|
to Corehhi
Re: [Electrical] Hawaii Solar Boom So Successful, It's Been Haltedsaid by Corehhi:UV panels would be great since they are 24 hrs a day or any other wave length but that just isn't possible for now. I'm pretty sure when the sun sets, the earth blocks pretty much all it's radiation, not just the light you can see.... If the UV was out at night, you could go out at night for nude tanning. |
|
54067323 (banned) join:2012-09-25 Tuscaloosa, AL |
54067323 (banned)
Member
2014-Jan-2 7:31 pm
said by Raphion:I'm pretty sure when the sun sets, the earth blocks pretty much all it's radiation, not just the light you can see.... If the UV was out at night, you could go out at night for nude tanning. Would that not be mooning the moon? |
|
|
to scross
said by scross:said by pandora:If solar really works, it will work without subsidy. At that point, people can be proud of what they do with it. You do realize, don't you, that fossil fuels have been subsidized in various ways (and in some cases, in EXTREMELY generous ways) for ages now, right? If you want to cut subsidies then perhaps you should start there - but then watch the sh*t hit the fan! And as far as peak prices go, business and industry gets hit with those much more than the average consumer does. So, not surprisingly, business and industry have been even more enthusiastic about solar than the average consumer has been. If you want to call these groups "rich" and the average consumer "poor", then that's up to you. Please provide documentation on subsidies on coal, oil, and NG. Anyone can make statements but without the documentation to back them they are nothing more than statements. Pandora is correct. If Solar is viable then it will stand on it's own not relying on someone else paying for it for them. |
|
PSWired join:2006-03-26 Annapolis, MD |
Calling them subsidies is not necessarily accurate, but there are staggering costs associated with fossil fuel use that are borne by people who are not the end-user of the product. Healthcare costs for respiratory diseases, environmental restoration costs for old mines, refinery sites, oil spills, etc.
Some would argue that the entire Gulf War was a cost borne by the US taxpayer that is actually an external cost of fuel oil. If these types of expenditures were internalized in the cost of energy instead of being paid for as part of other revenue streams, the energy mix would certainly change from how we see it today. |
|
|
robbin Mod join:2000-09-21 Leander, TX 2 edits |
to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:Please provide documentation on subsidies on coal, oil, and NG. Anyone can make statements but without the documentation to back them they are nothing more than statements. Seriously? Most of this thread has been people posting opinion without any substantiation. But here you go if that is what you want -- some of them Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs » energytomorrow.org/blog/ ··· ng-costsDeducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells » taxfoundation.org/blog/d ··· -subsidyDomestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies » crfb.org/blogs/tax-break ··· ng-costs |
|
|
to PSWired
Yes there are tremendous costs involved in burning fossil fuel, powering our vehicles etc. I guess you do realize that all the alternatives cannot and will not supply the energy the U.S. Requires. All we've been discussing is a few solar panels on someone's roof that largely are paid for by the state they live in, the electric company that supplies the local electricity requiring all other customers to bear the a lot of the cost for a few to reap the benefits.
Until someone invents a fuel that will power our economy we are stuck as the rest of the world already kicking our butts economically (China) is just going to continue on. The less coal and oil we use is the more they have to use. |
|
robbin Mod join:2000-09-21 Leander, TX
1 recommendation |
said by Jack_in_VA: requiring all other customers to bear the a lot of the cost for a few to reap the benefits. As per your previous post -- documentation please. |
|
nunyaLXI 483 MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO ·Charter
1 recommendation |
nunya
MVM
2014-Jan-2 10:06 pm
No documentation should be required for "common knowledge". It is what it is - subsidized by society. Other people are paying for someone else' benefit. I'm not sure how that fact is even debatable. While the word "customers" is certainly true, I think it would be more appropriate to replace it with "taxpayers, their children, and their children's children". If we're going to give money away, the subsidies would be better spent toward research and development of a better product that can stand on it's own. Giving it to schools of science & engineering would be a little truer to the ideal of the betterment of society. |
|
|
to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:Please provide documentation on subsidies on coal, oil, and NG. Anyone can make statements but without the documentation to back them they are nothing more than statements. I see that someone else has already beat me to the punch here. But I was going to suggest that you start by Googling "IRS" "oil and gas" and seeing what kinds of things you come up with. The tax code is quite generous towards fossil fuel interests, and even individuals such as ourselves can take advantage of these tax breaks, should we be lucky enough to own land under which oil and/or gas lie. Then there are stores like this one: » www.cleveland.com/nation ··· _bi.htmlAnd this one (note that consumers get no such waivers when buying things like new cars, which have to have the latest and greatest emissions control systems on them). Historically such waivers are not at all uncommon (I've been reading about them for decades now), and, if they play their cards right, power plant owners can often forestall the expense of having to install pollution control upgrades indefinitely. » www.businessweek.com/ap/ ··· l-plantsHere's the kind of thing that can happen when, for example, a coal plant has an "oops" moment: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ki ··· ry_spill |
|
scross |
to nunya
said by nunya:If we're going to give money away, the subsidies would be better spent toward research and development of a better product that can stand on it's own. Giving it to schools of science & engineering would be a little truer to the ideal of the betterment of society. Who do you think paid for a lot of the research and development to get us where we are now? The US government (via the space program and various alternative energy programs) was one of the main pioneers of solar energy, and the US government (via the military) will soon be one of its biggest customers, too. Solar has already reached a tipping point, BTW. The technical and economic advances made over the past few years are astonishing, but pale in comparison to what may be coming down the pike. The utility companies better get on board and learn to help drive this wagon train, lest they be run over by it otherwise. |
|
PSWired join:2006-03-26 Annapolis, MD |
to Jack_in_VA
All this talk of a technology "standing on its own" is meaningless when the incumbent energy industries have so many of the costs associated with their product covered by others. If coal-based power generation can be done cheaper than solar + utility scale storage when the costs of carbon capture, flue gas scrubbing, land remediation from mining, etc. are rolled into the energy price, then it's the technology to stick with. Unfortunately many of the renewables will never get off the ground unless they're directly subsidized or the energy market is adjusted to account for these external costs.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that all the alternatives will never supply the energy the US requires. |
|
1 recommendation |
to Jack_in_VA
Study concerning government subsidies for various types of energy: » www.dblinvestors.com/doc ··· sion.pdf |
|
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland 1 edit |
to scross
said by scross:You do realize, don't you, that fossil fuels have been subsidized in various ways (and in some cases, in EXTREMELY generous ways) for ages now, right? If you want to cut subsidies then perhaps you should start there - but then watch the sh*t hit the fan!
And as far as peak prices go, business and industry gets hit with those much more than the average consumer does. So, not surprisingly, business and industry have been even more enthusiastic about solar than the average consumer has been. If you want to call these groups "rich" and the average consumer "poor", then that's up to you. I realize the largest taxpayers are oil companies. That government charges more in tax for oil than oil companies make profit. For coal, current government policy is hostile toward it. If you consider deducting business expenses as a subsidy, then yes oil is subsidized. However so is every business. Solar gets more subsidy per unit of power by far than anything else, and generally pays little to no tax. |
|
|
to John Galt6
I don't understand why they are using oil at all. they are sitting on top of a volcano, geothermal much? |
|
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2014-Jan-6 9:37 am
said by boogi man:I don't understand why they are using oil at all. they are sitting on top of a volcano, geothermal much? Good point. I'd love to see some federal cash spent trying to see if the super volcano under Yellowstone could be turned into electricity instead of blowing an effective nuclear winter into our atmosphere. |
|
SparkChaser Premium Member join:2000-06-06 Downingtown, PA |
|
|
|
thanks for that. My point was why are they using oil/coal/gas at all? why were they ever using fossil fuels. |
|
garys_2k Premium Member join:2004-05-07 Farmington, MI |
garys_2k
Premium Member
2014-Jan-6 11:11 am
I would assume it's because they built the fossil fuel infrastructure before the technology for widespread geothermal energy was available. Some of it is still challenging and likely borderline cost competitive (in terms of payback) relative to fossil fuels. Long term, though, no doubt it would be better. |
|
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2014-Jan-6 1:22 pm
said by garys_2k:I would assume it's because they built the fossil fuel infrastructure before the technology for widespread geothermal energy was available. Some of it is still challenging and likely borderline cost competitive (in terms of payback) relative to fossil fuels. Long term, though, no doubt it would be better. Hawaii should have a ton of surplus geothermal energy, that should be relatively easy to access. It seems encouraging development of geothermal would be similar to TVA or dam construction. It's a good fit for government and business. I'd much rather have Yellowstone providing electricity to the west and Midwest than waiting for all the energy stored under it to erupt and cause chaos. Trying to use geothermal, with maybe some effort to seeing if volcano's can be affected to cause less damage also seems like something of a national interest, beyond just energy production. |
|
|
It's doubtful that we puny humans could actually withdraw enough energy out of Yellowstone to prevent it from blowing up again.
Looking at the articles that were linked they are/were filling in the porous areas with water and trying to capture the resulting steam.
While I can see the value of that due to shifting geology and broken pipes if they were used to make a heat exchange loop the known fact that water will expand more 1500x's it's original volume when converted to steam can't be good when injecting that close to the surface, hence the earth quakes.
I do wonder about ceramic based heat exchangers and/or actually drilling into the mountain itself to create the loops needed to pull heat. |
|
FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor away Premium Member join:2003-06-23 Saint Louis, MO
1 recommendation |
to John Galt6
one quick side note:
for those who are concern about people with PV systems contributing something back towards infrastructure costs, that is already built into the system. Right now my power company (Ameren) charges 11 cents per kWh retail price. Any excess power generation by me results in Ameren buying the power at the "wholesale" price, about 1 cent per kWh.
Taking a ~90% cut should be a hefty enough fee to support their infrastructure costs in my opinion. |
|
|
to pandora
said by pandora:I realize the largest taxpayers are oil companies. That government charges more in tax for oil than oil companies make profit. For coal, current government policy is hostile toward it.
If you consider deducting business expenses as a subsidy, then yes oil is subsidized. However so is every business. Solar gets more subsidy per unit of power by far than anything else, and generally pays little to no tax. If you haven't perused it yet, the study that I linked to gives a breakdown of various types of subsidies given to the energy industry, broken down by type. In regards to oil and gas, some of these subsidies go back 100 years now. And I'm not complaining about them (generally), because I realize that they were (are) important for building out our current energy infrastructure. What I do have a problem with is people complaining about similar subsidies being given to alternate energy sources (some of which admittedly go back for decades now, too), while ignoring the fact that the fossil fuel industry was (is) just as dependent on them, even though these are now extremely profitable enterprises while the alternates are still struggling. Grossly mismanaged subsidies (complete wastes of taxpayer dollars) I also have a problem with, of course, no matter who receives them. |
|
scross
1 recommendation |
to Fronkman
said by Fronkman:Taking a ~90% cut should be a hefty enough fee to support their infrastructure costs in my opinion. It's probably actually more than that. Given that PV systems tend to generate the most electricity precisely during times which historically correspond to peak demand (think of a hot, sunny day, with everyone's air conditioning running full blast and PV generating at maximum, too), power companies are getting a huge break for avoiding paying for expensive PEAK power rates, which are (IIRC) easily 2x or 3x or whatever of normal rates. So while right now they are only paying you 1 cent for peak power, in the past that electricity might have cost them more a LOT more than that to buy or produce. This is something that they conveniently forget to mention, usually. It is this peaking issue that's been causing a lot of consternation lately. The situation in Germany has been covered extensively in the press, with most of that coverage being biased towards complaints from the utilities, despite the fact that some of them might be making a killing here at times. |
|
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
to scross
said by scross:If you haven't perused it yet, the study that I linked to gives a breakdown of various types of subsidies given to the energy industry, broken down by type. In regards to oil and gas, some of these subsidies go back 100 years now. Thank you for the suggestion. I found you link to the report, and it doesn't seem to offer very good data imo. First, it cites some politically biased sources. These are listed on page 3. For example the Environmental Law Institute (green to the max), Marshall Goldberg, MRG Associates (aka Mr. Wind farm), Mona Hymel, University of Arizona (one of the listed directors at the Center for Progressive reform, aka super leftist ... her hit piece on oil at » www.law.arizona.edu/facu ··· 0638.pdf deserves special recognition), Doug Koplow, Earth Track (whose website is more or less copied and pasted into the report you linked to over at - » www.earthtrack.net/ ... hatred of all that is fossil runs very deep at earthtrack.net), Molly Sherlock, Congressional Research Service (sounds impartial, until you search for Molly and discover just how green she is, her testimony about how awful fossil fuel is can be discovered here - » energycommerce.house.gov ··· agenda#! ), finally there is Eric Toder, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (now Eric is a strange case, he seems borderline liberal, loving most things left, but of late, his writing seems to be not overly supportive of our current President, he has morphed from an adoring fan to someone with a small chip on his shoulder regarding Obama). *** The above are the "helpers" who framed the report you cited. Nobody in support of oil, nobody really conservative, nobody really in the oil or even the energy industry. Lobbyists, lawyers, professors, plenty of those. So now tell me, before I read the report, do you want me to continue? I'm up to page 3 of 38, and more or less have a context for what I'd be about to read. I'm usually not one to spend time on a heavily biased article, but if you really feel it is worthwhile, I'll give it a shot. |
|
FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor away Premium Member join:2003-06-23 Saint Louis, MO
1 recommendation |
Fronkman
Premium Member
2014-Jan-7 11:39 am
said by pandora:Nobody in support of oil, nobody really conservative, nobody really in the oil or even the energy industry. Lobbyists, lawyers, professors, plenty of those. would you prefer an unbiased report from the API or perhaps fox news? |
|
GadgetsRmeRIP lilhurricane and CJ Premium Member join:2002-01-30 Canon City, CO |
said by Fronkman:would you prefer an unbiased report from the API or perhaps fox news? Unbiased reporting or news is extinct. The only way to get at the truth is to check all sides and where they overlap you might, repeat might, find a glimmer of truth. |
|
|
to pandora
said by pandora:First, it cites some politically biased sources. These are listed on page 3. Those are simply acknowledgements. The actual data sources are listed at the end of the report, and the whole thing has copious footnotes throughout with sources listed. Your stopping at page 3 and going no further is not really a surprise here, given the apparent bias against alternate energy sources that your responses in this thread seem to imply. But I wouldn't necessarily expect you to read the whole thing word-for-word anyway (I didn't, even though it's not that heavy); merely to scan it and look at some of the highlights, maybe pay close attention to the charts, and maybe follow up on some of the references cited, if you like. You might also want to look at some of the sources cited in earlier responses here, by myself and others. None of this stuff strikes me as particularly biased; just informative. To reiterate what I was trying to say earlier: I understand the value of subsidies when an industry is struggling and trying to establish a foothold. But the domestic fossil fuel industry has been a benefactor of this for ages now, and (with the possible exception of coal these days) is hardly struggling. In fact it's booming (the US is once again one of the world's largest producers of oil and gas, to the point where we don't need very much foreign-sourced fossil fuel at all any more), and is quite profitable (some might say obscenely so) - meaning that if you want to cut back on any subsidies, then these are the first places you should look to make cuts. |
|
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
to Fronkman
said by Fronkman:said by pandora:Nobody in support of oil, nobody really conservative, nobody really in the oil or even the energy industry. Lobbyists, lawyers, professors, plenty of those. would you prefer an unbiased report from the API or perhaps fox news? No. I'd prefer a report written by people who understand various aspects of business. The report seems written by people concerned that subsidies for solar continue without relent. Lobbyists, lawyers, professors, all of whom want subsidized solar power doesn't bode well for a meaningful report imo. |
|
robbin Mod join:2000-09-21 Leander, TX |
And you can tell all of this by the first three pages. Wow. I've read to page 23 and it seems very balanced to me. |
|
ke4pym Premium Member join:2004-07-24 Charlotte, NC 1 edit |
to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:Please provide documentation on subsidies on coal, oil, and NG. Anyone can make statements but without the documentation to back them they are nothing more than statements.
Pandora is correct. If Solar is viable then it will stand on it's own not relying on someone else paying for it for them. Ask and ye shall receive: » ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf ··· P247.pdfWhile you guys are arguing, maybe you try to get the subsidies for Tesla yanked, too. But honestly, I think we've got bigger things to worry about. Like, why, Duke Energy has a negative tax rate. » www.ncpolicywatch.com/20 ··· -energy/ |
|