"Drill, baby, drill"

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

******Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

No. Next question.

But all of those regulations are telling you what you can and can't do. Didn't you just say you don't want that?

Or are you drawing the line of what the government can restrict where YOU want it to be because of what you believe?

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

[turtlespeed 212]

quade

***You must mean the billions of government dollars spent to help develop fracking technology? Oh wait, no the millions, uh no the thousands, mmmm no, the zero dollars?!?! How can that be? A game changing energy development that has made the US the number one petroleum producer in the world and has unlocked a centuries worth of natural gas all without a dime of government investment?!?!

Emphasis mine.

Come again?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

So what you're saying is, when the government gives BILLIONS of dollars to an industry, it all stays in one particular pocket and is never used for anything like, I dunno, developing fracking technology.

That's like saying nobody on food stamps has ever bought a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20.

It's also like saying planned parenthood uses the money that was given to them from the government for abortion activities.

Wasn't it you that pointed out that all those monies would never cross one border of funding to another?

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

[turtlespeed 212]

GTAVercetti

***Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

Never have? Surely you jest!

Did you used to have to wear a seatbelt?
You do now. Good or bad - that was one way government intruded.

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 383]

GTAVercetti

But all of those regulations are telling you what you can and can't do. Didn't you just say you don't want that?

Or are you drawing the line of what the government can restrict where YOU want it to be because of what you believe?

Yes I arrive at my positions after thoughtful consideration and analysis of the facts.

Obviously you take a different approach.

[DJL 232]

Quote

"Unfortunately, the market has a poor record of deciding what's good for the health of humanity."

And pollution has costs. Making the "high pollution" energy sources pay those costs is only fair. Letting low pollution sources not have to pay those costs is also fair.

Edit to add:

Allowing the high pollution sources to skate on their messes and making the taxpayers clean them up is a subsidy. Not a direct one, but a subsidy nonetheless.

Yeah, don't get me started on the ineffectiveness of fines and green credits. Big companies just laugh, pay, and keep on fucking us over.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

***

But all of those regulations are telling you what you can and can't do. Didn't you just say you don't want that?

Or are you drawing the line of what the government can restrict where YOU want it to be because of what you believe?

Yes I arrive at my positions after thoughtful consideration and analysis of the facts.

Obviously you take a different approach.

I think you are confusing facts with opinions and anecdotes. Please let me know what facts you are basing your position on.

I have repeatedly informed you are the fact that government has always intruded whether that be through regulation or subsidies. It goes to show that they will probably continue this. The history of subsidies is a fact. Not an opinion. The numbers are recorded. Even your baby natural gas received huge tax subsidies.

Certainly, there are outliers; nothing is absolute, but the greater majority of innovations have been supported in some way by government help.

So I have no idea where you can get any facts that prove your idea that less government intervention in innovation (here we are talking about energy) is better. Because you don't have enough examples to back it up.

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

turtlespeed

******Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

Never have? Surely you jest!

Did you used to have to wear a seatbelt?
You do now. Good or bad - that was one way government intruded.

What the hell are you talking about? You think because they didn't in ONE area that negates the idea that they did not influence in other ways? You honestly think that just because seat belts were allowed, that is a sign that government did not have influence in other areas? That they were not providing deals, aid, and influence to help shape the country from inception? That is what I meant by never.

By your measure, we should go back to before we had a government when there was no interference at all. Everything should be allowed because we are not allowed to make new rules based on new data and information.

The last time we had a small government was about 2 days after the US was formed.

You picked up on me saying never. And you are correct. Absolutes are a poor choice. But I would have thought you could have inferred actual intent instead of being pedantic.

I clearly forgot where I was.

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

[turtlespeed 212]

GTAVercetti

*********Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

Never have? Surely you jest!

Did you used to have to wear a seatbelt?
You do now. Good or bad - that was one way government intruded.

What the hell are you talking about? You think because they didn't in ONE area that negates the idea that they did not influence in other ways? You honestly think that just because seat belts were allowed, that is a sign that government did not have influence in other areas? That they were not providing deals, aid, and influence to help shape the country from inception? That is what I meant by never.

By your measure, we should go back to before we had a government when there was no interference at all. Everything should be allowed because we are not allowed to make new rules based on new data and information.

The last time we had a small government was about 2 days after the US was formed.

You picked up on me saying never. And you are correct. Absolutes are a poor choice. But I would have thought you could have inferred actual intent instead of being pedantic.

I clearly forgot where I was.

So you are saying we had oil subsidies on July 6, 1776. Riiiiight.

You might want to check the calandar - it was 1913.

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 383]

Here are my numbers from the US Energy Information Administration
2013
Direct investment in:
natural gas and petroleum- 62 million

Bio-mass- 332 million
Geo-thermal- 312 million
Hydro-197 million
Solar- 2.9 BILLION
Wind- 4.3 BILLION

Balance the $62 million they got against the tens of billions they pay in taxes and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

A classic makers v takers

[GTAVercetti 0]

turtlespeed

So you are saying we had oil subsidies on July 6, 1776. Riiiiight.

You might want to check the calandar - it was 1913.

Yup. You are right. Clearly I meant oil subsidies and not subsidies of any form in my above post. OF COURSE I was referring to oil subsidies.

You know, before oil was being used.

Yup. That is definitely what my intent was. you got me.

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

[SkyDekker 1,121]

brenthutch

Here are my numbers from the US Energy Information Administration
2013
Direct investment in:
natural gas and petroleum- 62 million

Bio-mass- 332 million
Geo-thermal- 312 million
Hydro-197 million
Solar- 2.9 BILLION
Wind- 4.3 BILLION

Balance the $62 million they got against the tens of billions they pay in taxes and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

A classic makers v takers

And you don't think you are being a little disingenuous by only using direct-investment in this factual scenario?

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Here are my numbers from the US Energy Information Administration
2013
Direct investment in:
natural gas and petroleum- 62 million

Bio-mass- 332 million
Geo-thermal- 312 million
Hydro-197 million
Solar- 2.9 BILLION
Wind- 4.3 BILLION

Balance the $62 million they got against the tens of billions they pay in taxes and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

A classic makers v takers

You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.

Could these alternatives also be getting more because they are much newer and less established and therefore require more support to get rolling?

No, that could not be it. Silly of me.

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

[turtlespeed 212]

GTAVercetti

***Here are my numbers from the US Energy Information Administration
2013
Direct investment in:
natural gas and petroleum- 62 million

Bio-mass- 332 million
Geo-thermal- 312 million
Hydro-197 million
Solar- 2.9 BILLION
Wind- 4.3 BILLION

Balance the $62 million they got against the tens of billions they pay in taxes and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

A classic makers v takers

You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.

Could these alternatives also be getting more because they are much newer and less established and therefore require more support to get rolling?

No, that could not be it. Silly of me.

The government refers to whatever is left on your paycheck that you put in the bank on Friday as "Uncollected taxes" too - so . . . I'm not really interested in what the government CONSIDERS much of anything.

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

[GTAVercetti 0]

turtlespeed

The government refers to whatever is left on your paycheck that you put in the bank on Friday as "Uncollected taxes" too - so . . . I'm not really interested in what the government CONSIDERS much of anything.

Oh? Is that in an official document somewhere?

otherwise....I am not really interested in your opinions on what are facts.

The government calls tax breaks subsidies. Therefore, they are subsidies according to the definition. You may not like, but there it is.

You can call a fish a mongoose for all I care. It is still a fish by definition.

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

[brenthutch 383]

It is an apples to apples comparison.

[brenthutch 383]

GTAVercetti

***Here are my numbers from the US Energy Information Administration
2013
Direct investment in:
natural gas and petroleum- 62 million

Bio-mass- 332 million
Geo-thermal- 312 million
Hydro-197 million
Solar- 2.9 BILLION
Wind- 4.3 BILLION

Balance the $62 million they got against the tens of billions they pay in taxes and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

A classic makers v takers

You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.

.

Renewables- 13.23 billion in total subsidies and support. And they need this support because they don't work. I realize that many progressives consider failure a virtue, I do not.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

brenthutch

It is an apples to apples comparison.

I didn't say it wasn't. I asked if you didn't think it was a little bit disingenuous to define the "apple" that way?

[brenthutch 383]

SkyDekker

***It is an apples to apples comparison.

I didn't say it wasn't. I asked if you didn't think it was a little bit disingenuous to define the "apple" that way?

Comparing tax expenditures of two entities, one of which pays billions in taxes a one which pays very little, is disingenuous. That said, the "all in" numbers tell the same story.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.



Renewables- 13.23 billion in total subsidies and support. And they need this support because they don't work. I realize that many progressives consider failure a virtue, I do not.

I see.

So, the problem is that you don't understand what research and development is. Or the timelines that development can take on new things.

I should have guess that when you said that if oil reached an untenable price, we would just switch right over to alternatives. Like magic. POOF! All the infrastructure to support cheap alternative sources would just be there.

By your definition, you seem to think we should always go from concept to finished product in about 5 seconds.

How long did it take to get from ENIAC to the tiny personal computer of today? Hint, it was not 5 seconds. Or 5 years. Or 50 years.

I won't even bother to get into the fact that it is people who agree with you that prevent alternatives from taking hold. We got oil right now, so why bother?

I get it. You like the status quo.

It is too bad that since the dawn of time, the status quo of the world has always changed. Constantly. So much so that status quo really loses all meaning.

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

[SkyDekker 1,121]

brenthutch

******It is an apples to apples comparison.

I didn't say it wasn't. I asked if you didn't think it was a little bit disingenuous to define the "apple" that way?

Comparing tax expenditures of two entities, one of which pays billions in taxes a one which pays very little, is disingenuous. That said, the "all in" numbers tell the same story.

You don't think the billions otherwise payable in taxes if it wasn't for tax breaks and tax deferrals should be part of this argument?

[brenthutch 383]

GTAVercetti

***You keep using this "pay in, get back personally" idea. Again, that is not how taxes work.

And you refer to direct investment alone. Why?

The government considers tax expenditures as subsidies. Why do you not? Never mind. I know the answer. In any case, petroleum and natural gas alone received 2.34 billion in subsidies in 2013 for TOTAL subsidies and support.



Renewables- 13.23 billion in total subsidies and support. And they need this support because they don't work. I realize that many progressives consider failure a virtue, I do not.

I see.

So, the problem is that you don't understand what research and development is. Or the timelines that development can take on new things.

I should have guess that when you said that if oil reached an untenable price, we would just switch right over to alternatives. Like magic. POOF! All the infrastructure to support cheap alternative sources would just be there.

By your definition, you seem to think we should always go from concept to finished product in about 5 seconds.

How long did it take to get from ENIAC to the tiny personal computer of today? Hint, it was not 5 seconds. Or 5 years. Or 50 years.

I won't even bother to get into the fact that it is people who agree with you that prevent alternatives from taking hold. We got oil right now, so why bother?

I get it. You like the status quo.

It is too bad that since the dawn of time, the status quo of the world has always changed. Constantly. So much so that status quo really loses all meaning.

A few points:
R&D spending is less than 10% of the total so >90% is NOT going to R&D ( that's math)
Solar power predates petroleum by decades
Wind power predates petroleum by centuries
(And we didn't switch from wind power to coal power because we ran out of wind and ships and trains did no switch from coal to oil because we ran out of coal. It's called economics, learn about it)
To use your analogy, one can spend billions of dollars trying to change a platypus into a fish, and given the state of genetic engineering, you might be able to in fifty years. But don't you think there are better ways to spend our limited resources.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

A few points:
R&D spending is less than 10% of the total so >90% is NOT going to R&D ( that's math)
Solar power predates petroleum by decades
Wind power predates petroleum by centuries
(And we didn't switch from wind power to coal power because we ran out of wind and ships and trains did no switch from coal to oil because we ran out of coal. It's called economics, learn about it)
To use your analogy, one can spend billions of dollars trying to change a platypus into a fish, and given the state of genetic engineering, you might be able to in fifty years. But don't you think there are better ways to spend our limited resources.

You think we switch from wind to coal simply because of economics? Certainly is was cheaper to just burn coal. 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?

Tax expenditure subsidies do not just happen because you are paying taxes. They are predicated on HOW you incurred the tax:

Quote

"Tax expenditures. These are largely provisions found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC, or Tax Code)—Title 26 of the United States Code—that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy production, distribution, transmission, consumption, or conservation. "

Yeah, that last bit? That would cover monies going towards R&D, improvements in process, infrastructure, etc. Not all subsidies for such things come directly from a grant.

Again, You don't have a realistic view of reality. 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.

Not all

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

[brenthutch 383]

"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

[turtlespeed 212]

brenthutch

"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"

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 383]

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