Renewable energy is available as soon as the Producers quit supporting all of the takers and they starve to death!! Just gonna take a few eons for them to become crude oil!!! Instead of crude *$sholes!!

Originally Posted by Guest

Renewable energy is available as soon as the Producers quit supporting all of the takers and they starve to death!! Just gonna take a few eons for them to become crude oil!!! Instead of crude *$sholes!!

There's more of "them"...than there are "us" now...how long do you think it will last?

Originally Posted by Guest

There's more of "them"...than there are "us" now...how long do you think it will last?

Why did the republicans make energy such a political test. Could it be to support the Koch brothers, some mega billionaires who need more money. Who's asking for subsidies now, it's coal and nuclear. No matter how many wells they drill $1 a gallon gas is not coming back because it costs more than that to get it out of the ground, refine it and ship it to the gas station. If you want $1 gallon fuel buy an electric car. Yes I know they aren't price competitive today but they will be shortly. Big oil knows their days are numbered so they are doing everything they can to delay the cheaper alternatives. The republicans support oil and coal to pay back their donors not because they care about the little guy.

Originally Posted by Guest

Why did the republicans make energy such a political test. Could it be to support the Koch brothers, some mega billionaires who need more money. Who's asking for subsidies now, it's coal and nuclear. No matter how many wells they drill $1 a gallon gas is not coming back because it costs more than that to get it out of the ground, refine it and ship it to the gas station. If you want $1 gallon fuel buy an electric car. Yes I know they aren't price competitive today but they will be shortly. Big oil knows their days are numbered so they are doing everything they can to delay the cheaper alternatives. The republicans support oil and coal to pay back their donors not because they care about the little guy.

I see very little concern for the little guy from Republicans of late.

Originally Posted by wackadoodle

I see very little concern for the little guy from Republicans of late.

So you acknowledge that; you saw Republicans having more concern for the little guy in the past, can you tell us when was the last time you believe you saw that, and provide an example of the concern you witnessed...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Why did the republicans make energy such a political test. Could it be to support the Koch brothers, some mega billionaires who need more money. Who's asking for subsidies now, it's coal and nuclear. No matter how many wells they drill $1 a gallon gas is not coming back because it costs more than that to get it out of the ground, refine it and ship it to the gas station. If you want $1 gallon fuel buy an electric car. Yes I know they aren't price competitive today but they will be shortly. Big oil knows their days are numbered so they are doing everything they can to delay the cheaper alternatives. The republicans support oil and coal to pay back their donors not because they care about the little guy.

Who is STILL getting subsidies? Wind and solar. There wouldn't BE wind and solar power without subsidies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#212a2381128c

Why the Solar Tax Credit Extension is a Big Deal in 2017 | EnergySage

"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)."



Figure Caption: Subsidies for various energy sources normalized to total energy produced by each source for the years 2010, 2013, 2016 and projected for 2019. Data Source: University of Texas

"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."

Oil will be around FOREVER...oil is THE most important thing to western civilization besides water. Oil will NOT be replaced by anything soon.

Originally Posted by Guest

Who is STILL getting subsidies? Wind and solar. There wouldn't BE wind and solar power without subsidies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#212a2381128c

Why the Solar Tax Credit Extension is a Big Deal in 2017 | EnergySage

"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)."



Figure Caption: Subsidies for various energy sources normalized to total energy produced by each source for the years 2010, 2013, 2016 and projected for 2019. Data Source: University of Texas

"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."

Oil will be around FOREVER...oil is THE most important thing to western civilization besides water. Oil will NOT be replaced by anything soon.

Look up the oil depletion allowance. Saudi Arabia is freaking out because they see the hand writing on the wall. Wouldn't you like to drive an EV powered by renewable energy produced in this country and say to Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela keep your oil. What is more make America great again than that. Of course you wouldn't have Deep Water Horizon and the problems it caused. In the news today the republicans and easing those pesky safety regulations bought on by that disaster. Austin Texas signed a contract to buy solar energy for 2.5 cents per kilowatt, the lowest cost in the country and the cost of solar is on a steady decline. Will you agree with me subsidies for existing coal and nuclear plants is crony capitalism.

Originally Posted by Guest

Look up the oil depletion allowance. Saudi Arabia is freaking out because they see the hand writing on the wall. Wouldn't you like to drive an EV powered by renewable energy produced in this country and say to Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela keep your oil. What is more make America great again than that. Of course you wouldn't have Deep Water Horizon and the problems it caused. In the news today the republicans and easing those pesky safety regulations bought on by that disaster. Austin Texas signed a contract to buy solar energy for 2.5 cents per kilowatt, the lowest cost in the country and the cost of solar is on a steady decline. Will you agree with me subsidies for existing coal and nuclear plants is crony capitalism.

Oil isn't going anywhere and as/if it's output begins to wane and can't keep up with demand...the price will just go up. There is NOTHING to replace oil.



VERY little oil is used for energy production:

Originally Posted by Guest

Oil isn't going anywhere and as/if it's output begins to wane and can't keep up with demand...the price will just go up. There is NOTHING to replace oil.



VERY little oil is used for energy production:

Your economic logic is half right. As supply diminishes price goes up. When price goes up demand for alternatives goes up, meaning electric cars look cheaper.

Originally Posted by Dumbete

Austin Texas signed a contract to buy solar energy for 2.5 cents per kilowatt, the lowest cost in the country and the cost of solar is on a steady decline.

Hey idiot...now add in the 49 cent per KW average subsidy the provider is getting from the government.

51.5 cents per Kw !
Yeah,that is a lot better than the 11 cents per KW that SECO charges...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Hey idiot...now add in the 49 cent per KW average subsidy the provider is getting from the government.

51.5 cents per Kw !
Yeah,that is a lot better than the 11 cents per KW that SECO charges...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I suspect you are cherry picking your numbers by pricing demonstration projects (concentrated solar) which I agree is not a viable renewable source today. I also will cherry pick to some extent. Wind energy, unsubsidized is competitive in certain parts of the country with coal and gas. Nuclear is dead. Of course this doesn't include the cost of air pollution (look at China and their health problems). I live in the northeast and a few years ago I said the vues of the city at night looked clearer. That's when I realized the coal plants were gone. Trump expressed concern about windmills killing birds (cats kill millions of birds). When you hear a republican worrying about the environment you have to think something is fishy. What is the real reason he now worries about birds? The answer is the Koch brothers. Global warming was first proposed around 1900 by the chemist Arenhius and I first heard about it in 1972 in organic chemistry class. The science is sound but you only have to worry if you have grandkids.

Originally Posted by Dumbete

I suspect you are cherry picking your numbers by pricing demonstration projects (concentrated solar) which I agree is not a viable renewable source today. I also will cherry pick to some extent. Wind energy, unsubsidized is competitive in certain parts of the country with coal and gas. Nuclear is dead. Of course this doesn't include the cost of air pollution (look at China and their health problems). I live in the northeast and a few years ago I said the vues of the city at night looked clearer. That's when I realized the coal plants were gone. Trump expressed concern about windmills killing birds (cats kill millions of birds). When you hear a republican worrying about the environment you have to think something is fishy. What is the real reason he now worries about birds? The answer is the Koch brothers. Global warming was first proposed around 1900 by the chemist Arenhius and I first heard about it in 1972 in organic chemistry class. The science is sound but you only have to worry if you have grandkids.

I gave you basic math, not cherry picking.
I made an assumption you were bright enough to understand the math, but you certainly proved me wrong on that.
It is 50* in the villages today, I am looking forward to global warming.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Hey idiot...now add in the 49 cent per KW average subsidy the provider is getting from the government.

51.5 cents per Kw !
Yeah,that is a lot better than the 11 cents per KW that SECO charges...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Google cost of wind energy. It doesn't currently receive 51.5 per kW. The PTC is about 2 cents per kw. Just curious do you have grandkids? I am with you I would do away with subsidies if they did it for all forms of energy. While we are on the subject why don't the republicans do away with the subsidies for farmers. Do you realize when we subsidize farmers and they sell soybeans to China that's your tax dollars going to China. Do you think it has something to do with the fact that the farm states voted for Trump? Can I get some indignation for these subsidies.

Originally Posted by Guest

Who is STILL getting subsidies? Wind and solar. There wouldn't BE wind and solar power without subsidies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#212a2381128c

Why the Solar Tax Credit Extension is a Big Deal in 2017 | EnergySage

"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)."



Figure Caption: Subsidies for various energy sources normalized to total energy produced by each source for the years 2010, 2013, 2016 and projected for 2019. Data Source: University of Texas

"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."

Oil will be around FOREVER...oil is THE most important thing to western civilization besides water. Oil will NOT be replaced by anything soon.

2016 subsidy for wind was 1.3 cents per kw. I'd gladly pay that to keep sulfur and particulates out of my lungs and to know that my grandchildren aren't facing the end of times.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your economic logic is half right. As supply diminishes price goes up. When price goes up demand for alternatives goes up, meaning electric cars look cheaper.

What you miss is that your "world saving" batteries DON'T get built without a LOT of energy...that energy is mostly oil. You may save some oil driving the car...but you used just about all...if not all or more...oil making the car...because battering need a lot of energy to create. Lithium is in limited supply you're NOT going to turn ALL the vehicles into electric.

" The U.S. Geological Survey produced a reserves estimate of lithium in early 2015, concluding that the world has enough known reserves for about 365 years of current global production of about 37,000 tons per year (Figure 1). Current production goes to a little over one-third for ceramics, almost one-third for batteries, and miscellaneous uses for the last one-third. The same report finds about 39.5 million metric tons of “resources,” which is a less firm category than “reserves.” "Resources" include supplies that could feasibly be extracted economically at some point in the future, whereas reserves estimates refer to current economic viability.

Even though 365 years of reserve supply sounds very comforting, the point of the EV and stationary storage revolutions is that current demand will shoot up, way up, if these revolutions do happen. The 100 Gigafactories scenario could come true. And if that happens, the 365-year supply would be less than a 17-year supply (13.5 million tons of reserves divided by 800,000 = 16.9 years).

Can lithium batteries scale up? According to this quick and purely speculative math, the short answer is, with current reserves, not just no, but hell no. With known lithium “resources” at 39.5 million tons, we get about 50 years of supply with 100 Gigafactories, which is a bit more comforting, but still not exactly a viable long-term solution."

Originally Posted by Guest

2016 subsidy for wind was 1.3 cents per kw. I'd gladly pay that to keep sulfur and particulates out of my lungs and to know that my grandchildren aren't facing the end of times.

America IS facing the "end of times" as it's gone from 90% white to the current 49% and it'll be 20% in just 30 years.

America has BIGGER problems than climate change and pollution.

We're being bred out.