'ABC forgets' documentary which ‘absolutely skewers the renewable energy industry’

I don't see your concession that your claim in #21 was wrong. I suggest you start with that.
CA's edict is unsustainable grandstanding.

 

Once again, you make statements with no actual defense attached.

And, I stand behind what I said. A comment in a single post on a board with almost no explanation just isn't a basis for your argument. This is a country of 325 million people. You need to find an arguent that is statistically interesting.

 

You're the one who made the categorical claim in #21:
"NOBODY is saying that we won't be using fossil fuel in 100 years and nobody is suggeting that all our vehicles are going to be electric, either."
"a single post on a board" refutes "NOBODY" (your caps). Game. Set. Match.

 

Yeah, I guess reality was too much for him.

 

err.... From a10 second Wikipedia search;

'A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[52] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2016.'

'The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $158 billion in federal subsidies, or 16% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 8% of the total and less than half of the total applied to renewables, while hydro power received $105 billion in federal subsidies, 10% of the total.'

And;

'The value of industry-specific (oil, gas, and coal) subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be $6.25 billion - about 60% of the amount calculated by the Environmental Law Institute.[54] The balance of federal subsidies, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.)

You were saying?

 

A ten second search gets you a result worth about ten seconds of consideration.

 

Hey, its not my fault the information was so easy to find, its right there at anyone's fingertips - assuming they honestly want to look for them. And if you dispute those facts fine, all you have to do is prove they're wrong. Go right to the original source. Also easy to do.

It also not my fault BTW if those facts disprove any particular preconceived opinions you might have on the subject in question. They just are.

 

--and the "subsidies" were of what form? Were they so called "tax breaks" where there was some part of the companies that weren't confiscated by the governmental agencies? This is a problem w/ the misinformation of Wikipedia vs. getting energy info from the federal government Department of energy.

Look guy, I have no doubt that you're able to construct an elaborate logic structure to back up the idea that somehow solar power can provide all the night time electricity we could possibly want, but it doesn't matter. Current energy use is what's reported by the DOE.gov. It's 60% "fossil" fuels plus 20% nukes. The remaining "renewables" use up the sun which is irreplaceable.

There are things we can observe together & we can have divergent opinions on what we can't verify.

 

The video is factual. Unlike your prognostication.

But honestly who cares? The rest of the world will be producing more carbon emissions while we sacrifice to feel better.

Climate change is a white guilt fraud. Cut some more trees, kill some more birds and call it green.

 

I'm not interested in making an 'elaborate logic structure' about anything. You made the claim, all I did was reference information/facts proving your claim was incorrect. You sated 'renewable" sources are heavily subsidized and the rest our heavily taxed.' I simply found evidence contradicting you.

You have questions or don't think the figures I quoted aren't correct fine, by all means prove me wrong and do your own research. Start with the Wiki sources I referred to and work backwards to the route sources, or go elsewhere. Your choice. I wasn't put on this Earth to do your research for you.

Also I have no idea what you mean by ' The remaining "renewables" use up the sun which is irreplaceable.' I honesty have no idea what you mean and would like to know.

 

In the first place I made no claim, it was skepticalmike who came up w/ his ridiculous rant about "2040 all vehicles in the U.S. and Western Europe will be electric." I said no & used doe.gov info and then tossed in my opinions at the end. Then u came at me w/ ur precious wikipedia --OK, you can cherish your fondly held beliefs about wikipedia being "factual". That's your opinion & ur welcome to it & u can support it w/ endless rationalizations all day long.

Meanwhile in the real world we still get 80% of our electrical power from non-renewables and if you want to think we're doing that w/o subsidizing the renewables then I'm not sure how we can find common ground. So enjoy & cheers.

 

Tax incentives =/= subsidies. Your "facts" are unfounded from the start.

 

Excuse me but did you or did you not state that 'renewable" sources are heavily subsidized and the rest our heavily taxed.' That's the point (the only point) in your post I commented on. I've said nothing about the claim that by 2040 all vehicles will be electric. That may happen, it may not (for a start that prediction depends on what you include in your definition of 'vehicles' e.g. ships and planes are also 'vehicles').

As for Wikipedia? at heart its just its an information aggregator, as such (1) Source documents are referenced in each article and (2) false information may be added from time to time but it is also has a fairly rigorous editing and review program run more or less continuously by a team of volunteers with the express aim of removing any false claims as and when they appear. As such its just a convenient first starting point for anyone seeking information on a particular topic. I wouldn't use it for academic purposes but for a quick fact check? - its useful, nothing more. sources of the information in the wikipedia post are listed.

So, in this case you think the claims and figures are wrong there's a simple solution - prove it. If you think the Management Information Services report is wrong you can look up their source documents as linked to the original report, if you think the Congressional Budget office is wrong go to their source documents. Go to any reputable source - the OECD for example also has figures on global energy market subsidies. Point is the figures make it clear that for decades non-renewables received generous subsidies from the US Government.

And I'm not not disputing your claim that renewables aren't subsidized I'm questioning how renewables are different from all the other parts of the energy sector. They ALL got and get subsidies for the government. All that's changed now is the mix. So if its OK for coal and oil to etc get generous subsidies it must be OK for renewables to get them too. Correct?

P.S. I will note Wikipedia has requested that the section on the US needs to be updated because the total numbers listed there are getting dated (pre 2017). But that doesn't change the point. Its clear all sectors of the energy market have received considerable subsidies over time from multiple US Administrations and still do. In recent years all that has happened is that those subsidies have started to swing over to the renewable sector and away from carbon power.

 

Check the figures, historically all sectors have got both and tax incentives. Apart from that though incentives subsidies are identical - they both cost other US taxpayers revenue.

Do you really think you personally are better off dollar wise if Industry X gets a 1 billion dollar tax incentive vs a 1 billion dollar government subsidy? All that changes is the source, the first is less money going into the US Treasury via taxes, the latter is more money being paid out by Treasury. If you really still think the net effect is somehow different I suggest not pursuing a career in accounting.

 

This is just nonsense.

Our government gives financial benefits to big oil in a number of ways. And, THEY are a long established industry - not a emerging new energy sector.

 

Except that the incentives applicable to the fossil fuel industry are not exclusive to them, whereas subsidies to renewables are specifically targeted.

 

Sorry, but you're just repeating a common misunderstanding.
The incentives applicable to the fossil fuel industry are not exclusive to them, whereas subsidies to renewables are specifically targeted.

 

The silliness of claims about subsidies to oil companies:
Potholes In Their Arguments
2015 › 05 › 29 › potholes-in-their-arguments
considered as a SUBSIDY TO EXXON AND SHELL! Fixing potholes as a subsidy to the energy companies! Have you ... going to count fixing potholes as a subsidy to the oil companies, then $5.3 trillion dollars is nothing

 

This is absolutely false.

There are benefits related to operating wells, drilling wells, the transfer fees, the reductions in taxes as wells are claimed to be nearing and end, and all sorts of other programs were carefully designed to benefit fossil fuel extraction corporations. Also, the political pressure related to land use for mining and extraction, etc., apply to fossil fuel in ways that have nothing to do with other land use.

 

Nope.
The Economist, fossil fuel subsidies and ‘climate disaster’
2016 › 10 › 08 › the-economist-fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-climate-disaster
2013. So The Economist mixed up total energy subsidies in 2010 with fossil fuel subsidies and got the ... fuel subsidy. It is specifically for the coal industry. It is the same as wind or solar subsidies, just

". . . There are very few, if any, fossil fuel specific subsidies in the United States. The most recent and well researched study of energy subsidies in the US is by the EIA, it was completed in 2015. According to this EIA report total federal energy subsides for energy in the US declined from $38B in 2010 to $29B in 2013. So The Economist mixed up total energy subsidies in 2010 with fossil fuel subsidies and got the date wrong. Of the $29B, the EIA claims 12% went to fossil fuels and 68% went to renewables, including hydropower, nuclear, solar and wind. The remaining 21% went to energy assistance for low income families, mainly through the LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance) program. It is interesting that the EIA has computed that fossil fuels produced 84% of the energy consumed in the world in 2012. They forecast that in 2040, fossil fuels will still produce 78% of the world’s energy. In 2012, excluding nuclear, renewables (including biofuels which are mostly wood and dung) produced 12% of the world’s energy. Table 1 summarizes the subsidies discussed in the EIA report. . . . "

 

It's disgusting to see a poster on this site pick cuts from a blog under the guise of being from The Economist.

 

Historically all sectors of the energy market - coal, oil, gas, nuclear etc were the beneficiaries of targeted tax incentives. Crunching the exact figures would be difficult/time consuming but the fact remains they did. The only change is that the incentives have shifted away from those sectors towards renewables which are newcomers to the game. (Point being its exactly the same game, it just has a new team in the league.) And if the other sectors were incentivized why is it wrong for renewables to be?

 

It's disgusting to see a poster run from debate under a smokescreen of uninformed prejudice.

 

I have not posted anything about renewables except that they, uniquely, benefit from specific targeted incentives.

 

That mirrors your approach to science - wild assumptions with zero evidence.