Home Non Cigar Related

More government subsidy

kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
You have to zoom to see it
«1

Comments

  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 5,722 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Great, now we're subsidizing extraterrestrials?  Bad enough all our school and highway money ended up on the other side of the world, now we're shooting it into space?
    ;)
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "There is nothing so in need of reforming as another person's bad habits."   Mark Twain
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    Really takes away from the beauty that is Kansas. 
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭

    How exactly can one dislike their government supporting the establishment of sustainable and renewable energy sources? 


    And American manufacturing... "As of April 2009, over 100 companies are producing components for wind turbines, employing thousands of workers in the manufacture of parts as varied as towers, composite blades, bearings and gears. Many existing companies in traditional manufacturing states have retooled to enter the wind industry. Their manufacturing facilities are spread across 40 states, employing workers from the Southeast to the Steel Belt, to the Great Plains and on to the Pacific Northwest."

    "American wind power supported a record 88,000 jobs at the start of 2016."

    "Recent U.S. policy has generally been to provide an inflation-adjusted federal production tax credit (PTC) of $15 per MW·h (in 1995 dollars) generated for the first ten years of operation for wind energy sold. As of 2015, the credit was $23 per MW·h. Renewable portfolio standards mandating a certain percentage of electricity sales come from renewable energy sources, which are in place in about half of the states, also have boosted the development of the wind industry.

    Each time Congress has allowed the production tax credit to expire, wind power development has slowed as investors wait for the credit to be restored. Each year it is renewed development has expanded. The tax credit expired at the end of 2012, bringing wind power development activity to a near halt. A short term, one year policy was enacted at the beginning of 2013 which provides a tax credit to projects under construction by the end of 2013 and completed before the end of 2014. The PTC was first introduced in 1992. When it was allowed to expire, development dropped 93%, 73%, and 77% the following year."


  • Usaf06Usaf06 FloridaPosts: 8,671 ✭✭✭✭✭
    pelirrojo said:

    How exactly can one dislike their government supporting the establishment of sustainable and renewable energy sources? 


    And American manufacturing... "As of April 2009, over 100 companies are producing components for wind turbines, employing thousands of workers in the manufacture of parts as varied as towers, composite blades, bearings and gears. Many existing companies in traditional manufacturing states have retooled to enter the wind industry. Their manufacturing facilities are spread across 40 states, employing workers from the Southeast to the Steel Belt, to the Great Plains and on to the Pacific Northwest."

    "American wind power supported a record 88,000 jobs at the start of 2016."

    "Recent U.S. policy has generally been to provide an inflation-adjusted federal production tax credit (PTC) of $15 per MW·h (in 1995 dollars) generated for the first ten years of operation for wind energy sold. As of 2015, the credit was $23 per MW·h. Renewable portfolio standards mandating a certain percentage of electricity sales come from renewable energy sources, which are in place in about half of the states, also have boosted the development of the wind industry.

    Each time Congress has allowed the production tax credit to expire, wind power development has slowed as investors wait for the credit to be restored. Each year it is renewed development has expanded. The tax credit expired at the end of 2012, bringing wind power development activity to a near halt. A short term, one year policy was enacted at the beginning of 2013 which provides a tax credit to projects under construction by the end of 2013 and completed before the end of 2014. The PTC was first introduced in 1992. When it was allowed to expire, development dropped 93%, 73%, and 77% the following year."


    But they kill birds.  ;). I think the issue is how much money is wasted in government subsidies to these companies. Hundreds of millions wasted on the solar panel experiment
    "I drink a great deal. I sleep a little, and I smoke cigar after cigar. That is why I am in two-hundred-percent form."
    -- Winston Churchill
  • jgibvjgibv John G.Posts: 9,292 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Did you know that coal, oil, and natural gas are also subsidized by the federal government and, historically have received far more subsidies than renewable energy? 
    http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf
    http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d19_07.pdf



    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    What solar panel experiment? 

    I'm sure you can find plenty of wasted money in this https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ 

    I would argue that it isn't being wasted on wind and solar. 


  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/13/shell-oil-spill-gulf-mexico/
    Meanwhile, Shell dumps 90,000 gallons of crude in the gulf and no one bats an eye.

    Priorities gentlemen. 
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CombatClimateReport.pdf An interesting paper comparing federal military spending to climate spending. Maybe if we didn't think we were the world police we wouldn't be so broke. Only 24:1 ratio in 2013 a vast improvement over 88:1 in 2008.
  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    pelirrojo said:
    Really takes away from the beauty that is Kansas. 
    That's actually Colorado.  If you notice 1 blade is folded over..

    I have a problem with government picking winners and losers. Those turbines don't and will never produce enough energy to pay for themselves, the people who put them up and maintain them or the land lease payments.

    Anything dealing with federal government using tax payers money involves massive waste. When I set on the city council we had to put in a water treatment plant. $2million install going it alone thru bank loan. If we had went the federal government grant route, city's portion alone would have been $4.5million. Although this may not sound like a lot of money to most cities, it was huge for a rural Kansas town of 500 people. By going it alone and having our city employee doing most of the work we saved $2.5million city tax payer dollars alone, even after a nice bonus to our employee. Had we took the grant route or city employee would have had to watch crews come in and do all the work. 

    You may not have a problem with government wasting your tax dollar, but I damn sure have a problem with them wasting mine.
  • jgibvjgibv John G.Posts: 9,292 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    If you're going to be upset by federal government subsidies (tax expenditures & grants), please don't single out windmills, the "low man on the totem pole" so to speak.....

    Of the nine economic sectors, health and housing programs were, by far, the largest beneficiaries of federal subsidies at $743.5 billion (yes, with a "B") and $227.2 billion respectively. 

    Next on the list were education at $129.2 billion & transportation at $55.6 billion. 

    The energy sector came in at #5 (and remember this is out of 9) at $34.5 billion.


    More info here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/ninesubsidyscopechartspdf.pdf


    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The real good one is ethanol.. That's a racket from hell we are paying for many times over. 
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    It is difficult to waste money that they never had. Tax breaks simply require the citizen or corporation to pay less tax. Therefore the government isn't wasting any of our tax dollars. You are essentially arguing that these turbines should be taxed more heavily, how very un-conservative of you. 

    The manufacture, construction, maintenance, and operation of these turbines create American jobs and generate tax revenue via income tax. That is a good thing. 

    The energy produced by these turbines is clean. These turbines could run for thousands of years and never generate the kind of pollution a fossil fuel power plant will in one day. That is a good thing. 

    A wind turbine generates the amount of energy used to manufacture the turbine itself in one year and and over 20 times that amount in it's lifetime. This is three times better energy return on investment than a coal power plant. That is a good thing. 

    "For calendar year 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 181.79 terawatt-hours, or 4.44% of all generated electrical energy."

  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭

    At least they are way more efficient than this one on the side of I-40 in Groom, TX. This thing doesn't generate any power... silly!
  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    pelirrojo said:

    At least they are way more efficient than this one on the side of I-40 in Groom, TX. This thing doesn't generate any power... silly!
    I'm pretty sure the government hasn't spent a penny on that structure so it's damn sure more efficient. It sure taxes it tho. Your silly for posting it because it's not meant to produce power.


    Keep telling yourself the government doesn't give billions to green energy projects annually.  And by what I've read wind energy has yet to topple a measly 2% of total energy produced nation wide. 
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    Churches are tax exempt. I thought everyone knew that?

    That post was a joke. You're* silly for not getting that that was a joke. I'm well aware that a 190 foot tall cross in the panhandle of Texas wasn't meant to generate power. 

    Also, you clearly didn't read my previous post stating that in 2014 4.44% of electrical energy generated in the US came from wind. 


  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Even IF it was 4.44% the amount is laughable 
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    Do you get mad when you drive across hydroelectric dams too?
  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    They are way more efficient than wind power that's for sure 
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    From the American Wind Energy Association. 2013 Fourth Quarter report. 

    "The cost of wind energy has fallen by 43 percent in just four years, due to investments in technolgoical advancements and stable policy."

    "U.S. manufacturing production capacity has ramped up dramatically, and the largest turbine order in history of the U.S. wind industry was placed in the Fourth Quarter."

    “In many parts of the country today, including the impact of the PTC, wind is the most economic form of new energy generation.” - Moray P. Dewhurst, Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Excecutive Vice President of NextEra Energy on January 28, 2014 Earnings Call 

    I think that pretty well concludes today's discussion. 


  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    In your mind  maybe.. 
  • curtpickcurtpick nunyobusynezPosts: 2,761 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    Here's one for ya. And don't go out and cut and paste useless bs from the web. Test your brain for once.
      One simple question for all you who believe Government is the answer.
      Name one fu ckin g thing they have done right and paid for ?? They pay for nothing... WE DO !
    Enough said. 
    Lastly, both the left, right, progressive, and now f ucki ng socialist. 
      You don't think for me ! That you can't take away from me.

    Back to the program.
    And learn to have a discussion without insulting people. You might get listened to.
    Family, Friends, Golf, Cigars, Fine Whiskey, Good beer.... is there anything else ?  Follow on instagram @crguy1961
  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    This is the type of thinking that kills American jobs and drives up the energy costs for consumers.

    But hey, as long as those silly government bureaucrats aren't throwing money away on developing energy sources that are renewable and make us less dependent on other countries, I'll be happy. 
    (That was sarcasm)

    From US Energy Information Administration.

    Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015  

    • Coal = 33%
    • Natural gas = 33%
    • Nuclear = 20%
    • Hydropower = 6%
    • Other renewables = 7%
      • Biomass = 1.6%
      • Geothermal = 0.4%
      • Solar = 0.6%
      • Wind = 4.7%
    • Petroleum = 1%
    • Other gases = <1%
    Just under 5% and increasing its share every year while becoming more cost efficient at the same time. I call that a viable source of energy and something we should be investing in. 


  • pelirrojopelirrojo Farmington, NMPosts: 1,759 ✭✭✭
    Is that directed at me Curt? I haven't insulted anyone and I try to back my arguments up with facts. I feel this is far more relevant to the discussion than my opinion. I could just say that I think they are an eyesore and generally don't like them, but I am glad that we are trying to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that will one day get used up. 

    I thought this discussion was about whether or not the feds should be investing in wind energy? I am arguing that they should be. 
  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Depends where your getting your "facts". I can find articles all over the Internet to back up any argument. 

    I'm all for change when change makes sense, but throwing billions into something to only get 4.44% ( I have yet to find anything claiming that figure) does not make sense. If it's so grand why isn't all the the green peace billionaires funding it?

    I believe in climate change, there is a book that proves it, it's called the Almanac. Climate has changed well before man started using fossil fuels and coal.  I do agree we should stride to use cleaner energy, and we have cleaned it up. Advancements should be made thru the private sector and if they fail they fail. You brag how many jobs where created due to green energy, why don't you try going to coal country and tell the folks who are now unemployed about how great of a job the government is doing.
  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    Just like ethanol. Government keeps pounding it and pounding it.. I've yet to have a vehicle that loses less then 5mpg burning 10% ethanol apposed to regular gas.
    So say your car gets 35mpg on regular and 30mpg on ethanol, your actually burning 5% more regular gas to go the same distance using ethanol. Not to mention the diesel to work the ground, plant the crop, fertilize and spray the crop, water the crop (in some cases), harvest the crop and haul it to town then haul it to the ethanol plant.. You do all this to burn 5% more fossil fuel to go the same distance in your car. That is just the affects on the environment. Then add in the consumer's cost of having to buy more fuel to go the same distance, fuel additives to TRY to help the damage ethanol does to an engine fuel system, and in small engines case actually be able to run on it, then repair costs due to the harm it causes to fuel system..
     Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
    Post edited by kswildcat on
  • kswildcatkswildcat Posts: 1,496 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    pelirrojo said:
    http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CombatClimateReport.pdf An interesting paper comparing federal military spending to climate spending. Maybe if we didn't think we were the world police we wouldn't be so broke. Only 24:1 ratio in 2013 a vast improvement over 88:1 in 2008.
    I agree 110% @pelirrojo. We have no business sending our boys and I guess girls over to liberate other countries while we have plenty of our own problems, especially countries that history has proven do not want to be liberated .
    To be honest I don't believe we should be fighting any wars until the powers that be figure out war is ugly and if you must fight, fight to win. Also do not go into battle without providing our military the tools they need to achieve victory. Both sides guilty. 

Sign In or Register to comment.