Wind power failing

[mrjurrs]

I am sorry that you did not read your source!

So what they are calling Direct Subsidies, are still tax deductions, write offs against gross profits.
Oh yea, and you neglected to include the title of the article.

They are tax breaks, not subsidies!

"Fossil-fuel subsidies generally take two forms. Production subsidies are tax breaks or direct payments that reduce the cost of producing coal, oil or gas. These are common in Western countries and are often influential in locking in infrastructure such as oil pipelines and gas fields, says Bronwen Tucker, an analyst in Edmonton, Canada, at Oil Change International, a non-profit research organization headquartered in Washington DC that works to reveal the costs of fossil fuels."

Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill

Behind the struggle to stop governments propping up the coal, oil and gas industries.

www.nature.com

Looking forward to your source documenting zero direct payments from the US govt to fossil fuels entities.

 

[longview]

"Fossil-fuel subsidies generally take two forms. Production subsidies are tax breaks or direct payments that reduce the cost of producing coal, oil or gas. These are common in Western countries and are often influential in locking in infrastructure such as oil pipelines and gas fields, says Bronwen Tucker, an analyst in Edmonton, Canada, at Oil Change International, a non-profit research organization headquartered in Washington DC that works to reveal the costs of fossil fuels."

Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill

Behind the struggle to stop governments propping up the coal, oil and gas industries.

www.nature.com

Looking forward to your source documenting zero direct payments from the US govt to fossil fuels entities.

Well let's look at your new presentation.

How are fossil fuels subsidized?​

Fossil-fuel subsidies generally take two forms. Production subsidies are tax breaks or direct payments that reduce the cost of producing coal, oil or gas. These are common in Western countries and are often influential in locking in infrastructure such as oil pipelines and gas fields, says Bronwen Tucker, an analyst in Edmonton, Canada, at Oil Change International, a non-profit research organization headquartered in Washington DC that works to reveal the costs of fossil fuels.

Consumption subsidies, meanwhile, cut fuel prices for the end user, such as by fixing the price at the petrol pump so that it is less than the market rate.

Do you understand that they are still describing tax deductions, a tax break, is something that is allowed to be deducted from one's gross profit.
As for the consumption subsidy, fixing the pump price is not a payment, and may be an unfunded mandate.
There may be a few actual subsidies for fossil fuel companies, but your citations have not presented any here.

 

[Antiwar]

Its been obvious from the beginning that wind power is unreliable and unsustainable. Any engineer worth their salt will tell you that.

Please provide some explanation of both sentences..

 

[mrjurrs]

Well let's look at your new presentation.


Do you understand that they are still describing tax deductions, a tax break, is something that is allowed to be deducted from one's gross profit.
As for the consumption subsidy, fixing the pump price is not a payment, and may be an unfunded mandate.
There may be a few actual subsidies for fossil fuel companies, but your citations have not presented any here.

Excellent use of bolding. Why did you choose not to bold the next 3 words?

 

[longview]

Excellent use of bolding. Why did you choose not to bold the next 3 words?

Because the article did not itemize anything that constituted direct payments!

 

[mrjurrs]

Because the article did not itemize anything that constituted direct payments!

Upon further review, I find that your definition of subsidies is lacking. Any action a government takes to funnel advantages to a particular industry, whether direct payments or tax benefits, or regulations that allow them to dump their products negative impacts on society, subsidize their operations.
"Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund. Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total."

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

e360.yale.edu

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Moving the goalposts,
Your statement "Sustainable energy is derived from resources that can maintain current operations"
Wind, without energy storage, cannot maintain current operations, i.e. our energy needs.
It is somewhat non polluting, but is considered a source of noise pollution.
I think wind may have a place in our energy future, if they can work out the current engineering problems.

Wind power is a viable source of renewable energy. Do you think it's not viable because it can't supply all of our energy needs? That's like saying trains have no place because they can't supply all of our transportation needs. One thing is for sure, the wind will still be here long after everything else is gone.

 

[longview]

Upon further review, I find that your definition of subsidies is lacking. Any action a government takes to funnel advantages to a particular industry, whether direct payments or tax benefits, or regulations that allow them to dump their products negative impacts on society, subsidize their operations.
"Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund. Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total."

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

e360.yale.edu

So how much did Walmart receive, because they received all sorts of tax deductions also?
Quantifying negative impact is difficult, when you have to balance the benefits.

 

[longview]

Wind power is a viable source of renewable energy. Do you think it's not viable because it can't supply all of our energy needs? That's like saying trains have no place because they can't supply all of our transportation needs. One thing is for sure, the wind will still be here long after everything else is gone.

I am more concerned with economic viability, the cost of the devices, vs the actual electricity generated over it’s life. The utilization factors are low, and the maintenance costs high.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I am more concerned with economic viability, the cost of the devices, vs the actual electricity generated over it’s life. The utilization factors are low, and the maintenance costs high.

The Wind Vision Report shows that wind can be a viable source of renewable electricity in all 50 states by 2050. Wind energy supports a strong domestic supply chain. Wind has the potential to support over 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and supporting services by 2050.

Wind Vision

The Wind Vision Report takes America’s current installed wind power capacity and assesses the potential benefits of various scenarios.

www.energy.gov

 

[longview]

The Wind Vision Report shows that wind can be a viable source of renewable electricity in all 50 states by 2050. Wind energy supports a strong domestic supply chain. Wind has the potential to support over 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and supporting services by 2050.

Wind Vision

The Wind Vision Report takes America’s current installed wind power capacity and assesses the potential benefits of various scenarios.

www.energy.gov

I am sure they do, but that does not mean it will be a fact!
With energy storage both wind and solar become viable.

 

[phoenix2020]

I find it improbable that wind will compete effectively with solid state photovoltaics, in terms of economics. Solar is just too damned inexpensive, fast to produce, simple to deploy and utterly reliable.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I see terms like externality, and think, where does that show up on the balance sheet?

It shows up as a cost. The cost is currently born by all of mankind, but it can be put on your company balance sheet in the form of a tax.

For the time being a combined cycle natural gas plant is what is waiting to cover the down time of the wind turbines.
They have to have enough capacity to meet the demand during times when the wind does not blow.
The real problem I have with a carbon tax, is that it is only local, and would only burden the local (Country) economy.

You're afraid of being the first. When did Americans start being afraid of that?

Most household budgets cannot take paying the spot price for electricity, that is what generated $16,000 monthly electric bills in Feb 2021, for the people on spot pricing. The carrier is better suited to protect against short term spikes.

Sure, but it's also in the carriers interest to sell more power when it's available cheaply. They can cover spikes and STILL give a discount on windy or sunny days.

 

[Ug make hammer]

They are tax breaks, not subsidies!

Tax breaks are subsidies.

 

[longview]

It shows up as a cost. The cost is currently born by all of mankind, but it can be put on your company balance sheet in the form of a tax.



You're afraid of being the first. When did Americans start being afraid of that?



Sure, but it's also in the carriers interest to sell more power when it's available cheaply. They can cover spikes and STILL give a discount on windy or sunny days.

So externality costs are NOT currently on the balance sheets!

Other countries already have a carbon tax burdening their economies, part of the problem is that CO2 emissions
are not the cause of themselves but a symptom of our energy demand.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 emissions problem, and until we address the actual problem, the odds are
not good we will solve anything.

It is in the interest of power generators to produce and sell electricity at a profit.
What I am questioning is if Wind can do that at a market competitive price moving into the future.
The big wind turbines look to be costing more than anticipated, and generating less power than anticipated.
Capacity Factor EIA
While solar has a lower capacity factor, it has fewer big moving parts.

 

[longview]

Tax breaks are subsidies.

If you want to call tax breaks subsidies, then you have to also say that every business in the US is subsidized.
Taxable income for a business is the gross income, less the business expenses.
The test to see if something is a subsidy is to see if the Government would send extra money if there were no gross income.
Say if a retail business had $120,000 of rental expenses for the year 2021, but only had gross income of $90,000,
Their taxes would be zero, but unless they paid in estimated taxes, they would not get any money back.

 

[Ug make hammer]

So externality costs are NOT currently on the balance sheets!

They exist nonetheless.

Once upon a time, forests were unaccounted externalities. Loggers and farmers didn't have to account their real value to the environment or other citizens, they just cut them down and took whatever they could get as profit. Now it's the world's oceans being destroyed for lack of any regulator to account the externality. Note that in both cases, loggers and fishers, part of the value lost was to their own occupations in the future.

Other countries already have a carbon tax burdening their economies, part of the problem is that CO2 emissions
are not the cause of themselves but a symptom of our energy demand.
We have an energy problem, not a CO2 emissions problem, and until we address the actual problem, the odds are
not good we will solve anything.

I'm not sure if it's still true, but around 2010 I read that more electricity had been saved by voluntary limiting of use, than was added in by non-carbon-polluting means. Well a lot has changed since then, but it is still relevant to my idea of spot-price discounts for consumers. All it took to reduce consumption was awareness: by buying a different lightbulb or a different dishwasher, people could pay slightly more but save themselves money over the lifetime of the bulb or the machine. There's a lot more slack to be taken up still. People often put their dishwasher on after dinner, it's when the most dirty dishes are there to fill it up. But is that the cheapest time? They barely have to think about it: dishwashers could be made with an option to monitor power prices and do their heating at the cheapest time (possibly just before dawn, if they live near the coast).

Heavy users in industry already negotiate with power suppliers to get power when it's cheapest. Though in most of industry labor costs are a bigger concern than electricity, and labor isn't as flexible.

It is in the interest of power generators to produce and sell electricity at a profit.
What I am questioning is if Wind can do that at a market competitive price moving into the future.
The big wind turbines look to be costing more than anticipated, and generating less power than anticipated.
Capacity Factor EIA
While solar has a lower capacity factor, it has fewer big moving parts.

Yes, solar is not ideal. I'm for nuclear as the main replacement for carbon-emitting power sources. But should we build a new generation of PWR knowing it will be obsolete within 30 years? Or endure the longer delay of building thorium reactors? I'm for the former actually, but either of them require a regulatory guarantee for at least 30 years, ie a tax on carbon and not a subsidy on nuclear. Operators would be entirely justified in being suspicious of a subsidy, given the history of nuclear and how one accident (even in some other country) can turn public opinion against them.

Windmills require too much maintenance for my liking. Catching on fire and starting wild fires isn't great either.

 

[Ug make hammer]

If you want to call tax breaks subsidies, then you have to also say that every business in the US is subsidized.
Taxable income for a business is the gross income, less the business expenses.

That's not a tax break. Businesses are taxed on profit, and I have no problem with that.

Money off your taxes to pay for a home mortgage IS a subsidy. They Federal government is subsidizing home mortgages, hugely, and the losers of that are renters. Not a fan.

The test to see if something is a subsidy is to see if the Government would send extra money if there were no gross income.
Say if a retail business had $120,000 of rental expenses for the year 2021, but only had gross income of $90,000,
Their taxes would be zero, but unless they paid in estimated taxes, they would not get any money back.

Government does not subsidize businesses that have a negative balance sheet. Except no, wait, they do. If that business makes a profit the next year, they can deduct the losses from earlier.

So government does subsidize businesses, but only when they prove that they're not just a hole to pour money into.

 

[longview]

They exist nonetheless.

Once upon a time, forests were unaccounted externalities. Loggers and farmers didn't have to account their real value to the environment or other citizens, they just cut them down and took whatever they could get as profit. Now it's the world's oceans being destroyed for lack of any regulator to account the externality. Note that in both cases, loggers and fishers, part of the value lost was to their own occupations in the future.



I'm not sure if it's still true, but around 2010 I read that more electricity had been saved by voluntary limiting of use, than was added in by non-carbon-polluting means. Well a lot has changed since then, but it is still relevant to my idea of spot-price discounts for consumers. All it took to reduce consumption was awareness: by buying a different lightbulb or a different dishwasher, people could pay slightly more but save themselves money over the lifetime of the bulb or the machine. There's a lot more slack to be taken up still. People often put their dishwasher on after dinner, it's when the most dirty dishes are there to fill it up. But is that the cheapest time? They barely have to think about it: dishwashers could be made with an option to monitor power prices and do their heating at the cheapest time (possibly just before dawn, if they live near the coast).

Heavy users in industry already negotiate with power suppliers to get power when it's cheapest. Though in most of industry labor costs are a bigger concern than electricity, and labor isn't as flexible.



Yes, solar is not ideal. I'm for nuclear as the main replacement for carbon-emitting power sources. But should we build a new generation of PWR knowing it will be obsolete within 30 years? Or endure the longer delay of building thorium reactors? I'm for the former actually, but either of them require a regulatory guarantee for at least 30 years, ie a tax on carbon and not a subsidy on nuclear. Operators would be entirely justified in being suspicious of a subsidy, given the history of nuclear and how one accident (even in some other country) can turn public opinion against them.

Windmills require too much maintenance for my liking. Catching on fire and starting wild fires isn't great either.

As for externalities, they may or may not exists, but we currently have no legal way to actually measure them.
There is not a lab test to show what changes added CO2 causes to the climate, or how that should be priced.

Current US emissions are down to about 1992 levels, which may have more to do with better built homes and LED light bulbs,
but we can do more. I think to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels will require a lot of different sources.
I think hydrocarbon energy storage is what will allow wind and solar to become truly functional.
BREAKTHROUGH FOR POWER-TO-X: SUNFIRE PUTS FIRST Co-ELECTROLYSIS INTO OPERATION AND STARTS SCALING
Both Wind and Solar will end up placing large supply spikes into grid, supplying more electricity than is demanded
for extended periods in the Spring and Fall, when demand is low and supply is still high.
The value of surplus Kwh, can dip below zero, but if we had all the refineries waiting to pick up that low cost surplus
and store it as transport fuels, and heating fuels (CH4), it would prevent the surplus from causing damage to the grid,(as heat).
The resulting fuel would be carbon neutral when burned.

 

[longview]

That's not a tax break. Businesses are taxed on profit, and I have no problem with that.

Money off your taxes to pay for a home mortgage IS a subsidy. They Federal government is subsidizing home mortgages, hugely, and the losers of that are renters. Not a fan.



Government does not subsidize businesses that have a negative balance sheet. Except no, wait, they do. If that business makes a profit the next year, they can deduct the losses from earlier.

So government does subsidize businesses, but only when they prove that they're not just a hole to pour money into.

Even the home mortgage deduction is not a subsidy, because if you did not have any taxable income
it would not increase the size of your refund beyond what had already been withheld.

Yes Business are allowed to prorate their large expenses over several years.
So if Walmart builds a new distribution center, they can depreciate that cost over many years.
Just like if an oil company drills an oil well, then can depreciate the cost of that well over many years.
It is a deduction, not a subsidy!

 

[Ug make hammer]

As for externalities, they may or may not exists, but we currently have no legal way to actually measure them.
There is not a lab test to show what changes added CO2 causes to the climate, or how that should be priced.

Current US emissions are down to about 1992 levels, which may have more to do with better built homes and LED light bulbs,

And de-industrialization. About half of electricity use is business including industry. Offices no longer leave all their lights on overnight for the cleaners (what I said about awareness: businesses were somehow unaware of the money they were wasting.)

but we can do more. I think to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels will require a lot of different sources.
I think hydrocarbon energy storage is what will allow wind and solar to become truly functional.
BREAKTHROUGH FOR POWER-TO-X: SUNFIRE PUTS FIRST Co-ELECTROLYSIS INTO OPERATION AND STARTS SCALING
Both Wind and Solar will end up placing large supply spikes into grid, supplying more electricity than is demanded
for extended periods in the Spring and Fall, when demand is low and supply is still high.

And it could be used to create synthetic fuel as you suggest. Or to smelt aluminium, or to idle gas and nuclear plants.

The value of surplus Kwh, can dip below zero, but if we had all the refineries waiting to pick up that low cost surplus
and store it as transport fuels, and heating fuels (CH4), it would prevent the surplus from causing damage to the grid,(as heat).
The resulting fuel would be carbon neutral when burned.

Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere likely isn't very efficient, but if the power is free then I see no reason why not.

Possibly energy could be stored as heat, in underground caverns like those used for the SPR?

 

[Ug make hammer]

Even the home mortgage deduction is not a subsidy, because if you did not have any taxable income
it would not increase the size of your refund beyond what had already been withheld.

People with no taxable income don't generally have a home mortgage.

Yes Business are allowed to prorate their large expenses over several years.
So if Walmart builds a new distribution center, they can depreciate that cost over many years.
Just like if an oil company drills an oil well, then can depreciate the cost of that well over many years.
It is a deduction, not a subsidy!

You're talking about investment (building a new outlet, drilling a well) which wouldn't be taxed anyway. I'm talking about businesses going backwards one year, and getting a deduction for that in the next year they make a profit. Like Donald Trump did for a decade after losing 1+ billion on a casino he built in the wrong city.

Mostly I find it unjustifiable. If a business makes a wrong decision, they should suffer for it. Why do we give them a second chance? Well because rich people are shareholders and rich people matter more than the average taxpayer.

 

[longview]

And de-industrialization. About half of electricity use is business including industry. Offices no longer leave all their lights on overnight for the cleaners (what I said about awareness: businesses were somehow unaware of the money they were wasting.)



And it could be used to create synthetic fuel as you suggest. Or to smelt aluminium, or to idle gas and nuclear plants.



Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere likely isn't very efficient, but if the power is free then I see no reason why not.

Possibly energy could be stored as heat, in underground caverns like those used for the SPR?

We need to use every means at our disposal.
Where we need to be, is to have enough sustainable energy for every Human alive to live a first world life style,
should they choose to. Fossil fuels cannot get us there.
I think energy storage also has a shelf live consideration, Heat dissipates, hydrogen evolves.
CH4 stored underground, would be good a 1000 years from now, and if it were made with atmospheric CO2 would be carbon neutral.
One of the videos from Dr. Heather Willauer of the Naval Research Labs, talked about one of their problems
in making jet fuel from sea water, was controlling excess CH4 (natural gas).
I know the round trip efficiency is bad, but imagine a large solar farm with it's required combined cycle natural gas plant.
Surplus solar is stored as CH4, which is burned by the natural gas plant when the sun is not shining, providing on demand
electricity 24/7, without any new CO2 emissions.

 

[longview]

People with no taxable income don't generally have a home mortgage.



You're talking about investment (building a new outlet, drilling a well) which wouldn't be taxed anyway. I'm talking about businesses going backwards one year, and getting a deduction for that in the next year they make a profit. Like Donald Trump did for a decade after losing 1+ billion on a casino he built in the wrong city.

Mostly I find it unjustifiable. If a business makes a wrong decision, they should suffer for it. Why do we give them a second chance? Well because rich people are shareholders and rich people matter more than the average taxpayer.

It does not have to be no taxable income, just the mortgage deduction is greater than the taxes owed, it will only go down to zero.

Yes, that is what all businesses are allowed to deduct, business expenses, and it varies depending on the type of business.
Sometime the tax law allows large expenses to be spread over many years, Building a new store, or drilling a well.
Not all wells drilled produce, and not all stores built succeed, but that are still allowed to write off the expense,
because it is a cost of doing business, they are risking their capital to expand the business, and if they
are successful, they will pay more taxes.

 

[Ug make hammer]

We need to use every means at our disposal.
Where we need to be, is to have enough sustainable energy for every Human alive to live a first world life style,
should they choose to. Fossil fuels cannot get us there.
I think energy storage also has a shelf live consideration, Heat dissipates, hydrogen evolves.

Wait a sec. All the hydrogen in the Universe is over 10 billion years old. Hydrogen escapes (being incredibly tiny and being able to pass between other atoms by some electron-sharing voodoo) but it does not evolve!

Refined petroleum I have heard, does lose octane rating with age. But this would be less of a problem with a "super refined" fuel made from carbon and hydrogen. There wouldn't be any super-high-octane rings in it (refineries leave those in to raise octane rating, but they're not stable.)

CH4 stored underground, would be good a 1000 years from now, and if it were made with atmospheric CO2 would be carbon neutral.
One of the videos from Dr. Heather Willauer of the Naval Research Labs, talked about one of their problems
in making jet fuel from sea water, was controlling excess CH4 (natural gas).
I know the round trip efficiency is bad, but imagine a large solar farm with it's required combined cycle natural gas plant.
Surplus solar is stored as CH4, which is burned by the natural gas plant when the sun is not shining, providing on demand
electricity 24/7, without any new CO2 emissions.

Yes, this sounds good. Burning pure CH4 (without atmospheric nitrogen in it) the exhaust of pure CO2 could be stored much more easily. Water vapor would condense out just by storing it at night-time.

My main concern with extracting carbon from the atmosphere is the very low concentration. If we could pump PURE carbon dioxide into tanks or underground, it would be a lot more efficient.