DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 28, 2014, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/astevenson/media/b.bmp[/img]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Vulnerable_Countries_1024.jpg[/img]
The Next Revolution: Discarding Dangerous Fossil Fuel Accounting
Practices
Alex Nicolson, Contributor
October 23, 2014 | 10 Comments
The green revolution and, in particular, renewable energy
products such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal and
algae-based fuels are not waiting for viable technology — it
already exists in many forms. What they are waiting for is a
massive sea change in our antiquated financial accounting
systems.
We keep hearing that green technology has too long a payback or
too low an internal rate of return and just can’t compete with
non-renewable coal, oil and natural gas, etc.
Now to be fair, renewables have two drawbacks that have to be
considered in their use and integration into the power grid. The
first is their low capacity factors. For example, wind farm
turbines sit idle when the wind stops blowing, and solar power
output drops sharply when the sun is not shining. On the other
hand, non-renewable energy systems can operate 24 hours a day
without interruption, so they will be used for some time to come
as more dependable baseload power sources.
The second factor is evident when we compare installation and
operating costs. Renewable installations spend 80 percent of
their budget in the first year and 20 percent over their 20- or
30-year operating life. Non-renewables are the opposite; only 20
percent is spent on the initial installation and 80 percent on
the next 20 or 30 years of operation. And so our antiquated and
myopic accounting practices analyse these facts and then say
that coal, oil and gas plants obviously have a better return on
investment.
Of course as we run out of non-renewables, their power
production will slowly dwindle. We should be prepared for that
inevitable event by building up renewable energy options and
developing technologies now. The book “Last hours of Ancient
Sunlight” by Thom Hartman covers that inevitability very well.
The Costs of Oil
We complain about $4+ per gallon gasoline, but people do not
realize that we would likely pay over $10 a gallon if we add on
the currently ignored direct social and economic costs of oil.
Economists recognize the existence of these costs and call them
“externalities.” Other than this recognition, externalities are
still not assigned to their correct sources.
As just one example, consider the enormous U.S. military budget,
(currently a staggering $700 billion). A large portion of this
cost is spent on the 800+ military stations maintained around
the world that protect critical sea lanes for oil tankers and
oil pipelines and act on a moment’s notice to attack any
politically motivated disruptions to foreign oil field
production or oil storage sites. A significant portion of that
budget is a direct cost of oil.
And to that cost figure, we have to add the social costs of
young soldiers being trained, deployed and killed, severely
injured or handicapped for the rest of their lives. Then we must
also consider the enormous stress this imposes on these
soldier’s families and friends, both economically and
emotionally. That is another direct cost of oil.
And on another front, consider the enormous costs of the oil
spill in the Gulf and its effect on the ocean, wildlife and
beach environments. Consider the effect on people’s health and
livelihood and the stress they were under during hurricane
seasons that threatened a resurgence of oil and toxic dispersant
sludge to be thrown up on their shores. That is another cost of
oil.
Consider poor mountain people in Afghanistan that are killed and
injured due to drone attacks against Al Qaeda. Their injuries
and deaths are simply written off as collateral damage, when the
truth is that the U.S. is in that poor mountain region mainly
due to the huge oil and gas fields located in southern Russia.
These sources will eventually need a pipeline to transport the
crude oil to a warm-water all-season coastal port where tankers
can pick up and transport the oil to markets in the West.
The coal industry has similar externalized costs. Apart from
carbon dioxide emissions, mercury and other heavy metals,
coal-burning power plants emit over 100 times the radioactivity
of nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy. These
emissions cause inevitable negative health effects as it is
exhausted into the atmosphere and carried to those people living
downwind. In fact, annual deaths due to coal plant emissions are
estimated at about 60,000 people in the U.S. alone, according to
various concerned citizen groups.
Also the huge amounts of foreign aid paid to protect dictatorial
regimes against the wishes of the people under their control are
all direct costs of oil. Incidentally we see these regimes are
starting to fail in the Middle East, due to their younger
generation’s frustrations with a static society that has been
kept backward and out of step with the modern world just to suit
the oil interests.
And closer to home, a typical oil company’s income statement
reveals enormous tax breaks, such as depletion allowances from
taxes for using up a non-renewable resource, which make no
economic or social sense.
And in more recent times, oil companies can drill in federal
waters without paying any royalties. To date taxpayers currently
subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year —
an industry that shows record profits for owners and
shareholders.
And in the U.S., many states that are under the oil companies’
economic/political lobbying control do not charge them for
exploitation of these non-renewable resources. These resources
are state-owned assets, and the oil companies acquire them at a
very low cost.
Renewables Make Sense
Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy do not need these
massive hidden support costs. They cannot be stolen by any
super-power and are unlikely to be the source of dragged out
wars and intrigue between nations under the sham of spreading
democracy, which happens now over oil.
The sun is boundless, and in most mid- and southern-latitude
countries, a surprisingly small surface area of solar plants can
deliver most of the electricity a country needs. This is
particularly true here in the U.S.
Accounting Reform
So taking all these factors into account, accounting practices
must enter the 21st century, adapt to a global economy and
account for ALL of the real costs of each energy resource as
they are incurred worldwide. These numbers will reveal the most
viable energy resource technologies.
This will require a sea change in accounting. Accounting
principles and practice are still stuck in the industrial
revolution where we witnessed horrendous costs to the
environment and to workers. All these enormous social costs were
externalized and thrown onto the back of the society. Companies
were measured on profitability within incredibly narrow
accounting standards. Often the most polluting, child-exploiting
companies were deemed the most efficient and profitable and
given the most support.
Admittedly there has been many improvements over the past 150
years as we can see with child labor laws enforced and many
companies in the US and other developed countries are being
asked to clean up their dangerous emissions and remove toxins
from their workplaces and are starting to do so.
However we need to further expand our accounting horizons to a
world-view and take that same approach to a global scale,
especially when comparing renewable energy technologies and
demand that the comparison be based on their real costs.
If we can achieve that vision, then the correct decisions for
support of green renewable energy will become abundantly clear —
and the world will be a safer and cleaner place for us all.
A. G. Gelbert
October 28, 2014
Just wanted to jump in and also thank Ian Crawford, PJ Van
Staden and Joe Richardson for telling it like it is.
And for the anonymous poster, I have good news. Canada just
approved a hydro power dam project that will generate over one
gigawatt. I don't know how it will affect the wildlife but it
sure beats fossil fuel nonrenewable poisonous energy any time! I
also agree that micro hydro has a great future since it does not
disturb the flora or aquatic fauna. Hydro and micro hydro
contribute to renewable energy in Vermont but we need a more
serious commitment to passive geothermal using heat pump
technology to get rid of all fossil fuel use for heating and air
conditioning.
"Canada’s Multi-Billion Hydro-Dam Project Wins Environmental
Approval
Canada’s $7 billion Site C hydroelectric dam on the Peace River
won environmental approval, and is on-track for a final decision
before the end of the year. The project would involve
construction of a power station near Fort St. John and the
flooding of about 5,400 hectares of land in British Columbia’s
northeast. The dam would be the third on the Peace River. Once
finished, the project will generate enough electricity to power
450,000 homes."
HTML http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/canadas-multi-billion-hydro-dam-project-wins-environmental-approval/
joe richardson
October 28, 2014
Costs are costs. I think the science fiction writer Robert
Heinlein said it first, "TANSTAAFL",
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
joe richardson
October 28, 2014
Great article, it illustrates a fundamental law of the universe.
That costs are costs and it doesn't matter if you see them or
not or if an accountant wants to put them aside in another
column or not, they are there and they will be paid.
And ill take the total costs of renewables, including the costs
of building/planning around the site specific constant output
(base load) issues over the TOTAL cost of fossil fuels anytime.
PJ van Staden
October 25, 2014
Yes, real costs. Have you for example seen some of the real
costs of fracking. Can you imagine if a cloth or something in
the kitchen catches fire and you quickly hold it under the tap
to extinguish it, but instead get your water lightning up like a
blowtorch? Hey? Like in fighting fire with fire?
Google "Unearthed. The deeper the dig, the darker the secrets."
And watch the trailer there so long.
The fossil industry is guilty of an unforgivable crime. And it
all for the hunger of money. How shameful.
A. G. Gelbert
October 24, 2014
What Brian Donovan said!
I have sometimes wondered at the term energy RESOURCE used by
the media (and everybody else) to describe fossil fuels. It
seems to me that they should be referred to as a SOURCE of
energy, not a RE-source; you use fossil fuels once, period. They
can't be re-used. All renewable energy is, on the other hand, a
genuine energy REsource.
I believe our vocabulary is corrupted. Fossil fuels should be
called energy sources, not energy resources. But then the cat
would be really out of the bag for the fossil fuel polluters,
wouldn't it?
When the math actually gets done to include costs to society and
the biosphere. renewable energy is the obvious choice. In fact,
when all is said and done , the issue is what works
indefinitely. Just like running an internal combustion engine in
your garage "works" if you don't care about living, burning
fossil fuels on a planetary scale "works" if you don't care
about life.
This is not hard. Either we have an equitable, do ALL the math.
society that respects, not just fellow humans, but the biosphere
we and hundreds of thousands of other species of earthlings
require for life, or we perish.
See one minute clip on Natural Capitalism:
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/real-money
Fossil fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of
Stupid" Video:
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/fossil-fuel-government
FDR two minute clip on Trickle Down "Economics"
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/fdr-on-trickle-down-economics
Patrick O'Leary
October 24, 2014
Of course it will. Of course that was always true. And it was
always the case that doing so would impact the general public in
a positive fashion. And it was always the case that doing so
would negatively impact a small number of wealthy people.
ANONYMOUS
October 24, 2014
Hey folks, please get with the program and include hydro - high
capacity factor (60%), considered base load, been with us for
over 100 years, can load follow in an emergency in a matter of
minutes. Only 3% of existing dams are powered, plenty of
potential there except for the onerous and expensive
over-regulation, even more so for micro-hydro, from FERC. Why
are so many renewable energy writers so afraid of including the
pioneer of renewable energy?
sean o
October 23, 2014
You forgot to mention, everything is figured and compared by
BTU's which is a pretty antiquated way to compare production.
Brian Donovan
October 23, 2014
Great article. End the wars for fossil fuels!
Renewable has the SAME grid integration needs as baseload: all
those spinning reserve and peaking plants are needed for load
following by baseload too. We have all seen Germany and Denmark
exceed 50% from intermittent renewable with no problems. Yet the
myth persists that RE needs "special" backup.
Fossils and nuclear have also gotten massive gov breaks for 100
and 50 years, still get 50 times solar and wind, and got more
than solar and wind per MWH at similar stages in development.
Ian Crawford
October 23, 2014
CORRECTION: ".....renewables have two drawbacks that have to be
considered in their use and integration into the power grid. The
first is their low capacity factors."
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
The EIA rates new geothermal plants as having a 92% capacity
factor
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif,
higher than
those of nuclear (90%), gas (87%), or coal (85%), and much
higher than those of intermittent sources such as onshore wind
(34%) or solar photovoltaic (25%).
Geothermal Energy is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/the-next-revolution-discarding-dangerous-fossil-fuel-accounting-practices#comment-136450
#Post#: 2127--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: October 31, 2014, 12:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Whitehouse Proposes Carbon Tax to Repay Citizens for
Pollution Costs
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
Anastasia Pantsios | October 29, 2014 4:35 pm
Delivering a keynote address at the New York University
Institute for Policy Integrity’s fall conference, in which he
noted “The world has just set some dubious records. 2014 is on
pace to tie or become the hottest year on record,” U.S. Sen.
Sheldon Whitehouse announced that he plans to introduce
legislation creating a carbon pollution fee next month. He said
he will reveal details in the next few weeks.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gives one of his weekly addresses on
climate change. Photo credit: Sheldon Whitehouse (at the link)
It was an appropriate announcement to make at the conference
whose theme this year was “The Future of U.S. Climate Policy:
Coal, Carbon Markets and the Clean Air Act.”
“Pollution-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our
infrastructure and harms public health,” he told his audience.
“However, none of these costs are factored into the price of the
coal or oil that’s burned to release this carbon. The big oil
and coal companies have offloaded those costs onto society.
Economics 101 tells us that’s a market failure; in the jargon,
that negative externalities are inefficient. If a company
participates in an activity that causes harm, it should have to
compensate those harmed.”
“By making carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel
companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars
annually,” he continued. “By making carbon pollution free, we
fix the game, favoring polluters over newer and cleaner
technologies that harvest the wind, sun and waves. Corporate
polluters, not bearing the costs of their products, are in
effect cheating their competitors.”
HTML http://image.blingee.com/images17/content/output/000/000/000/6a0/604681651_739399.gif
See above Proud representative of the Fossil Fuel industry... ;D
The Rhode Island Democrat, chairman of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety,
has long been an advocate for climate change action. His
official website features a page called “Climate Change: Time to
Wake Up” and he has made more than 85 speeches in the Senate on
the topic, giving one per week.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at the
People’s Climate March in New York City last month. Photo
credit: Stefanie Spear (at the link)
Whitehouse praised the Obama administration’s limit on carbon
emissions from power plants, announced in June, saying “It will
change the way polluters think.” But he’d like to take the next
step of making polluters pay for their cost to society. He said
that not only would it reduce carbon emissions and improve air
quality, it would generate significant new revenue for the
federal government, perhaps as much as a two trillion dollars in
the first decade. He pointed to some of the positive uses that
money could be applied to, including cutting taxes, relieving
student debt, increasing Social Security benefits and providing
transition assistance to workers in fossil fuel industries.
“It’s win-win-win,” he said. “We can use this revenue to do big
things; repair a marketplace failure; and guide the economy
toward lower emissions, enhanced productivity and a sustainable
future.”
Whitehouse also drew a direct line between the Republican
party’s increasingly stubborn climate denier stance and the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed a gusher
of corporate money into campaigns.
“Not long ago, Republicans joined Democrats in pushing for
action on climate,” Whitehouse said. “Leading Republican voices
agreed that the dangers of climate change were real. Leading
Republican voices agreed that carbon emissions were the culprit.
And leading Republican voices agreed that Congress had the
responsibility to act. Then the heartbeat flatlined. Republican
calls for climate action fell silent. Something happened, right
around 2010. It was the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—one of the
court’s most disgraceful decisions. Improper fact-finding by the
five conservative activists on the Supreme Court concluded that
corporate spending could not ever corrupt elections—just
couldn’t do it. By some magic, it’s pure.”
He says that although his Republican colleagues represent many
states ravaged by its effects, “Most won’t even utter the words
‘climate change’ on the floor of the Senate at all. It’s not
safe to, ever since Citizens United allowed the bullying,
polluting special interests to bombard our elections with their
attack ads and their threats.”
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/29/senator-proposes-carbon-tax/
#Post#: 2189--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: November 9, 2014, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote] joe richardson
November 9, 2014
In regards to your comments about road costs. I think its worth
noting how Texas and their illustrious Governor Perry decided to
deal with that very problem, i.e. paved roads being ruined by
fracking industry heavy truck useage in the Eagle Ford shale
area.
Texas and Gov. Perry plan was to turn the paved roads back into
gravel roads and the hell with the damaged pavement. . I
actually believe part of their plan was to strip the pavement
from paved roads and just let them go the way of the goat trails
and the people that lived in the area, well to bad..
In all fairness Gov Perry's plan was put forth a year ago and I
managed to escape not shortly thereafter and haven't paid
attention to where the plan went.
Yet another example of the mentality of oil or nothing that will
surely drive us all back to the goat trails days if we let it.
>:([/quote]
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/the-next-revolution-discarding-dangerous-fossil-fuel-accounting-practices#comm136919
#Post#: 2195--------------------------------------------------
How to Promote Solar — And Help Repeal Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Pa
rody
By: AGelbert Date: November 12, 2014, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
How to Promote Solar — And Help Repeal Fossil Fuel Subsidies:
Parody
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014183928.gif
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza, UnThink Solar
November 12, 2014
Article at link:
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2014/11/how-to-market-solarand-help-repeal-fossil-fuel-subsidies-parody#comment-137011
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2014/11/how-to-market-solarand-help-repeal-fossil-fuel-subsidies-parody#comment-137011
#Post#: 2556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: January 15, 2015, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=280]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150115220104.png[/img]
See how much you are getting RIPPED OFF by all the above at the
link: :o >:(
HTML http://foe-calc.herokuapp.com/peaceaction/
#Post#: 2625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: January 30, 2015, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
01/30/2015 12:47 PM
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Finally Trending Down, But Not In US ???
>:(
[img width=640
height=500]
HTML http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z8yLYObQlMc/T9wCMaqLA5I/AAAAAAAADvo/v5HI38D7KeA/s1600/SubsidyFail.gif[/img]
SustainableBusiness.com News
Now that deep sea oil drilling projects are being cancelled
across the world because of low petroleum prices, governments
should use this opportunity to phase out fossil fuel subsidies,
says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
And at least 27 countries are doing so, they say. It started in
2013, when fossil subsidies declined by $27 billion to $548
billion, while renewable energy support rose $11 billion to
$96.5 billion. The process is accelerating with low oil prices.
"In the absence of subsidies, all of the main renewable energy
technologies would be competitive with oil-fired plants," says
Faith Birol, Chief Economist at IEA.
IEA calculates that for every $1 that subsidizes renewable
energy, $6 is spent to subsidize fossil fuels - precious funds
that could be used for sustainable development.
Countries cutting subsides range from Mexico to Germany, from
Morocco to Malaysia, mostly in the form of higher gas prices -
everyone except the US, as usual! There's no need to subsidize
fossil fuel consumption when prices are so low, saving
governments lots of money and leveling the playing field for
renewable energy.
India, for example, has been spending 2.2% of GDP on fossil
subsidies to keep electric and fuel prices artificially low.
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115181253.jpeg[/img]
Fossil Fuel Subsidies US
Countries need to stop providing subsidies to stoke exploration
and production - amounting to about $88 billion last year. The
UK, for example, is considering incentives for drilling in the
North Sea, and the US - the biggest subsidizer - has a new
offshore oil leasing plan.
IEA has been fervently calling for an end to fossil subsides -
that alone, would reduce global emissions 13% - while making it
much easier for renewable sources to compete. It would also
reduce air and water pollution and free up funding for the Green
Climate Fund.
Efforts to cut emissions by using more renewable energy can't do
the job if fossil fuel use keeps growing, says IEA. If the
status quo continues, global energy demand will rise 37% and
carbon emissions 20% by 2040. That would lead to a 3.6°C (6.5°F)
temperature rise - making catastrophic sea level rise, polar ice
cap melt, water shortages and other severe effects inevitable.
To get fossil subsidies down faster, the Center for American
Progress is promoting "SPARC Bonds," which would be repaid with
savings from reduced subsidies. Read more:
Website:
www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/06/25/90277/su
bsidy-phase-out-and-reform-catalyst-bonds-2/
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26127
[center]
[img width=400
height=150]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/custom/image/tongue%5E_%5Earial%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E0%5E_%5EBurning<br
/>Fossil Fuels IS SUICIDE%5E_%5E.gif[/img][/center]
#Post#: 3218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: May 30, 2015, 9:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reflections From Below The Fossil Subsidy Iceberg :P
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/30/reflections-fossil-subsidy-iceberg/
#Post#: 3307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: June 15, 2015, 7:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTwhHTVBDjY&feature=player_embedded
How much does the world spend to subsidize fossil fuels? The IMF
wants to know [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
<br
/>[img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
<br
/>[img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
By Heather Smith on 15 Jun 2015 4:03 am
HTML http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-much-does-the-world-spend-to-subsidize-fossil-fuels-the-imf-wants-to-know/
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have ALWAYS BEEN
liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID
[/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let
them get away with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 3326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: June 18, 2015, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A Closer Look at Fossil and Renewable Energy Subsidies
The same permanent subsidies that made fossil fuels cheap are
simply not available to the re-newable energy industry. Why not?
June 10, 2015
By Susan Kraemer, Contributor
A new study by the International Monetary Fund puts the total
cost of fossil fuel subsidies at approximately $10 million a
minute globally, when health costs and environmental degradation
are included, never mind the effects of a destabilized climate
in future centuries.
The most perverse of these subsidies are aimed at finding new
reserves of oil, gas and coal, even though it is generally
understood that these must be left in the ground if we are to
avoid catastrophic irreversible climate change.
When drilling for oil was a start-up industry in the 1890s,
[i]it cost today's equivalent of $500 a barrel to get it out of
the ground[/i], according to UC San Diego's James Hamilton in
his study Oil Prices, Exhaustible Resources, and Economic
Growth.
The first federal tax break for the oil and gas industry came
within its very first years. The Intangible Drilling Costs (IDC)
still allows the industry to write off most drilling costs, like
the tertiary injectants deduction, in full, immediately, rather
than at normal business depreciation rates.
Enacted in 1926, the Percentage Depletion Tax Credit actually
increases when prices go up, as it allows companies to deduct a
flat percentage of income received from oil or gas wells,
frequently resulting in tax deductions in excess of investment.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America describes the
tax credit this way[quote]: "This deduction is a standard part
of the American tax code that supports the development of U.S.
oil and natural gas that would otherwise be uneconomic to
produce.”[/quote]
When coal was a start-up industry (in the U.S.) in the late
1700s, it was given tax-free status, smelting was given
incentives, and competing old world coal imports were taxed at
10 percent. Four centuries later, coal is still receiving $5
billion in incentives a year. The result is coal-fired
electricity at about US $0.04 per kilowatt-hour (when burned in
power plants that are already built, the costs of which have
already been passed along to ratepayers).
"There are dozens and dozens of tax credits for conventional
energy," said SolarReserve CEO Kevin Smith, based on the
knowledge he gained in 30 years of building natural gas plants.
"For example, if the Keystone pipeline goes ahead; the
refineries who refine that type of alternative fuel get a 50
percent ITC. There are depreciation allowances for wells as they
start to degrade, there are just a long list of tax advantages.
And all of them are a permanent part of the tax codes.”
These and other oil and gas subsidies total about $7 billion a
year in the U.S., according to Taxpayers for Common Sense
Understanding Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies.
For centuries, the U.S. Congress has made these sorts of federal
investments in each new form of fossil energy.
Permitting, Leasing Inequities, Too
State-level policies increase expenses for renewable energy
project developers by making permitting onerous for new
projects. In California for example, permitting has historically
been almost nonexistent for fossil fuels, but has set a much
higher bar for renewable energy.
Permitting solar farms in California can be a three-year
multi-million-dollar process. Fossil fuel companies can simply
declare on a one page form their intentions to drill next
Friday. Further, land leasing costs are higher for solar and
wind than for fossil fuels. Land leases for oil and gas were
still at 1920s prices in 2009, when the BLM was setting market
rates for the renewable industry.
The coal industry pays land rents for natural resource
extraction on land that has been undervalued since the 1800s. In
the last 30 years, the treasury has lost nearly $30 billion in
revenue by undervaluing public lands in Wyoming and Montana
where Powder River coal is mined, according to Tom Sanzillo,
Finance Director at the Institute for Energy Economics and
Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
Make Renewable Subsidies Permanent
It is almost impossible to reverse permanent subsidies in the
tax code. It has never happened in the U.S., so some advocates
believe that a more practical solution would be: if you can't
beat them, join them.
The coal industry's PTC for producing refined coal is $6.71 a
ton — in 2015. The wind industry’s $0.023 per kWh PTC keeps
flickering out every few years. Renewables have been stymied by
stop/start subsidies that almost seem designed to scare off
investors, because none are permanently in the tax code the way
fossil fuel subsidies are.
Uncertainty alone makes subsidies less effective. If the ITC and
PTC were permanent, renewable investment would be more
predictable, so supplying equipment for projects and capital
cost would be less, bringing generation costs down. While some
investors are able to stomach the risk of buying into renewables
projects without knowing whether the tax credits will still be
there when their projects reach fruition, most cannot.
Because subsidies for fossil fuels are permanent, the effect is
much greater, because permanence provides a stable and
predictable investment environment not given to renewables.
One way to create a level playing field with fossil fuels would
be make the subsidies for wind and solar just as permanent as
those for fossil fuels. Either that, or remove all subsidies for
all forms of fuel, something very unlikely to happen.
[quote]Comment by Jan Freed
The Harvard School of Medicine study concludes that coal alone
has enormous hidden costs from over 70 harmful side effects,
aside from tax breaks.
HTML http://www.nexteraenergycanada.com/pdf/durham/PIC_2_Handouts_P1.pdf
We pay $300-$500 billion per year in these hidden costs, costs
that double or triple the sticker price of coal energy.
Perspective? 800 "Solyndras" of taxpayer harms per year for the
privilege of burning coal. [/quote]
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-fossil-and-renewable-energy-subsidies.html
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-fossil-and-renewable-energy-subsidies.html
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have ALWAYS BEEN
liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID
[/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let
them get away with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 3369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than th
e Obvious Ones!
By: AGelbert Date: June 27, 2015, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270615171708.jpeg[/img]
[move]
[font=courier][I]‘Renewables Are Cheapest Energy Option’ When
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Removed, Says REN21 [img width=100
height=60]
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png[/img][/i][/font][/move]
Alex Kirby, Climate News Network | June 27, 2015 12:34 pm
A significant threshold has been crossed by renewable energy as
analysts report that the sectorʼs size last year reached
double the level it was at just 10 years earlier.
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/reoutpace650.jpg[/img]
Removing fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsidies globally would
make it evident that renewables are the cheapest energy option.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
This expansion happened in a year when the global economy and
energy use both grew, but without a matching rise in emissions
of carbon dioxide
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif—the<br
/>main greenhouse gas targeted in efforts to restrain global
warming.
The report by REN21, a global renewable energy policy network,
says the result is an example of sustainable development.
Despite the worldʼs annual 1.5 percent increase in energy
consumption in recent years and 3 percent GDP growth last year,
2014ʼs CO2 emissions were unchanged from 2013ʼs total
of 32.3 billion tonnes.
The reportʼs authors say this decoupling of economic and
CO2 growth is due to Chinaʼs increased use of renewables
and to efforts by OECD countries to promote more sustainable
growth, including by increased energy efficiency and use of
renewable energy.
“Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency are key to
limiting global warming to 2°C and avoiding dangerous climate
change,” says Arthouros Zervos, who chairs REN21.
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/policies.jpg[/img]
[b]Distorting subsidies[/b]
Solar, wind and other technologies, including large
hydro-electric schemes, used in 164 countries added another 135
Gigawatts last year to bring the worldʼs total installed
renewable energy power capacity to 1,712 GW. This was 8.5
percent up on 2013, and more than double the 800 GW of capacity
recorded in 2004. One GW can power between 750,000 and one
million typical U.S. homes.
The authors say the sectorʼs growth could be even greater
were it not for more than US$550 bn paid out in annual subsidies
for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. They say the subsidies keep
the prices for energy from these fuels artificially low,
encouraging wasteful use and hindering competition.
Christine Lins, executive secretary of REN21, says: “Creating a
level playing field would strengthen the development and use of
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Removing
fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsidies globally would make it
evident that renewables are the cheapest energy option.”
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/electglobal.jpg[/img]
By the end of 2014, renewables comprised an estimated 27.7
percent of the worldʼs power generating capacity—enough to
supply an estimated 22.8 percent of global electricity demand.
The amount of electricity available from renewables worldwide is
now greater than that produced by all coal-burning plants in the
U.S. Coal supplied about 38 percent of U.S. electricity in 2013,
compared with around 50 percent in the early 2000s.
Solar photovoltaic capacity has had a rapid 68-fold growth, from
2.6 GW in 2004 to 177 GW in 2014, while wind power capacity has
increased eightfold, from 48 GW in 2004 to 370 GW in 2014.
Employment in the sector is also growing fast, with an estimated
7.7m people worldwide working directly or indirectly on
renewable energy last year.
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jobs.jpg[/img]
Outpacing fossil fuels
New investment globally in renewable power capacity was more
than twice that of investment in net fossil fuel power capacity,
continuing the trend of renewables outpacing fossil fuels in net
investment for the fifth year running.
Investment in developing countries was up 36 percentsu from the
previous year, to $131.3 bn. It came closer than ever to
overtaking the investment total for developed economies, which
reached $138.9 bn in 2014—up only 3 percent from 2013.
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/invest.jpg[/img]
China accounted for 63 percent of developing country investment,
with Chile, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey
each investing more than $1bn. By dollars spent, the leading
countries for investment were China, the U.S., Japan, the UK and
Germany. Leading countries for investments relative to per
capita GDP were Burundi, Kenya, Honduras, Jordan and Uruguay.
But REN21 points out that more than a billion people—15 percent
of humanity—still lack access to electricity, and the entire
African continent has less power generation capacity than
Germany.
The report says that off-grid solar PV has “a significant and
growing market presence,” and other distributed renewable energy
technologies are improving life in remote off-grid areas.
However, it stresses that this growth rate is still not enough
to achieve the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) goals of
doubling renewable energy and energy efficiency, and providing
universal access for all by 2030.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/27/renewables-are-cheapest/2/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/27/renewables-are-cheapest/2/
Agelbert NOTE: The math done above is accurate as far as it
goes. However, it does not even begin to explain how REALLY
EXPENSIVE fossil fuels ALWAYS HAVE BEEN!
WHY? Because the invisible "subsidies" (health care costs,
pollution costs, wars for oil costs, ETC.) were not included.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "externality" in thermodynamic
processes. EVERYTHING that happens has a MEASURABLE effect. The
Empathy Deficit Disordered ASS HOLES in the dirty energy
industry have tried to make their biosphere math challenged
fairy tale view of reality the "accepted wisdom". Only fools
continue to believe them.
Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables: Why They Work and
Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/
[quote][color=blue]The quagmire that faces industrialised
civilisation is much of it was built using cheap fossil fuels
which were not only subsidised directly but in nearly all cases
the externalities were never factored in so the damage and costs
associated with fossil fuel were lugged to the general
population/wildlife/environment. - Monsta666[/quote]
Monsta is right. But he ignores the DELIBERATE malice and
aforethought that gave dirty energy the "subsidies" in the first
place AND continues to be used as a hammer to hamper cost
effective energy (i.e. RENEWABLE ENERGY) development due to
MASSIVE big oil corporate corruption of government. >:(
MKing's mendacity and double talk (see defense of fracking
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>below) about energy costs is a textbook example of the mens re
a
modus operandi of externality ignoring fossil fuelers
everywhere.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
[quote author=agelbert link=topic=3164.msg57501#msg57501
date=1411861194]
[quote author=MKing link=topic=3164.msg57482#msg57482
date=1411848787]
[quote author=Golden Oxen link=topic=3164.msg57461#msg57461
date=1411829157]
Might I pose the question that if we peak oilers are correct
about fracking being a ponzi scheme; that major cracks should
start appearing soon in this house of leverage and constantly
required drilling or fracking of costly wells.[/quote]
Tight/shale oil and gas wells aren't expensive, the most recent
range of numbers provided to the public by the Texas BEG are in
the 3-10 million each range, drilling and completing, I
confirmed this independently after I last spoke with Tinker and
his group a month or two back.
These kinds of numbers are nearly insignificant when compared to
conventional oil or gas production in places like the North
Slope or GOM, North Sea, anywhere in the Arctic, and are less
than half the cost of doing the SAME thing in Argentina, China,
or Russia.
As far as hydraulic fracturing itself being a ponzi scheme, it
has been going on for 60+ years, I don't think it has much to do
with overall financial performance myself, but more with the
relationship between price, cost and well performance.
For example, using financial reports on public companies allows
interesting analysis of the aggregate, but not the distribution
of profitability at the well level of resolution.
For example, lets take two oil companies in the Bakken. One of
them is run by a bloviating amateur, he drills and completes a
$10M well, pays $1500/month to have someone operate it for him,
and requires a nice office building, a staff of sycophants to
blow smoke up his ass, all of these things cost money, and the
overhead for this company is $100K/month.
This company will probably lose money, and badly, trying to
recoup not only the initial CapEx but the $101.5K month nut they
have created.
Whereas another company, requiring only one person to achieve
the same result, and wanting a modest income of $2k month from
this well, will probably make money.
No difference in anything other than the overhead sitting on top
of the well's performance.
Fortunately, when the first company goes bankrupt, the second
will buy the discounted cash flow of the first companies wells
(doesn't give a crap about the building, let the bank foreclose)
and make their money off expected increases in price as peak oil
takes hold and the price of oil increases as Malthusians expect.
The combination of these three things at the detail level, and
aggregate, is important. Amateurs don't tend to know the
difference, in part because they don't see how the performance
of private companies works, and how they are just salivating
right now, waiting for someone to fall, that their assets might
be acquired at a discount.
[quote author=Golden Oxen]
Shouldn't financing and borrowing problems be arising
already?[/quote]
They certainly might be.
My connections with Wall Street money says that they are still
looking to get in, you can barely get them to bite on 1/4B
deals, they really want 1B deals right now, and can easily come
up with 10B for the right deal.
So the money does not seem to have dried up yet.
[/quote]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>
To paraphrase Samuel Clemens in regard to some of his
experiences with people that make holes in the ground to get
stuff out of and sell to us for "profit", a FRACKING site is a
hole the ground with a bunch of LIARS on top.
Here's an article MKing will disagree with and ridicule as
"garden variety" or "irrelevant" or disdain with some other
pejorative bit of puffery.
The only part of the article he will agree with is that the Oil
and Gas industry ACTUALLY gave solar power technology
development a boost back in the 70s because PV supplied power to
very remote locations the fossil fuelers tend be located for new
profit over planet piggery. ;D
The FULL story of how we-the-people have supported these fossil
fuel and nuclear welfare queens is there from the start until
this day. The appearance of profitability ignores our tax money
for research and continuous subsidy.
Fossil fuelers have an amazing ability to ignore, not just
externalized costs, but the giveaways from we-the-people! They
have the brass balls to compute those subsidies as part of the
ROI. That's a blatant accounting falsehood. Without subsides
they are not profitable, period. But MKing will continue with
his fantasies, come hell or high water. So it goes. :P
SNIPPPET 1:
[quote]The bias against renewable funding and support is clear.
Recent analysis found that over the first fifteen years an
industry receives a subsidy, nuclear energy received an average
of $3.3 billion, oil and gas averaged $1.8 billion,Fto and
renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion.
Renewables received less than one-quarter of the support of oil
and gas and less than one-eighth of the support that nuclear
received during the early years of development, when strong
investment can make a big difference. Yet even with this
disparity, more of our energy supply now comes from renewables
than from nuclear, which indicates the strength of renewables as
a potential energy source.[/quote]
SNIPPET 2:
[quote]
The momentum behind renewable development came to a rapid halt
as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected president. Not only did he
remove the solar panels atop the White House, he also gutted
funding for solar development and poured billions into
developing a dirty synthetic fuel that was never brought to
market.[/quote]
Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left
Renewables Behind)
HTML http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind
HTML http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind
[/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page