not address the water used for cleaning, which is billions of gallons of water.

Further, we are speaking of commercial power for industry, not running a LED light in your home.

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

 

[Kosh]

Oil is one of the federal government's greatest sources of revenue. It didn't require any government support to get started as an industry.

Weird, so the SPECIAL tax breaks oil gets, and has for more than 100+ years should be ended right? Amounting to BILLIONS a year

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• 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.*

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Many of these subsidies were put in place when a barrel of oil was less than $12/barrel.

Other subsidies are design for them to invest into newer technologies that are less polluting and more environmentally friendly.

So what does the far left hate the environment?

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives EVER have

ONCE MORE ANYONE?

ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON IN THE US? lol

Once again proving that the far left is programmed to use talking points and propaganda vs any type of facts.

Hint: Conservatives can also be Democrats. Well maybe not now since the far left is complete control.

 

[Kosh]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

Using nothing but Soros funded far left sources.

Amazing the propaganda the far left will use as their "facts".

Then again the far left mantra is to post known propaganda/lies and ask others to prove them wrong.

 

[elektra]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

Using nothing but Soros funded far left sources.

Amazing the propaganda the far left will use as their "facts".

Then again the far left mantra is to post known propaganda/lies and ask others to prove them wrong.

Weird, AFTER the original poster just through up BULLSHIT, I refuted his crap with well linked, CREDIBLE sources and you choose to use ad homs. I'm shocked

 

[Dad2three]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

As I stated, you only got a Google search, now once again, HOW MUCH DID IT COST

YOU made the posit dummy, YOU source it. THEN I'LL TEAR IT APART WITH THE TRUTH

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, so the SPECIAL tax breaks oil gets, and has for more than 100+ years should be ended right? Amounting to BILLIONS a year

What "special tax breaks" have the oil companies been getting for 100 years?

The Ryan budget’s apparent retention of 100-year-old tax breaks while adding new ones ignores the century of federal support for oil production. According to an analysis by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received a total of $446 billion in government subsidies from 1918 through 2009. Meanwhile, the renewable energy industry received just $5.5 billion from 1994 to 2009. Moreover, over this time U.S. taxpayers invested $80 in oil for every $1 invested in clean, renewable energy.

Meet the New Oil Tax Breaks Same as the Old Oil Tax Breaks Center for American Progress


America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.

Why Big Oil Doesn't Need Uncle Sam's Help
The oil industry's lobbyists like to argue that its array of tax write-offs (which allow companies to deduct everything from drilling costs to the declining value of their wells) aren't any different than other deductions for less publicly reviled companies. Cutting them will discourage new exploration and put jobs at risk, they claim.

Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.

• 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.*

America s Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - The Atlantic

Many of these subsidies were put in place when a barrel of oil was less than $12/barrel.

Other subsidies are design for them to invest into newer technologies that are less polluting and more environmentally friendly.

So what does the far left hate the environment?

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives EVER have

ONCE MORE ANYONE?

ONE POLICY CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON IN THE US? lol

Once again proving that the far left is programmed to use talking points and propaganda vs any type of facts.

Hint: Conservatives can also be Democrats. Well maybe not now since the far left is complete control.

Project much Bubba?

ONE policy CONSERVATIVES have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? LOL

 

[Kosh]

First off, only ignorant fools support solar, wind, or geothermal. The three most expensive forms of power. All three increase consumption of oil and hydrocarbons, which is why the oil companies support all three.

Nuclear is by far the cheapest. I saw some idiot posted private companies are unwilling to invest because if risk. The risk and expense is endless lawsuits by activists, the courts and politicians.

Green energy has completely failed in europe. The cost is extreme, and always will be. No industry has spent so much on research and development and returned so little.

Over 500 billion dollars spent on renewable green energy in two years. Zero in return.

The liberal democrats want the USA to fail, they want us weak.

Hence go Green.

Why would anyone want to support something that produces waste that has a half life of 5000 years and is stored in containers that are predicted to last 120 years?

Waste? I was not aware of waste, spent nuclear fuel van be reprocessed into new fuel and used again, like on france, and like in breeder reactors, which Clinton shut down. The waste from nuclear power is very tiny compared to the toxic waste produced by the Green energy heavy industry.


Nuclear can power industry which green/renewable energy can not.

ANOTHER conservative liar. Shocking. I got some beach front land in Japan I want to sell, cheaply

New Wind Generation Is Cheaper Than New Nuclear Generation

The chart below was created using data from the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration (EIA) on estimated total system levelized cost, which EIA states is a "convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies," of new generation from solar photovoltaics (PV), advanced nuclear, conventional coal, hydropower, onshore wind, and conventional combined cycle natural gas-fired power in 2018. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear, while solar is expected to be more expensive in the near-future. However, solar costs are dropping rapidly, while analyses suggest that nuclear has actually been getting more expensive.

Nuclear Power Has Received More Historical Subsidies Than Renewables. A September 2011 paper by DBL Investors included this chart showing that oil and gas and nuclear power have received far more subsidies in the long-run than renewables have:

2005 Act Provided Potentially Hundreds Of Billions In Liability Subsidies For Nuclear. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included billions of dollars in direct subsidies to nuclear power, and extended the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, which has sharply limited the nuclear industry's liability for accidents for decades. The conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the "billions in subsidies" for the nuclear industry under the 2005 act:

• Price-Anderson limits the liability of nuclear power plants to $10.7 billion in the event of an accident.
• A 1997 study by DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a reactor spent fuel pool fire could result in as many as 143,000 cancer deaths, and cause as much as $599 billion in property damage.
• Reauthorizing and extending Price-Anderson shields proposed new reactors from liability, leaving federal taxpayers, not nuclear operators, on the hook for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. [...]

• $100 million for two additional demonstration projects for hydrogen production at existing nuclear reactors.
• Up to $2 billion paid to industry to cover cost overruns due to construction delays. [...]

Forks over $1.25 billion in government money for planning and constructing a nuclear reactor in Idaho that also generates hydrogen.

Nuclear Subsidies in 2005 Energy Bill Taxpayers for Common Sense



Cheap Natural Gas Has Made Many Nuclear Plants Uneconomical. The Economist reported that the "culprit" behind nuclear power plants that have been shut down or called off is the low price of natural gas, due to an expanded supply from fracking

InsideClimate News reported that the first nuclear power plant closures in 15 years were "primarily" due to the economics of an aging fleet in a market where no price on carbon is in place and natural gas is increasingly cheap

Cato Institute: There's "Zero Evidence" That Environmental Opposition Is Preventing New Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power simply cannot compete with gas-fired power. And absent some major technological breakthrough, it's unlikely to do so in the future.

Myths And Facts About Nuclear Power Research Media Matters for America

Using nothing but Soros funded far left sources.

Amazing the propaganda the far left will use as their "facts".

Then again the far left mantra is to post known propaganda/lies and ask others to prove them wrong.

Weird, AFTER the original poster just through up BULLSHIT, I refuted his crap with well linked, CREDIBLE sources and you choose to use ad homs. I'm shocked

Once again the far left shows that the sources that are "CREDIBLE" are the known far left sources in their eyes.

So far you have posted known far left propaganda and this prove my original comments..