Why we should listen to the 97%

[bripat9643]

Foxfyre -

The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.

Nuclear has received abundant subsidies, but coal has received virtually none. All claims about coal subsidies are based in mischaracterizations of income tax law.

And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.

I'm afraid this is simply nonsense - clean coal is amongst the most expensive forms of electricity production we have.

That's only if you define "clean coal" to mean coal that doesn't emit CO2. Of course, that characterization is a joke. Coal is already more than clean enough. CO2 isn't a pollutant. Modern coal fired fired power plants are still the cheapest form of energy, if the government doesn't impose draconian regulations on them. Germany is building 20 new coal fired power plants. That's how "dirty" current coal technology is.

The term "clean coal" is a con.

 

[Saigon]

The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable

Well, two days ago you had never heard of feed-in tariffs....which are the most common form of subsidy used in the energy industry.

That's because they are money losing propositions. The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable

How can you evaluate the cost of power from a form of energy that has not yet been tested commercially?

It seems clear to most analysts that breeder reactors, tidal and solar thermal will all be hugely productive - but you oppose them because they are new.

It does make me laugh that you pretend to know something about this industry - but oppose the three best forms of future energy production REAL experts are promoting.

 

[Saigon]

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

No, you don't agree with that. You propose government manipulation of the market every time you post on the subject.

Um....seriously?

You are telling me that I believe and don't believe?!

I have noticed several times that you totally miss the point of my posts, because you are so fixated on left/right ideology you cannot read what people post anymore - you just assume it's the same fixed dogma you rely on.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat-



I've never heard anyone suggest they were. Most countries will need a workhorse like hydro, nuclear or perhaps solar thermal or tidal in addition to wind or solar PV.



Subsidies should be phased out as soon as economies have the mix of 21st century solutions they need.

In most countries that should happen quite soon - but obviously the US is so far behind that you will need more subsidies while you play catch-up.

No., subsidies should be ended immediately. The mix of solutions we need shouldn't be determined by government interference in the market.

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between someone with principles and a hack.

Do you reject the subsidies given coal, oil, gas and nuclear? Do you reject subsidies given to farmers? Dairymen? Miners? Lumber companies?

Or is it just alternative energy sources?

I reject all subsidies of any kind. I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business. The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

I live within 5 miles of a giant coal fired power plant. I don't smell a thing. The air hear is as crystal clear as the air at the South Pole. Miners who "cough their lungs out" are all smokers. Black lung disease is really a disease of smokers.

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

The improvement in cleanliness won't even be detectable to anyone. In exchange for massive costs the taxpayers receive zero tangible benefit. Furthermore, this meddling causes distortions in the market. Obama is imposing draconian regulations on the coal industry in a deliberate attempt to drive it out of business. If you think "green energy" is economically competitive, then let it compete. Otherwise let it die a natural death.

 

[bripat9643]

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

No, you don't agree with that. You propose government manipulation of the market every time you post on the subject.

Um....seriously?

You are telling me that I believe and don't believe?!

I have noticed several times that you totally miss the point of my posts, because you are so fixated on left/right ideology you cannot read what people post anymore - you just assume it's the same fixed dogma you rely on.

I base my statement on what you post, not what you say about yourself. When have you ever objected to government interference in the market?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BriPat -

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.

No, it's the difference between understanding the industry, and not understanding it.

It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place.

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

Todd -

For the 5th time now - do you support subsidies to energy companies? Yes or no?

List the true subsidies that energy companies get (writing off business expenses isn't a subsidy) and I'll tell you if I support them.

Continue to lie about them and I'll continue to mock you.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

As has been explained to you several times now, the subsidies received in the energy field aren't unique to one form of production.

The subsidies nuclear received are largely the same ones you spent 10 pages wailing about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre -

The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.

Do you agree or disagree with those subsidies?

And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.

I'm afraid this is simply nonsense - clean coal is amongst the most expensive forms of electricity production we have.

I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business. Have you?

Based on the average cost in dollars per million Btu for 2007 (annual
average for the full year):

Coal — $1.78
Petroleum liquids —$9.21
Natural gas — $7.45

Electric Power Monthly - Energy Information Administration

Numbers like these make it clear that we need to continue to develop clean coal technologies. Finding better ways to use our most affordable and abundant fuel source will not only help us keep America running, it will help ease the costs of doing so.

 

[Saigon]

Bripat -

When have you ever objected to government interference in the market?

When it is not necessary.

Subsidies like feed-in tariffs are necessary as countries transition from old technologies to new technologies - but not beyond that.

I reject all subsidies of any kind. I also reject regulations that are designed solely to put certain industries out of business. The market should decide which industries thrive and which wither away.

Fair enough - at least you are consistent and honest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

As has been explained to you several times now, the subsidies received in the energy field aren't unique to one form of production.

The subsidies nuclear received are largely the same ones you spent 10 pages wailing about.

List the true subsidies that energy companies get (writing off business expenses isn't a subsidy) and I'll tell you if I support them.

If they're the same "subsidies" that every company in the country gets, then they aren't subsidies.

 

[Saigon]

Fox -

I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business. Have you?

Yes...it's what I do for a living.

I've also posted this material for you before,when you chose to ignore it.

Advanced Coal 112.7

Wind 96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dozen other sources will tell you the same thing.

This is not a matter of opinion, it's simple fact. The only question is - can you take the blinkers off and look at the facts, or will you take Todd's line and stick to being wrong?

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox -

I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business. Have you?

Yes...it's what I do for a living.

I've also posted this material for you before,when you chose to ignore it.

Advanced Coal 112.7

Wind 96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dozen other sources will tell you the same thing.

This is not a matter of opinion, it's simple fact. The only question is - can you take the blinkers off and look at the facts, or will you take Todd's line and stick to being wrong?

Sorry. The only place in your link that clean coal is the most expensive is in the initial investment of the processing plant. (And I find that highly questionable.) I have looked at numerous sources including your Wikipedia link--if you know a dozen other sources, why did you choose Wikipedia?--and your sources and my sources all agree that coal is cheap, plentiful, and even clean coal beats most wind and solar for production of a kilowatt of electric power which is what your link addressed.

As usual you don't even read your own links and ignored that I have been addressing all energy costs, not just electric power.

And because of my experience with the stuff you post, I also don't believe for a minute that you are in the industry any more than I am convinced that you are a scientist which you have claimed in the past.

Abraham's 97% is bogus. Too much of what passes for climate science is bogus. We the people deserve better from those who would take away our liberties and control our lives in these matters.

 

[bripat9643]

Fox -

I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business. Have you?

Yes...it's what I do for a living.

I've also posted this material for you before,when you chose to ignore it.

Advanced Coal 112.7

Wind 96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dozen other sources will tell you the same thing.

This is not a matter of opinion, it's simple fact. The only question is - can you take the blinkers off and look at the facts, or will you take Todd's line and stick to being wrong?

Of course, "advanced coal" is a con. Compare it with the price for the last coal fired power plant built - before Obama imposed his punitive regulations on coal, that is.

 

[bripat9643]

Fox -

I've done some research and have interviewed people in the business. Have you?

Yes...it's what I do for a living.

I've also posted this material for you before,when you chose to ignore it.

Advanced Coal 112.7

Wind 96.8

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dozen other sources will tell you the same thing.

This is not a matter of opinion, it's simple fact. The only question is - can you take the blinkers off and look at the facts, or will you take Todd's line and stick to being wrong?

Costs of Coal-fired Electricity - World Coal Association

According to studies by the European Commission, MIT, and the US Congressional Budget Office, coal power plants provide electricity at a lower cost than nuclear or gas plants. This is also confirmed by levelised generation cost studies, such as the one carried out regularly by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which takes account of all the costs over the power plant lifetime. According to IEA statistics, coal-based electricity is, on average, 7% cheaper than gas and around 19% cheaper than nuclear.

The advantage of coal is even greater in comparison to renewable energy. IEA and European Commission studies show that onshore wind costs between US$50 and US$156 per MWh and solar photovoltaics between US$226 to US$2031. In certain locations hydro resources can produce electricity at a cost comparable to coal, however estimates vary greatly according to geographic conditions and the final price can be as high as US$240 and US$262 per MWh. In comparison, electricity from coal costs between US$56 to US$82 per MWh.

The bottom line: Coal is by-far the cheapest method of producing electric power.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat -

When have you ever objected to government interference in the market?

When it is not necessary.

In other words, never.

Subsidies like feed-in tariffs are necessary as countries transition from old technologies to new technologies - but not beyond that.

Successful new technologies have never required subsidies of any kind. Subsidies have always been political payoffs to favored constituents and that's all they will ever be. The only industries that require subsidies are the ones that have failed the market test. Wind and solar have failed that test over and over.

 

[westwall]

BriPat -

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.

No, it's the difference between understanding the industry, and not understanding it.

The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. I do consulting work for fortune 1000 companies that deals with their manufacturing processes. Currently I'm doing some work for Ford Motor Company that deals with how they determine the factory capacity they need. How much more immersed in "industry" can you get?

I work in industry every day. You're a journalist, and you don't know diddly squat about industry. Everything you post demonstrates the grossest naivete about how industry functions.

It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place.

That's because they are money losing propositions. The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable. You're just admitting that these forms of power can't compete in the marketplace.

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

No, you don't agree with that. You propose government manipulation of the market every time you post on the subject.

In saggy's defense...he doesn't seem to know much about anything but collectivist political theory. He is a product of good old Howard Zinn.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Foxfyre -

The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.

Do you agree or disagree with those subsidies?

And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.

I'm afraid this is simply nonsense - clean coal is amongst the most expensive forms of electricity production we have.

DOE's clean coal R&D is focused on developing and demonstrating advanced power generation and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies for existing facilities and new fossil-fueled power plants by increasing overall system efficiencies and reducing capital costs. In the near-term, advanced technologies that increase the power generation efficiency for new plants and technologies to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from new and existing industrial and power-producing plants are being developed. In the longer term, the goal is to increase energy plant efficiencies and reduce both the energy and capital costs of CO2 capture and storage from new, advanced coal plants and existing plants. These activities will help allow coal to remain a strategic fuel for the nation while enhancing environmental protection.

Clean Coal Research | Department of Energy

Damn, what a stupid idea. Burn even more coal, so we can waste the energy to capture the CO2.
A technology that only government could love.

If we're giving subsidies for this technology, we should stop instantly.

 

[Foxfyre]

The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable

Well, two days ago you had never heard of feed-in tariffs....which are the most common form of subsidy used in the energy industry.

That's because they are money losing propositions. The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable

How can you evaluate the cost of power from a form of energy that has not yet been tested commercially?

It seems clear to most analysts that breeder reactors, tidal and solar thermal will all be hugely productive - but you oppose them because they are new.

It does make me laugh that you pretend to know something about this industry - but oppose the three best forms of future energy production REAL experts are promoting.

They may be new, but they are already tested commercially on a broad enough scale to know their costs of operation. The information is there for anybody who is scientifically adept enough to do the minimal research required.

And feed-in tariffs apply to renewable energy production only. Not oil and coal.

 

[FA_Q2]

No., subsidies should be ended immediately. The mix of solutions we need shouldn't be determined by government interference in the market.

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between someone with principles and a hack.

Do you reject the subsidies given coal, oil, gas and nuclear? Do you reject subsidies given to farmers? Dairymen? Miners? Lumber companies?

Or is it just alternative energy sources?

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

Yes. ALL government subsidies should be eliminated. Research is one thing. Being forced to pay extra taxes so that that money can be given to companies that would otherwise fail completely is a joke. If they have a product that they can deliver in a timely efficient manner then they don't NEED a subsidy.

Fund research, NOT companies. The left continually wants to treat these things as the same concept and there is nothing further from the truth. There is something to be said for the government being capable of pushing tech with resources that it can afford to lose (and the fact that industry PREFERS static tech) but we don’t really do that. For the most part, the problems have occurred because we are sinking cash into companies rather than development in the hops that a small portion might someday reach to an R&D department. It is asinine and does nothing to clean anything up.

 

[Abraham3]

Do you reject the subsidies given coal, oil, gas and nuclear? Do you reject subsidies given to farmers? Dairymen? Miners? Lumber companies?

Or is it just alternative energy sources?

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

Yes. ALL government subsidies should be eliminated. Research is one thing. Being forced to pay extra taxes so that that money can be given to companies that would otherwise fail completely is a joke. If they have a product that they can deliver in a timely efficient manner then they don't NEED a subsidy.

Fund research, NOT companies. The left continually wants to treat these things as the same concept and there is nothing further from the truth. There is something to be said for the government being capable of pushing tech with resources that it can afford to lose (and the fact that industry PREFERS static tech) but we don’t really do that. For the most part, the problems have occurred because we are sinking cash into companies rather than development in the hops that a small portion might someday reach to an R&D department. It is asinine and does nothing to clean anything up.

Are you suggesting the government fund only government research or that the government somehow restrict subsidies, tax breaks and the like to R&D?