More than 90% of new renewable energy capacity is now cheaper than fossil fuels

[Volunteer]

Imagine the most unreliable car you can, and think about the government subsidizing people to purchase that car! Why should they continue the subsidy?

End the subsidies. The government subsidizes the cost of fossil fuel production, including gasoline, with massive grants and loans, tax credits and deductions, percentage depletion allowances, and ongoing research and development activities. These costs represent the lion's share of all taxpayer energy sector give-aways and should be ended. Renewable energy costs do not need these types of government interference - they can stand alone in a free market because they are cheaper. And much cleaner.

 

[longview]

End the subsidies. The government subsidizes the cost of fossil fuel production, including gasoline, with massive grants and loans, tax credits and deductions, percentage depletion allowances, and ongoing research and development activities. These costs represent the lion's share of all taxpayer energy sector give-aways and should be ended. Renewable energy costs do not need these types of government interference.

I think ending subsidies is a good idea, do we also tell Walmart that they cannot deduct loses from shoplifting?
How about homeowners? Do we stop the home mortgage tax deduction?
Counting deductions as subsidies has other implications!

 

[Volunteer]

I think ending subsidies is a good idea, do we also tell Walmart that they cannot deduct loses from shoplifting?
How about homeowners? Do we stop the home mortgage tax deduction?
Counting deductions as subsidies has other implications!

I was referring to the energy market only.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Why?

Because of carbon emissions and toxic air pollution from fossil fuel cars. As well as the economic opportunities with electric cars.

Nearly Half of US Breathes Unhealthy Levels of Pollution—Cars and Trucks Largely to Blame

We cannot afford to allow the EPA’s work to be undercut.

blog.ucs.org

America’s Competitive Edge: How EV Demand Is Supercharging U.S. Manufacturing

As consumer demand for EVs continues to grow, Panasonic Energy is scaling its battery manufacturing capacity to ensure U.S. EV production remains competitive globally.

www.forbes.com

 

[pedex]

If 1kW cost $3000 installed and would produce 48,000 kWh over 30 years, the resulting price would be $0.0625 per kWh.
Anything that breaks and has to be replaced over that 30 years would increase the price.

Over 30 years. Panels once. Batteries maybe 3 times.

 

[longview]

busi=I was referring to the energy market only.

Why? By your definition any tax deduction is a subsidy.
When a business can show that money they spend is directly related to continued business operations,
the government allows those expenses to be deducted from the companies gross profits to arrive at the net
taxable profits. Different businesses have different expenses.
Why should we penalize type of business over another?

 

[longview]

Because of carbon emissions a nd toxic air pollution from fossil fuel cars. As well as the economic opportunities with electric cars.

Nearly Half of US Breathes Unhealthy Levels of Pollution—Cars and Trucks Largely to Blame

We cannot afford to allow the EPA’s work to be undercut.

blog.ucs.org

America’s Competitive Edge: How EV Demand Is Supercharging U.S. Manufacturing

As consumer demand for EVs continues to grow, Panasonic Energy is scaling its battery manufacturing capacity to ensure U.S. EV production remains competitive globally.

www.forbes.com

You cannot show that CO2 emissions from modern cars cause any harm,
The finding of health problems from burning fossil fuels is from coal burning, diesel and older cars.
Things that emit particulate pollution.

 

[longview]

Over 30 years. Panels once. Batteries maybe 3 times.

I cannot imagine some part of the system not failing over a 30 year period.

 

[CLAX1911]

Show us what subsidies and tax credits are available for solar energy.

No. It's public information find it out for yourself and I don't think you would like the source I give you so I'm not going to waste my time.

Then let's compare what you find with the many ways the feds share our tax dollars with oil companies like these:

So you can have your little ego trip what do I care about that I already know you're in the dark.

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. for decades
Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613
Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. on
Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. (most are fossil fuel companies) for decades
Domestic Manufacturing Deduction (IRC §199)
DOE Advanced Fossil Loan Programs Office
Between 2010 and 2017, the Department of Energy provided $2.66 billion to support 794 advanced fossil energy research and development projects
United States Export-Import Bank $14.8 billion dollars in grants and loans for 78 projects in the petroleum sector (2001 – 2018).

A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information us Services, Inc., in a report to the Nuclear Energy Institute, estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2016. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies.

This is why I won't give you anything this isn't science to you it's your religion. You've already created the dishonest metric. What you need to go by is amount of contribution per megawatt hour that's how you discern who's getting more than they deserve so I'm not going to engage with you on this because you want solar and wind to be the way of the future and you're committed to it and nothing I can say or show will change your mind.

I'm not interested in your religious beliefs.

 

[pedex]

End the subsidies. The government subsidizes the cost of fossil fuel production, including gasoline, with massive grants and loans, tax credits and deductions, percentage depletion allowances, and ongoing research and development activities. These costs represent the lion's share of all taxpayer energy sector give-aways and should be ended. Renewable energy costs do not need these types of government interference - they can stand alone in a free market because they are cheaper. And much cleaner.

So yes lets do that, removing the subsidies from fossil fuel fueled industrial base that creates the "renewables" now what happens to the cost of renewables?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Show us what subsidies and tax credits are available for solar energy. Then let's compare what you find with the many ways the feds share our tax dollars with oil companies like these:

Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. for decades
Percentage Depletion (26 U.S. Code § 613
Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. on
Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. (most are fossil fuel companies) for decades
Domestic Manufacturing Deduction (IRC §199)
DOE Advanced Fossil Loan Programs Office
Between 2010 and 2017, the Department of Energy provided $2.66 billion to support 794 advanced fossil energy research and development projects
United States Export-Import Bank $14.8 billion dollars in grants and loans for 78 projects in the petroleum sector (2001 – 2018).

A 2017 study by the consulting firm Management Information us Services, Inc., in a report to the Nuclear Energy Institute, estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2016. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $414 billion, $140 billion, and $112 billion (2015 dollars), respectively, or 65% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies.

Most of those are deductions. Not credits. The grants have to do with green energy.

I notice you are too lazy to link your reference and i bet you never checked the validity of the blogger you got that from.

Just more propaganda...

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think ending subsidies is a good idea, do we also tell Walmart that they cannot deduct loses from shoplifting?

By the new definition of subsidy, I disagree. Using the old definition of subsidy, I agree.

How about homeowners? Do we stop the home mortgage tax deduction?

Yes. Renters do not get to deduct hosing costs.

Counting deductions as subsidies has other implications!

I say eliminate all tax credits. Eliminate many of the tax deductions also, but there are many valid tax deductions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I was referring to the energy market only.

How much would your solar powered system cost you with no subsidies? Would you have still had it built if you had to pay all the costs, with no subsidies?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why? By your definition any tax deduction is a subsidy.

The left has misused the word "subsidy" so many times over the years, that dictionary have increased the definition to include practically everything. The word "subsidy" is not a total joke.

When a business can show that money they spend is directly related to continued business operations,
the government allows those expenses to be deducted from the companies gross profits to arrive at the net
taxable profits. Different businesses have different expenses.
Why should we penalize type of business over another?

Also, a tax deduction comes off the amount considered and taxed. A tax deduction of $1,000 will take a taxable income of $60,000 to $59,000. Taxed at 20%, that only reduces a persons tax by $200. If a person's taxable income is already reduced to zero, it gives them no advantage.

A tax credit however, is treated differently. It would degrees a persons taxed by that $1,000. Now is a person only has a $500 tax liability without the credit, the IRS would give them $500.

I am against all tax credits.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You cannot show that CO2 emissions from modern cars cause any harm,
The finding of health problems from burning fossil fuels is from coal burning, diesel and older cars.
Things that emit particulate pollution.

Those in the cult are programmed not to understand the difference between CO2 and other emissions from burning fuels.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Over 30 years. Panels once. Batteries maybe 3 times.

If you used nickle-iron batteries, properly maintained you would probably never have to replace them. they are great for the day-night cycle, but not for a seasonal cycle.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You cannot show that CO2 emissions from modern cars cause any harm,
The finding of health problems from burning fossil fuels is from coal burning, diesel and older cars.
Things that emit particulate pollution.

Particle emissions is just part of the toxic air pollution from cars. Quote from my earlier source.

"The role of transportation is a significant part of this ongoing work because that sector is the largest emitter of global warming emissions in the country, having surpassed the power sector in 2017. These emissions, which in 2022 were 37.4 percent of US CO2 emissions, are all from fossil fuel combustion in our vehicles, with the vast majority coming from pick-up trucks, SUVs and cars. The number of vehicles on our highways has increased dramatically over the decades. By 1970, with increasing travel demand, there were over 108 million vehicles on the road, more than double the number from twenty years before. This led to large contributions to both CO2 emissions and toxic local pollution and serious impacts on public health and the environment.

PM2.5 is directly emitted from the tailpipes of gasoline and diesel vehicles, and by tire wear, brake wear, and road dust. But beyond this primary formation of PM2.5, even more PM2.5 – referred to as secondary emissions – is formed in the atmosphere from precursor pollutants that also originate from the combustion in fossil-fuel powered engines, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Secondary PM2.5 can be a huge share of overall PM2.5, ranging from 30 to 90 percent of all PM2.5."

There it also overwhelming evidence for the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

www.ipcc.ch

 

[longview]

Particle emissions is just part of the toxic air pollution from cars. Quote from my earlier source.

"The role of transportation is a significant part of this ongoing work because that sector is the largest emitter of global warming emissions in the country, having surpassed the power sector in 2017. These emissions, which in 2022 were 37.4 percent of US CO2 emissions, are all from fossil fuel combustion in our vehicles, with the vast majority coming from pick-up trucks, SUVs and cars. The number of vehicles on our highways has increased dramatically over the decades. By 1970, with increasing travel demand, there were over 108 million vehicles on the road, more than double the number from twenty years before. This led to large contributions to both CO2 emissions and toxic local pollution and serious impacts on public health and the environment.

PM2.5 is directly emitted from the tailpipes of gasoline and diesel vehicles, and by tire wear, brake wear, and road dust. But beyond this primary formation of PM2.5, even more PM2.5 – referred to as secondary emissions – is formed in the atmosphere from precursor pollutants that also originate from the combustion in fossil-fuel powered engines, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Secondary PM2.5 can be a huge share of overall PM2.5, ranging from 30 to 90 percent of all PM2.5."

There it also overwhelming evidence for the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

www.ipcc.ch

Why don't you come out and admit that you would rather people not have a choice to own cars of any kind?

 

[pedex]

Climate

This report evaluates existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and provides a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.

www.energy.gov

 

[pedex]

Why don't you come out and admit that you would rather people not have a choice to own cars of any kind?

That's a whole other ugly discussion and rabbit hole most don't want to deal with.

 

[longview]

That's a whole other ugly discussion and rabbit hole most don't want to deal with.

If you look at his list of what causes PM2.5 pollution it includes,

and by tire wear, brake wear, and road dust.

so that would include battery electric cars, which likely have greater tire wear, and road dust issues.

 

[Volunteer]

How much would your solar powered system cost you with no subsidies?

$29,000.

Would you have still had it built if you had to pay all the costs, with no subsidies?

I did.

 

[Volunteer]

I notice you are too lazy to link your reference

No need to make this personal.

i bet you never checked the validity of the blogger you got that from.

I named the U.S. codes. They are not from a blog.

 

[CLAX1911]

Particle emissions is just part of the toxic air pollution from cars. Quote from my earlier source.

"The role of transportation is a significant part of this ongoing work because that sector is the largest emitter of global warming emissions in the country, having surpassed the power sector in 2017. These emissions, which in 2022 were 37.4 percent of US CO2 emissions, are all from fossil fuel combustion in our vehicles, with the vast majority coming from pick-up trucks, SUVs and cars. The number of vehicles on our highways has increased dramatically over the decades. By 1970, with increasing travel demand, there were over 108 million vehicles on the road, more than double the number from twenty years before. This led to large contributions to both CO2 emissions and toxic local pollution and serious impacts on public health and the environment.

PM2.5 is directly emitted from the tailpipes of gasoline and diesel vehicles, and by tire wear, brake wear, and road dust. But beyond this primary formation of PM2.5, even more PM2.5 – referred to as secondary emissions – is formed in the atmosphere from precursor pollutants that also originate from the combustion in fossil-fuel powered engines, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Secondary PM2.5 can be a huge share of overall PM2.5, ranging from 30 to 90 percent of all PM2.5."

There it also overwhelming evidence for the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —

www.ipcc.ch

So the only form of transportation you can think of as cars you don't know how cruise ships operate?

 

[pedex]

If you look at his list of what causes PM2.5 pollution it includes,

so that would include battery electric cars, which likely have greater tire wear, and road dust issues.

Assuming personal transportation like cars will even be viable at all is questionable IMO.