3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I am for high density energy production, which has a smaller footprint than wind and large scale solar and their accompanying distribution web which occupy massive swaths of land.

But you already said you were for renewables as long as their tax revenue outpaced their tax breaks.  Changing tunes again now that I showed you that we're already there?  That's said without even pinning you down about what you mean by "footprint".  I'm guess you mean the physical space taken up by the power generating system and means of production.  If so that's a terribly arbitrary way of picking a winner why you area area displaced by dams, mountaintop removal mining, coal and oil mining and transportation infrastructure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And all that land can still be used for farming, cattle, reservoirs - or just left to nature.  Not so true of coal mines, ash slurry ponds or coalyards.

Big push for underground utilities in some areas...pretty much the areas seeing the increase in storms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

NIMBY

Hi Brent,

I worked in the high voltage power transmission business for 30 yrs; and I do not claim to be an expert on it.

However, I did learn that I would welcome a transmission line tower in my backyard.  A whole LOT of money to be made by welcoming those line towers.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  A local steel fabrication shop owner ( who I knew personally ) really disliked the site of cell phone towers.  But, when they made him a deal he could not refuse, he had one put on his property.  Money can be very persuasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

...PS)  A local steel fabrication shop owner ( who I knew personally ) really disliked the site of cell phone towers.  But, when they made him a deal he could not refuse, he had one put on his property.  Money can be very persuasive.

The locations for cell towers aren't very 'adjustable'. They need to put them where they need to put them.

"Friend of a friend" kind of thing, a guy absolutely refused to have a tower put on his property. No amount of money could get him to agree. 
So the tower went up next door. About 150' from the property line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

When/where did you show that?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/25/uk-solar-power-pioneer-solarcentury-profit-grows-860-in-a-year

And  ""

   On 7/15/2019 at 9:01 AM, brenthutch said:

I’m glad you said “until the scales are evened out”.  I can assure you, as soon as renewables contribute more in taxes than they receive in subsidies I will end my jihad on things green.

As it stands with the "renewable sector" being a $200bn revenue US industry and a failure rate on govt loans being just 2.7% (about half of the private sector) and those subsidies being primarily in the form of tax breaks which are expiring with almost no opposition you simply can't ask for a better outcome in how the US is addressing the roll of the energy sector in climate change.  The "but subsidies" argument simply doesn't hold water and besides, tax breaks are what conservatives almost categorically use as a tool to give an industry and the economy a bump.""

Most renewable tax credits expire in 2022.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DJL said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/25/uk-solar-power-pioneer-solarcentury-profit-grows-860-in-a-year

And  ""

   On 7/15/2019 at 9:01 AM, brenthutch said:

I’m glad you said “until the scales are evened out”.  I can assure you, as soon as renewables contribute more in taxes than they receive in subsidies I will end my jihad on things green.

As it stands with the "renewable sector" being a $200bn revenue US industry and a failure rate on govt loans being just 2.7% (about half of the private sector) and those subsidies being primarily in the form of tax breaks which are expiring with almost no opposition you simply can't ask for a better outcome in how the US is addressing the roll of the energy sector in climate change.  The "but subsidies" argument simply doesn't hold water and besides, tax breaks are what conservatives almost categorically use as a tool to give an industry and the economy a bump.""

Most renewable tax credits expire in 2022.  

 

Either you are being purposely obtuse or you just don’t get it.

Let’s take this one step at a time.

Please compare the amount of tax revenue received by federal and state governments from fossil fuels to the tax revenue provided by renewables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Please compare the amount of tax revenue received by federal and state governments from fossil fuels to the tax revenue provided by renewables.

Oh boy.....  Didn't you say you wanted the tax revenue to outweigh the tax subsidy?  Now you're talking about comparing it to the tax revenue created by other sectors.  Renewables account for only about 20% of power usage when you include petroleum.  If that's the issue then where's your outrage on the fact that ZERO excise taxes are collected on coal mined for export yet they receive tax subsidies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
31 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Please compare the amount of tax revenue received by federal and state governments from fossil fuels to the tax revenue provided by renewables.

So....Income tax on the 800,000 people employed in the renewable sector.  Let's put that at $35k/year at a 12.5% bracket and that's $3.36bn.  Already covered over half of the tax subsidies.  Now let's say there's tax on any sort of sales or material purchases involved in this $200bn industry what kind of taxes do we need to be generated to cover the remainder?  That's information I simply don't have but in a $200bn revenue industry I can gaurantee that the 1.8% needed to do that is very much covered.

Edited by DJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Facts for breakfast!

Ok, if you insist.  I made it one sentence in and have facts for you.  The statement from your link:

"Weather extremes are a commonly cited line of evidence for human-caused climate change. Despite the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) having found little to no evidence that global warming triggers extreme weather, the mainstream media and more than a few climate scientists don’t hesitate to trumpet their beliefs to the contrary at every opportunity."

From the IPCC report on extremes that it links within the above statement:

Temperature extremes: "AR4 concluded that it was very likely that a large majority of global land areas had experienced decreases in indices of cold extremes and increases in indices of warm extremes, since the middle of the 20th century, consistent with warming of the climate. In addition, globally averaged multi-day heat events had likely exhibited increases over a similar period. SREX updated AR4 but came to similar conclusions while using the revised AR5 uncertainty guidance (Seneviratne et al., 2012). Further evidence since then indicates that the level of confidence that the majority of warm and cool extremes show warming remains high."

AND

Precipitation extremes: "In summary, further analyses continue to support the AR4 and SREX conclusions that it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile)"

AND

Droughts: "AR4 concluded that droughts had become more common, especially in the tropics and sub-tropics since about 1970."

So.....how are those facts for breakfast?  This is using no more than the link you provided with the material it references.  To be specific that's from the INTRODUCTORY paragraph on the section about droughts that you posted.  The sentence above is from the IPCC report on extremes in instances of droughts that it links as its proof.  In fact, it's the first sentence in the IPCC Report in the section about extremes in instances of droughts.  The only thing that can slightly go in your favor is the section on flooding for which the IPCC says, "AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007)." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJL said:

So....Income tax on the 800,000 people employed in the renewable sector.  Let's put that at $35k/year at a 12.5% bracket and that's $3.36bn.  Already covered over half of the tax subsidies.  Now let's say there's tax on any sort of sales or material purchases involved in this $200bn industry what kind of taxes do we need to be generated to cover the remainder?  That's information I simply don't have but in a $200bn revenue industry I can gaurantee that the 1.8% needed to do that is very much covered.

A paltry sum when compared to the $36 billion collected by just the Federal government on just road fuel taxes.

BTW nice job of singling out export coal, when I said fossil fuels as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

A paltry sum when compared to the $36 billion collected by just the Federal government on just road fuel taxes.

BTW nice job of singling out export coal, when I said fossil fuels as a whole.

But that's not at all what you said before.  I quoted you above and I'll quote you again from this conversation:

 

July 14th Brenthutch: "I am not against renewables.  If they can stand on their own without government support, I am all for them.  I have a problem with billions of dollars being wasted on the insane notion that we have to “save the planet” or that we will run out of fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.  

Oh, and before anyone can say “ what about fossil fuels? They get subsidies”  I am against those as well. "

July 15 Brenthutch: :"I’m glad you said “until the scales are evened out”.  I can assure you, as soon as renewables contribute more in taxes than they receive in subsidies I will end my jihad on things green."

 

Not in any of this have you said anything about the renewable sector beating out the fossil fuel sector as far as tax revenue goes.  With the exception of biofuel the renewable industry in the US, let me make this clear, IS NOT SEEKING AN EXTENSION ON TAX BREAKS.  Worldwide the industry is already standing on its own and in the US we just got there too.

Cool, the US collects taxes on gas.  It can just as easily be collected at EV recharge stations.

Edited by DJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“According to the EIA in 2016, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the federal government spent just shy of $14 billion in energy subsidies and support.  Subsidies for renewable energy totaled $6.682 billion, while those for fossil energy totaled a mere $489 million.”

https://www.insidesources.com/us-still-subsidizing-renewable-energy-to-the-tune-of-nearly-7-billion/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“According to the EIA in 2016, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the federal government spent just shy of $14 billion in energy subsidies and support.  Subsidies for renewable energy totaled $6.682 billion, while those for fossil energy totaled a mere $489 million.”

https://www.insidesources.com/us-still-subsidizing-renewable-energy-to-the-tune-of-nearly-7-billion/

From your article:

"So far, the wind and solar industries aren’t resisting plans to phase out subsidies in an orderly fashion. However,  Congress is pushing back on attempts to end the tax credits early. Last week, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), introduced a bill to reinstate some tax credits that had expired at the start of 2018. These credits include benefits for the purchase of electric vehicles, biofuel and biodiesel production credits, deduction allowances for energy efficient buildings, and credit for electricity “produced from some renewable sources.”"

Does it sound like the wind and solar industries are not "standing on their own" to use your words if they are not resisting plans to phase out subsidies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJL said:

Oh boy.....  Didn't you say you wanted the tax revenue to outweigh the tax subsidy?  Now you're talking about comparing it to the tax revenue created by other sectors.  Renewables account for only about 20% of power usage when you include petroleum.  If that's the issue then where's your outrage on the fact that ZERO excise taxes are collected on coal mined for export yet they receive tax subsidies?

Not just that.  The depletion allowance allows companies to deduct MORE than the value of the coal they are mining.  Sell $100 million in coal?  Get $200 million in deductions!  Oh and you don't have to pay much of anything for the land you are mining from, either - and you don't have to restore the land once you're done.

The oil and coal companies have been doing this for over a century.  They have made very wise investments in lobbyists and politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

“According to the EIA in 2016, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the federal government spent just shy of $14 billion in energy subsidies and support.  Subsidies for renewable energy totaled $6.682 billion, while those for fossil energy totaled a mere $489 million.”

https://www.insidesources.com/us-still-subsidizing-renewable-energy-to-the-tune-of-nearly-7-billion/

You must have missed the depletion allowance, which accounts for over $1 billion in oil and coal subsidies a year.  

Wonder what else you missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You obviously didn’t take accounting in college.

Nope.  Just math and engineering.  

We've reached the usual point in this discussion, where subsidies are good when it advances your political agenda, and totally forgivable and understandable when it advances someone else's.  And taxes?  You think they're great when they come from things you hate - they are a plus, even, and would make you support them! -  but think they are crippling and evil when applied to things you support.

As usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3