"Drill, baby, drill"

[turtlespeed 212]

brenthutch

Just what is " energy innovation conception". When was it conceived? Is it still gestating?

It doesn't matter. Conception does not signify life. It is not viable out of the womb, so let's abort it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 388]

turtlespeed

***Just what is " energy innovation conception". When was it conceived? Is it still gestating?

It doesn't matter. Conception does not signify life. It is not viable out of the womb, so let's abort it.

It is certainly not viable outside the government womb.

[GTAVercetti 0]

turtlespeed

***"But you don't think it might also have been because we found burning something for heat easier than trying to harness the current tech to store wind power? "

Easier=cheaper=More economical

"I can't keep repeating myself with facts about how subsidies have been used since energy innovation conception in America when you have a fundamentally different view of those facts."

I don't even know what that means

It means - he is saying stuff that RushMC says all the time.

You don't understand it, so you are wrong.

Rush just doesn't utilize his vocabulary of larger words when he does it.

Solo - what he is saying is "whoosh"

Wrong again, turtle. Wrong again. but that is par for course for you isn't it?

I have been repeating facts over and over. Rush spouts opinion, usually one time.

Subsidies have always been used in energy innovation = fact. From its inception oil gained government assistance.

Subsidies were used to find better ways to frack = fact. Natural gas companies got money to explore ways to frack better as well as access to land and tax benefits for doing so.

Subsidies will continue to be used to make strides in energy = opinion predicated on past fact.

It is only the alternative subsidies that seem to be his problem with this.

I am just tired of saying it and having it ignored. I am not saying it is going over his head. I am saying he is being willfully obtuse about it. I think he understand it quite well.

Feel free to peruse this article from the super-biased Chemical & Enginering News: http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

Here are some little tidbits for you:

Quote

Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy, and their research supports the view that over the years new transitional energy sources have spurred U.S. economic growth and innovation. But their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.

or

Quote

... trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789, when leaders of the new nation slapped a tariff on the sale of British coal slipped into U.S. ports as ship ballast.

But I am sure we can gloss over all that.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Just what is " energy innovation conception". When was it conceived? Is it still gestating?

Yup. conception is definitely does not mean beginning in that sentence. The context in no way infers that definition.

Ya got me.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

The BIGGEST builder of commercial wind turbines in the USA stated late last year that if not for the government subs, not a single turbine would be built!

Buffet.

Why? Because they are not viable.

Period.



FACT
For every meg of wind generation you have, you are required to have a meg of some other form of generation to back it up. Here in IA there are on line less than 40% of the time. (NOTE: battery tech is advancing very fast and could change this)

Wind generation is not cheap or free. It is more expensive than coal or gas.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

GTAVercetti

******"But you don't think it might also have been because we found burning something for heat easier than trying to harness the current tech to store wind power? "

Easier=cheaper=More economical

"I can't keep repeating myself with facts about how subsidies have been used since energy innovation conception in America when you have a fundamentally different view of those facts."

I don't even know what that means

It means - he is saying stuff that RushMC says all the time.

You don't understand it, so you are wrong.

Rush just doesn't utilize his vocabulary of larger words when he does it.

Solo - what he is saying is "whoosh"

Wrong again, turtle. Wrong again. but that is par for course for you isn't it?

I have been repeating facts over and over. Rush spouts opinion, usually one time.

Subsidies have always been used in energy innovation = fact. From its inception oil gained government assistance.

>>>The problem is that your facts are wrong. 53 years wrong in this case
>>>Oil discovered - 1859
>>>Oil Subsidised - 1913

Quote

... trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789, when leaders of the new nation slapped a tariff on the sale of British coal slipped into U.S. ports as ship ballast.

But I am sure we can gloss over all that.

>>>Tarrifs are taxes - Nothing in that statement proves that the taxes collected were
>>>returned directly to the US coal industry.
>>>That was the author's opinion.
>>>It seems that it was more about taxing the British than subsidizing coal.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,661]

Coal problems. Looks like more hidden costs to be borne by taxpayers.

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/can-coal-companies-afford-to-clean-up-coal-country/2016/04/01/c175570c-ec73-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 1,944]

You didn't think Mr. Peabody would pay did you?


More subsidy demands are happening in western Canada as well.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/oilfield-services-group-asks-ottawa-to-fund-500-million-oil-and-gas-well-cleanup

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

Coal problems. Looks like more hidden costs to be borne by taxpayers.

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/can-coal-companies-afford-to-clean-up-coal-country/2016/04/01/c175570c-ec73-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Yep, the war on coal creates predictable casualties. They aim at "Big Coal" and hit consumers and taxpayers. Who would have thought?

[gowlerk 1,944]

brenthutch

***
Coal problems. Looks like more hidden costs to be borne by taxpayers.

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/can-coal-companies-afford-to-clean-up-coal-country/2016/04/01/c175570c-ec73-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Yep, the war on coal creates predictable casualties. They aim at "Big Coal" and hit consumers and taxpayers. Who would have thought?

Yea, if only we would keep on mining and burning all the coal we could. That would make all the damage to health and environment just magically go away. And all the damaged and polluted sites would be cleaned up by the coal companies.

The time to limit the damage was a couple decades ago, but now will have to do instead. The time of coal is over. And good riddance.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,661]

brenthutch

***
Coal problems. Looks like more hidden costs to be borne by taxpayers.

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/can-coal-companies-afford-to-clean-up-coal-country/2016/04/01/c175570c-ec73-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Yep, the war on coal creates predictable casualties. They aim at "Big Coal" and hit consumers and taxpayers. Who would have thought?

So you didn't read the article, did you? Coal's problems are due to cheap natural gas. No doubt at some point in the future the taxpayer will get stuck with the tab for cleaning up the mess due to fracking.

"Who pays? Benchley pays"; Robert Benchley, taxpayer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

gowlerk

******
Coal problems. Looks like more hidden costs to be borne by taxpayers.

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/can-coal-companies-afford-to-clean-up-coal-country/2016/04/01/c175570c-ec73-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html

Yep, the war on coal creates predictable casualties. They aim at "Big Coal" and hit consumers and taxpayers. Who would have thought?

Yea, if only we would keep on mining and burning all the coal we could. That would make all the damage to health and environment just magically go away. And all the damaged and polluted sites would be cleaned up by the coal companies.

The time to limit the damage was a couple decades ago, but now will have to do instead. The time of coal is over. And good riddance.

And good luck powering industry with rainbow dust and unicorn farts.

[normiss 635]

Thankfully there are other, non-magical methods of generating power.

[gowlerk 1,944]

Quote

And good luck powering industry with rainbow dust and unicorn farts.

You are correct. We will burn coal if we need to. But we don't need to.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

Thanks to fracking

[turtlespeed 212]

brenthutch

Thanks to fracking

You can't use logic. It simply doesn't matter to them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gowlerk 1,944]

turtlespeed

***Thanks to fracking

You can't use logic. It simply doesn't matter to them.

Yes, I agree. Thanks to fracking is correct. One day that source will be obsolesced as well. The Sun provides more than enough energy to meed our needs every day. Eventually we will develop means to store and harness it so we no longer need to rely on digging up geologically stored reserves. It all comes from the same source.

Of course when we do, alarmist deadenders will complain that their world is changing. And whine that if things don't stay the same forever it will be the end of us all. Some things never change.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[turtlespeed 212]

gowlerk

Of course when we do, alarmist deadenders will complain that their world is changing. And whine that if things don't stay the same forever it will be the end of us all. Some things never change.

Sounds a LOT like what the AGW and Climate Change people do.

Change is good, well, unless it's the climate.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 388]

gowlerk

******Thanks to fracking

You can't use logic. It simply doesn't matter to them.

Yes, I agree. Thanks to fracking is correct. One day that source will be obsolesced as well. The Sun provides more than enough energy to meed our needs every day. Eventually we will develop means to store and harness it so we no longer need to rely on digging up geologically stored reserves.

Agreed! So can we now stop wasting resources on wind and solar until that time comes sometime in the next century? It might even work by then.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

brenthutch

*********Thanks to fracking

You can't use logic. It simply doesn't matter to them.

Yes, I agree. Thanks to fracking is correct. One day that source will be obsolesced as well. The Sun provides more than enough energy to meed our needs every day. Eventually we will develop means to store and harness it so we no longer need to rely on digging up geologically stored reserves.

Agreed! So can we now stop wasting resources on wind and solar until that time comes sometime in the next century? It might even work by then.

Generally you want to try and get the new resource lined up before the old one ends. Since it is impossible to get an exact date when it ends, you would want to start developing new resource possibilities now

[brenthutch 388]

If said resorce takes >100 years and hundreds of billions of dollars to get up to speed it can't be that good now can it?

[brenthutch 388]

How many billions of dollars did the Department of Energy spend to ease the transition from wood to coal, or from coal to oil?

[kallend 1,661]

brenthutch

Thanks to fracking

And when the profits from that dwindle, who will pick up the tab for cleaning up the mess? The taxpayer, that's who. Just like taxpayers are picking up the tab for coal mining, Superfund sites, etc. when the companies that ran them file for bankruptcy.

serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html

environment.yale.edu/envy/stories/fracking-outpaces-science-on-its-impact

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

brenthutch

How many billions of dollars did the Department of Energy spend to ease the transition from wood to coal, or from coal to oil?

Not sure what business you work in, but where I work "that's not how we used to do it" is not a valid objection.

[normiss 635]

We're still spending a ton of money to build internet access in rural areas.
I can't find any mainframes to work on these days though.
Stoopid gooberment put us out of business.