myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Immigration and children
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32 ... 34, 35, 36  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10658
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got every detail on energy subsidies wrong, village idiot. But you can't think so you write names to call people. Idiot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4843
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have a dog in your current debate mac, but you just posted a post describing your own post. You said nothing but name called, it's as if you were talking to yourself.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 4207

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
I don't have a dog in your current debate mac, but you just posted a post describing your own post. You said nothing but name called, it's as if you were talking to yourself.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing



Mac's now blaming breast feeding on Trump Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Critical nitwit!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10658
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
nw30 wrote:
I don't have a dog in your current debate mac, but you just posted a post describing your own post. You said nothing but name called, it's as if you were talking to yourself.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing



Mac's now blaming breast feeding on Trump Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Critical nitwit!!!


This is called an inability to read as well as think. The Trump administration threatened countries with trade bans if they passed a resolution in favor of breast feeding. To help his buddies in the baby formula business.

NW and Matty keep trying to divert from the fact that the solar program generated net money as well as better technology, while the Trumpies try to pick carbon fuels from the ash-heap of history's losers at massive subsidies.

Fiscal responsibility? It might require some fiscal knowledge. Like the ability to count and read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3053

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac said:
Quote:
NW and Matty keep trying to divert from the fact that the solar program generated net money as well as better technology, while the Trumpies try to pick carbon fuels from the ash-heap of history's losers at massive subsidies.

Fiscal responsibility? It might require some fiscal knowledge. Like the ability to count and read.


"the solar program generated net money" - FOR WHOM?

Quote:
Why Do Federal Subsidies Make Renewable Energy So Costly?

James Conca
Contributor
i
May 30, 2017, 06:00am 26,694 views #ChangeTheWorld

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

Subsidies then decreased dramatically from 2013 to 2016, because:
• tax incentives expired for biofuels,
• the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were used up,
• energy assistance funds decreased,
• there was a 15% decrease in fossil fuel subsidies from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and
• a 12% decrease in nuclear subsidies from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

But the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are indirect subsidies like decommissioning and insurance assistance, leasing of federal lands, and other externalities, unlike the subsidies for renewables which are directly for the production of electricity and directly affect cost and pricing.

Within the renewables, electricity-related subsidies increased more than 50% for wind and solar, whereas conservation, end-use, and biofuel subsidies deceased more than 50%. This is unfortunate since conservation and efficiency usually yield great results with little cost or infrastructure requirements.

The Institute for Energy Research and the University of Texas calculated the subsidies per unit of energy produced, or cents per kWh. This is a more relevant number for comparing different energy sources as it normalizes to the amount of energy produced (see figure above).

Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all years.

Much of the subsidies in 2010 and 2013 resulted from ARRA stimulus funding following the economic crash of 2008 and the end of ARRA is why the 2016 and 2019 numbers are so much lower.

Solar also gets the most state-funded subsidies, some of which greatly exceed the federal subsidies. In my own State of Washington, where electricity prices are 8¢/kWh, the State pays me 54¢ for every kWh generated by my rooftop solar array, whether I use it or not. This has made my total electricity costs -7¢/kWh over the past two years, and will for the foreseeable future.

Yes, that’s negative (-)7¢ per kWh. And this is on top of my 30% installation federal tax credit which came to about $6,000 for my 4 kW array.
There is no doubt that these subsidies incentivize renewables, but what do they do to the cost of the electricity generated by them?

They actually increase the cost. However, this cost is transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and so goes unnoticed by most Americans.
Using the per-kWh subsidy numbers from EIA and UT in the figure above, each kWh of solar produced in 2010 received 88¢, more than ten times the actual cost of any other energy source. These subsidies have to be added to the retail cost of that energy to determine total costs since that’s what was actually spent to produce it.


So in 2010 and 2011, solar cost about 100¢ per kWh, and in 2013 and 2014, solar cost about 80¢ per kWh. Even after the ARRA funds were depleted after 2013, the cost of solar is still double what is usually given as its cost.

For comparison, nuclear energy cost between 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce over this time period. Remember, though, the cost to produce energy is not the same as the price charged for it. Price is set by the region and the market, and has add-ons for transmission, grid maintenance and other non-production costs. Subsidies decrease the price while increasing the cost.
Although wind received more total subsidies, wind received much less subsidies per kWh produced than solar as it produced much more energy.

However, it is nonetheless significant for 2010 and 2013 and about 50 times that of nuclear and fossil fuels, allowing wholesale prices for wind and solar to become negative, unfairly undercutting nuclear, hydro and coal prices.

These subsidies for wind and solar will likely continue under the Trump Administration. Red States receive more of these subsidies than Blue States, so Congress is unlikely to kill them. In fact, in 2015 Congress extended the renewable tax credits to 2021.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#2a343b9c128c
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10658
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, at first I found this interesting. Then I found this:

https://nuclear-news.net/2014/07/05/the-lies-and-distortions-of-james-conca-and-his-science-media-centre-advisors-concerning-the-health-of-the-children-of-fukushima/

It is an interesting start to much more complicated conversation. First, the intent of subsidies is to stimulate technology. The test of subsidizing renewables, particularly solar, is to develop the technology. This indicates that effort has been successful.


https://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12620920/us-solar-power-costs-falling

Solar and nuclear have one characteristic in common--once the generating facility is built, the generating cost is almost trivial. But the thing that makes me suspicious that Conca is cooking the numbers is his connection to the nuclear industry and his apparently selective use of subsidy metrics. I'll cut to the chase. While the generating cost and (after construction) carbon signature of nuclear generation are wonderful, the true cost is hidden by the largest subsidy in energy. The Federal government, in the US and in many nuclear states, absorb the liability cost. This was pointed out to me by the former head of the Public Utility Commission in California, who oversaw the hearings on the Diablo Canyon Generating station about how much rate payers should pay. For Fukushima, that is now estimated to be about $200 billion.

My dad worked in the nuclear industry most of his life. I admire his efforts, but the sad fact is that the subsidies that were intended to develop the technology have continued the entire life of the industry. Nuclear power is plagued by cost issues that are complicated, but have led to its near abandonment in this country. Even with massive subsidies on the liability side, and uncertain costs on de-commissioning and waste disposal, nuclear cannot compete with natural gas. Coal cannot compete either--but Trump will make rate-payers pay for keeping it on life support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10658
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More on Techno's not-so-credible source.

https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/science-media-centre/

Quote:
The Science Media Centre (SMC) is a nonprofit PR agency started in the UK that gets its largest block of funding from industry groups. Current and past funders include Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto, Coca-Cola and food and chemical industry trade groups, as well as media groups, government agencies, foundations and universities. The SMC model is spreading around the world and has been influential in shaping media coverage of science, sometimes in ways that downplay the risks of controversial products or technologies.

This fact sheet describes SMC history, philosophy, funding model, tactics and reports from critics who have said SMC offers pro-industry science views, a charge SMC denies.

Related:

“Reuters vs. UN Cancer Agency” Analysis of Kate Kelland’s biased coverage of IARC, glyphosate and cancer concerns, and Kelland’s close ties to the Science Media Centre.
This Monsanto document describes Sense About Science (the sister organization of Science Media Centre) as a “Tier 2” ally in Monsanto’s PR plan to “orchestrate outcry” about IARC’s cancer designation of glyphosate.
Spinning Science for Industry: Fact sheet about Trevor Butterworth and Sense About Science.
Key facts
The SMC was set up in the UK in 2002 “after media frenzies over MMR, GM crops and animal research” to help the news media better represent mainstream science, according to the SMC fact sheet.

According to the group’s 2002 founding report, SMC was created to address:

a growing “crisis of confidence ” in society’s views of science in the wake of media controversies over mad cow disease, GMOs and the MMR vaccine;
a collapse of respect for authority and expertise;
a risk-averse society and alarmist media coverage; and
the “apparently superior media strategies” used by environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to get their case across.


The Big tobacco model.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3053

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
"the solar program generated net money"


As usual, you try to discredit the source and jump on a parallel band wagon and ignore the point. All you have to do is explain or support your claim that: the solar program generated net money.

A guy in my neighborhood just put up some solar panels on his home and had to get approval from the HOA (I am on the Architectural Review Committee - he received approval). With the subsidies (tax dollars) he will likely break even in 8 years with his utility savings and sell back to the utility company. Without the subsidies, he would likely have to replace the panels by the time he broke even.

It's been about 8 years since I retired and my school looked into solar, but we nixed the plan since the payback would have been 20 yrs. and the life of the panels was the same.

Like I said: NET MONEY FOR WHOM?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10658
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I gave you the source. Check it out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4843
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess mac's thread, this thread "Immigration and Children", which is mistitled, should be Illegal immigration and children, just isn't bearing the fruit he was hoping for, so now it's on to energy...……

I can play loose association using children and energy.
The kids that were rescued from that cave in Thailand, were all given anti-anxiety medication before their exit so they wouldn't panic in the middle of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32 ... 34, 35, 36  Next
Page 31 of 36

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group