Top Trump aide: Coal doesn't make 'much sense anymore'

[austrianecon]

Yes, Krugman. The argument he made this morning:

Yes, I read it. But all of these cheaper costs are based on Government subsidizing them. So you have yet to prove they are cheaper then Coal without subsidizing.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, I read it. But all of these cheaper costs are based on Government subsidizing them. So you have yet to prove they are cheaper then Coal without subsidizing.

Don't forget environmental clean up and restoration. Those costs are often left out of the equation.

 

[ecofarm]

Why do you think I am a Republican?

Just because I don't buy into Progressive-Left ideas, and voted for Trump this past election?

I don't belong to any Party.

I voted for Obama, Gore, Carter, and Clinton when they ran for office.

I voted for Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Ron Paul until I found out he was against Pro-Choice.

I also voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.

Does that mix sound like I am a Republican to you?

If you voted for Gore and Nader...

 

[austrianecon]

Don't forget environmental clean up and restoration. Those costs are often left out of the equation.

So many costs that are hidden on both sides but Coal gets 1/12th of what Solar and Wind gets in subsidies.

 

[ecofarm]

So many costs that are hidden on both sides but Coal gets 1/12th of what Solar and Wind gets in subsidies.

What costs are hidden regarding Solar and Wind? There are no mountain tops to clean and restore (as much as possible) for those. There's no destroyed habitat, forest, water etc. No incurred health costs.

 

[Hawkeye10]

What costs are hidden regarding Solar and Wind? There are no mountain tops to clean and restore (as much as possible) for those. There's no destroyed habitat, forest, water etc. No incurred health costs.

Degradation of my viewshed, dead birds.

 

[ecofarm]

Degradation of my viewshed, dead birds.

Granted but think that compares to trying to fix a no longer existent mountain top? Coal production environmental clean up and restoration is a cost totally unlike unaccounted costs in solar and wind.

Also, we're talking actual money spent, not quantifiably debatable externalities. If we want to include externalities, coal has plenty of those too. Such as viewshed and dead birds.

To start, it's probably best to leave aside externalities that are debatable both in quantification and qualification, and just stick to actual money that is actually spent.

 

[austrianecon]

What costs are hidden regarding Solar and Wind? There are no mountain tops to clean and restore (as much as possible) for those. There's no destroyed habitat, forest, water etc. No incurred health costs.

This is where you are wrong. Solar and Wind get $12b a year in subsidies. Wind actually kills alot of bats. Solar plants destroy habitats..

But hey.. don't let those facts get in the way of the false promise of "Green" energy.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Granted but think that compares to trying to fix a no longer existent mountain top? Coal production environmental clean up and restoration is a cost totally unlike unaccounted costs in solar and wind.

Well now I did not say that, and that was not the question.......

:2wave:

 

[ecofarm]

Well now I did not say that, and that was not the question.......

:2wave:

I edited.

I think it's important that we distinguish between actual money actually spent and externalities that are debatable and on both sides. The money actually spent on coal production environmental clean-up is not a debatable externality. It's actual money spent in production.

 

[ecofarm]

This is where you are wrong. Solar and Wind get $12b a year in subsidies. Wind actually kills alot of bats. Solar plants destroy habitats..

But hey.. don't let those facts get in the way of the false promise of "Green" energy.

You're attempting to qualify and quantify externalities. Both sides have externalities (despite any restoration) and we could debate externality cost all day.

I'm talking about actual money spent in production that is not included in cost.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I edited.

I think it's important that we distinguish between actual money actually spent and externalities that are debatable and on both sides. The money actually spent on coal production environmental clean-up is not a debatable externality. It's actual money spent in production.

Ya OK but dont discount how much beauty means in my life, nor how important my spiritual health is to me.

 

[ecofarm]

Ya OK but dont discount how much beauty means in my life, nor how important my spiritual health is to me.

Well, the valuation is debatable. For all intent and purpose, we could call it a wash for both sides.

An exact amount of money required and spent on restoration as a result of coal production is not up for debate. It's a fact. It's a hard number. It's an unaccounted cost in production.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Well, the valuation is debatable. For all intent and purpose, we could call it a wash for both sides.

An exact amount of money required and spent on restoration as a result of coal production is not up for debate. It's a fact. It's a hard number. It's an unaccounted cost in production.

I have no idea what you are talking about..... when mountain tops are removed unless the company goes bankrupt they have to make something as good or better than what was there before when they are done....this is the companies problem, and of course they account for it.

 

[ecofarm]

I have no idea what you are talking about..... when mountain tops are removed unless the company goes bankrupt they have to make something as good or better than what was there before when they are done....this is the companies problem, and of course they account for it.

They account for it on their books but it is not included in the cost of producing coal. It happens after the coal has been extracted. It's considered a separate cost.

And "as good as or better"? haha Who told you that?

 

[Hawkeye10]

They account for it on their books but it is not included in the cost of producing coal. It happens after the coal has been extracted. It's considered a separate cost.

And "as good as or better"? haha Who told you that?

You surely know that is the claim.....

 

[ecofarm]

You surely know that is the claim.....

I've no idea who claims such. You surely know it's an impossibility. We're talking thousands of tons of productive soil and ecosystem. That cannot be replaced or undisplaced. We mitigate the damage, but that mitigation is not included in the cost of coal production.

 

[MTAtech]

Yes, I read it. But all of these cheaper costs are based on Government subsidizing them. So you have yet to prove they are cheaper then Coal without subsidizing.

While renewables get some subsidies, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. We let oil companies drill on public lands and we have tax advantages for the companies.

An informative article: Subsidies cover up the cost of energy, whether green or fossil fuels | TheHill

 

[jonny5]

While renewables get some subsidies, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. We let oil companies drill on public lands and we have tax advantages for the companies.

An informative article: Subsidies cover up the cost of energy, whether green or fossil fuels | TheHill

Not subsides. Tax deductions. They deduct certain expenses from their taxable income, same as any other industry (and individuals). Except that the oil companies still end up paying more taxes than any other corporation. Exxon is the number one taxed corporation in the nation.

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45kghl/1-exxon-mobil/#628182ec4b51

 

[austrianecon]

While renewables get some subsidies, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized. We let oil companies drill on public lands and we have tax advantages for the companies.

An informative article: Subsidies cover up the cost of energy, whether green or fossil fuels | TheHill

And Public lands are used for Solar and Wind as well. All 3 pay lease fees to Uncle Sam. Every company gets tax advantages.

 

[minnie616]

And Public lands are used for Solar and Wind as well. All 3 pay lease fees to Uncle Sam. Every company gets tax advantages.

But the public land leases for oil drilling , coal mining and natural gas fracking is about $1:50 to $2:00 an acre a.

The BLM reviews the nominations before the parcels are put up for sale. Parcels are put up for competitive bidding during a lease sale. BLM state offices are required by law to hold lease sales quarterly if land is available. If a bidder secures a lease, the leaseholder has the right to drill for oil or natural gas (within the parameters given below) for 10 years or as long as there is a producing well on the parcel. Leaseholders must pay an annual fee of $1.50 per acre for the first five years of a lease; after five years, the fee is $2.00 per acre.

https://ballotpedia.org/Oil_and_natural_gas_extraction_on_federal_land


Whereas the lease fees for wind and solar are about $5 to $15 an acre plus a bond of $10,000 per acre for solar and a bond of $10,000 or $20,000 per acre bond per wind terbine.

Additional provisions that incentivize development within DLAs include a reduced nomination fee of $5 per acre, which is electively paid by a potential bidder, compared to $15 per acre non-elective application filing fee for competitive parcels outside of DLAs; a 10-year phase-in of the MW capacity fee inside a DLA as opposed to a 3-year phase-in of the fee outside of a DLA;[/B] and more favorable bonding requirements inside DLAs. Specifically, outside DLAs, bonding must be determined based on reclamation cost estimates, whereas inside DLAs, the final rule requires a standard bond in the amount of $10,000 per acre for solar energy development and either $10,000 or $20,000 per wind energy turbine for wind energy development, depending on the nameplate capacity of the turbine.[/B]

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...easing-public-lands-for-solar-and-wind-energy

 

[austrianecon]

But the public land leases for oil drilling , coal mining and natural gas fracking is about $1:50 to $2:00 an acre a.



https://ballotpedia.org/Oil_and_natural_gas_extraction_on_federal_land


Whereas the lease fees for wind and solar are about $5 to $15 an acre plus a bond of $10,000 per acre for solar and a bond of $10,000 or $20,000 per acre bond per wind terbine.



https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...easing-public-lands-for-solar-and-wind-energy

Yes, of which solar and wind get huge subsidies to be built while coal, gas and oil do not.

 

[minnie616]

This is where you are wrong. Solar and Wind get $12b a year in subsidies. ...

Last time I checked $37 billon a year was more than $12 billion.

Other sources say fossil fuel gets $10 to $52 billion a year.

As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates United States fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.
.

[url]http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Shared

 

[jonny5]

Last time I checked $37 billon a year was more than $12 billion.

Other sources say fossil fuel gets $10 to $52 billion a year.




Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview - Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

Shared

Are they using the same definitions? From your link, this is how they define subsidy.

A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

If govt applies a tax, and then gives a discount on that tax, is it really a subsidy? In fact, the energy companies subsidize the govt. Exxon pays 31bn in taxes alone. That increases the price paid by consumers.