The Solar Swindle

[g5000]

let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.

Um...

Already been done: SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

Thanks for playing!

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, and those batteries are very expensive, contain hazardous materials, and have a short life. I thought you libs were against poisoning mother earth with hazardous waste. Where ya gonna put all the old batteries?

The batteries in the Tesla are gaurenteed for 8 years, with unlimited mileage. What is the engine in your present car gaurenteed for?

If you leave a Tesla parked in an Arizona parking lot for two weeks, you will be coming home to a brick. You would have to replace the batteries right then and there.

It costs $12,000 for a new battery pack for the Tesla. How many gallons of gas would that buy? How many years would it take to use that much gas?

That's about 90,000 miles if gas was $4.00 a gallon.

All true. But how many miles did the early ICE's get before they had to be rebuilt, or junked? And what was there cost? These new types of batteries are a new technology, and will not only cost far less in the future, but have a great deal more power.

 

[Redfish]

So what have we learned?

We have learned that some people were ignorant of the fact that all energy sources receive government subsidies.

We have learned that solar power still has a way to go to be financially viable. But since all energy sources depend on government subsidies, that seems to be true for all of them.

We have learned that solar energy is making advances. Just as internal combustion technology took a century to improve, and is still improving, so it will be with solar technology. It does not come out of the box at its most efficient and productive state, and no technology ever did.

Nope, what we have learned is that fossil fuels get tax exemptions for exploration expenses and pay huge amounts of taxes to state and federal governments.

we have also learned that you do not understand what a subsidy is.

we have also learned that solar, while possibly the power of the future, is not fiscally viable yet and that govt 'subsidies' have not made it become fiscally viable.

 

[jc456]

If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.

much nonsense. MUCH!

 

[ClosedCaption]

let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.

Um...

Already been done: SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

Thanks for playing!

Next dodge: But it wasnt on a Wednesday!

 

[Redfish]

let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.

Um...

Already been done: SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

Thanks for playing!

right, one guy in a cellophane plane, great. international air travel will never be the same.

 

[bripat9643]

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20130313/100476/HHRG-113-SY20-Wstate-HutzlerM-20130313.pdf

The federal government has provided various forms of financial support for the development and production of fuels and energy technologies over the past several decades and that support is growing. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers with its most recent information for fiscal year 2010. Over a 3*‐year period, from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010, total federal energy subsidies increased from $17.9 billion to $37.2 billion, an increase of 108 percent over the 3*‐year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in renewable and end‐use subsidies. Over the 3‐year period:

Renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion.
• Wind led the various renewables with a more than 10-fold increase in subsidy from $476 million to $4,986 million.
• Solar subsidies increased by more than a factor of 6 from $179 million to $1134 million.
• Subsidies for biofuels increased by 66 percent, from $4 billion to $6.6 billion.
• Conservation and end-use subsidies more than tripled from $4 billion to $14.8 billion. Conservation subsidies increased from $369 million to $6,597 million, a factor of almost 18. End-use subsidies increased from $3,618 million to $8,241 million, more than a doubling.

In contrast,
• Federal subsidies for coal increased 44 percent from $943 million to $1,358 million.
• Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas increased 40 percent from $2,010 million to $2,820 million.
• Federal subsidies for nuclear energy increased 46 percent from $1,714 million to $2,499 million.

Solar got $1.113 billion in subsidies. Coil, oil, and natural gas received $4.178 billion in subsidies during the same period.

Wind power was the biggest winner.

I think you'll find that the so-called "subsidies" for coal, oil and natural gas aren't really subsidies at all. They include things like paying part of the cost of home heating oil for low-income seniors. That isn't a subsidy to the oil companies, no matter how much the enemies of reason and common sense want to paint it that way.

Peter Foster: The bogus debate over fossil-fuel subsidies

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/04/peter-foster-the-bogus-debate-over-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

http://marshall.org/energy-policy/attack-on-oil-subsidies-a-ruse/

The current attack on oil company “subsidies” is a ruse to make gasoline more scarce and to shift blame for high prices. It will fail but be costly and disruptive in the process.

The subsidy charges are bogus. Of the four mentioned most often–depletion allowance, intangible drilling costs, manufacturers tax credit and foreign income tax credit–two apply to all business. The manufacturing tax credit was designed to promote domestic job creation while the foreign tax credit is in place to prevent double taxation. The US already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

The depletion allowance is only available to small, independent oil and gas producers, of which there are about 18,000. Major oil companies have not been able to use it since 1978. The ability to deduct intangible drilling costs like wages, the costs of drilling muds, survey work, etc. is no different than deductions of the operating expenses by any business. The ability to write these off in oil and gas exploration is recognition of large up front costs and the fact finding oil and gas also involves a lot of dry holes. The immediate write off provides a one time lower tax bill. After that, taxable revenue is higher. The government is not losing anything. Eliminating it would discriminate against oil and gas exploration and reduce domestic production.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/the-truth-about-all-those-subsidies-for-big-oil/

The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.

1. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913. Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

2. Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.

3. The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil,” these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

4. Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself.

Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.

 

[bripat9643]

Are the claims exaggerated or the claims outright false?

Because theres a difference and you're trying to move the goal posts. First you said they arent subsidized at all.

Now you say...

Oil is the most heavily taxed commodity in the world.

Not the subject at all but thx

Sure it is. Any talk of "subsidies" has to include all the revenue the government earns from income taxes on oil company profits and excise taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels. the government receives no revenue at all from wind or solar energy.

 

[bripat9643]

The batteries in the Tesla are gaurenteed for 8 years, with unlimited mileage. What is the engine in your present car gaurenteed for?

If you leave a Tesla parked in an Arizona parking lot for two weeks, you will be coming home to a brick. You would have to replace the batteries right then and there.

It costs $12,000 for a new battery pack for the Tesla. How many gallons of gas would that buy? How many years would it take to use that much gas?

That's about 90,000 miles if gas was $4.00 a gallon.

All true. But how many miles did the early ICE's get before they had to be rebuilt, or junked? And what was there cost? These new types of batteries are a new technology, and will not only cost far less in the future, but have a great deal more power.

Cars were economically viable from virtually the first day they were manufactured. They had the added advantage of taking up far less space than required for two horses and a carriage. Plus, they didn't leave mountains of horse manure behind them to attract flies, typhus and countless other diseases.

 

[bripat9643]

let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.

Um...

Already been done: SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

Thanks for playing!

How many passengers can it carry?

 

[jc456]

let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.

Um...

Already been done: SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE

Thanks for playing!

How many passengers can it carry?

And what did it cost to build?

 

[bripat9643]

If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.

A $35,000 solar installation produces enough electricity to power a hair dryer. How is anyone possibly going to charge their EV with such a source? And then what happens at night? Every watt of solar requires a watt of conventional backup. How can that possibly be as cheap as just relying on conventional?

My, my, dumbfuck really demonstrating his ignorance.

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems

Everything but the wracking for a 5 kw system, $8,500. 600 kw hrs a month. And the price is coming down on the systems every month.

So you can power 3 hair dryers at high noon for $8,500? How many can you power at 8:00 PM? My electric bill is about $200/month. So it would take about 8 years to amortize this investment, and that assumes I would never need electricity from any other source. I assume a "rack" and installation would mean additional cost.

 

[Old Rocks]

A $35,000 solar installation produces enough electricity to power a hair dryer. How is anyone possibly going to charge their EV with such a source? And then what happens at night? Every watt of solar requires a watt of conventional backup. How can that possibly be as cheap as just relying on conventional?

My, my, dumbfuck really demonstrating his ignorance.

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems

Everything but the wracking for a 5 kw system, $8,500. 600 kw hrs a month. And the price is coming down on the systems every month.

So you can power 3 hair dryers at high noon for $8,500? How many can you power at 8:00 PM? My electric bill is about $200/month. So it would take about 8 years to amortize this investment, and that assumes I would never need electricity from any other source. I assume a "rack" and installation would mean additional cost.

Well yes, for dumbies that can't use their hands. For the rest of us, just the cost of materials and time.

 

[bripat9643]

My, my, dumbfuck really demonstrating his ignorance.

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems

Everything but the wracking for a 5 kw system, $8,500. 600 kw hrs a month. And the price is coming down on the systems every month.

So you can power 3 hair dryers at high noon for $8,500? How many can you power at 8:00 PM? My electric bill is about $200/month. So it would take about 8 years to amortize this investment, and that assumes I would never need electricity from any other source. I assume a "rack" and installation would mean additional cost.

Well yes, for dumbies that can't use their hands. For the rest of us, just the cost of materials and time.

Really? How many people do you think are capable to install a solar system?

 

[Old Rocks]

A $35,000 solar installation produces enough electricity to power a hair dryer. How is anyone possibly going to charge their EV with such a source? And then what happens at night? Every watt of solar requires a watt of conventional backup. How can that possibly be as cheap as just relying on conventional?

My, my, dumbfuck really demonstrating his ignorance.

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems

Everything but the wracking for a 5 kw system, $8,500. 600 kw hrs a month. And the price is coming down on the systems every month.

So you can power 3 hair dryers at high noon for $8,500? How many can you power at 8:00 PM? My electric bill is about $200/month. So it would take about 8 years to amortize this investment, and that assumes I would never need electricity from any other source. I assume a "rack" and installation would mean additional cost.

Hmmmmmmmm............... But then who would expect you to know what 5 kw can do.

 

[bripat9643]

My, my, dumbfuck really demonstrating his ignorance.

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems

Everything but the wracking for a 5 kw system, $8,500. 600 kw hrs a month. And the price is coming down on the systems every month.

So you can power 3 hair dryers at high noon for $8,500? How many can you power at 8:00 PM? My electric bill is about $200/month. So it would take about 8 years to amortize this investment, and that assumes I would never need electricity from any other source. I assume a "rack" and installation would mean additional cost.

Hmmmmmmmm............... But then who would expect you to know what 5 kw can do.

How many watts do you imagine an electric oven requires? How about air conditioning? Central heating?

 

[Dutch]

The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power. Don't believe a word of it. One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:

American Thinker- Print Article

Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy.

Solar electricity is expensive and impractical. If it weren't for government subsidies, some explicit and some disguised, the solar industry would collapse. The many claims of competitiveness are always based on ignoring subsidies provided to politically correct renewable power, ignoring the costs associated with unreliability, and ignoring the cost of backup fossil fuel plants.

An example of a hidden subsidy is the California Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from so-called renewable sources by 2020. This mandate forces utilities to contract for expensive sources of energy, such as solar. The cost is passed on to the utility customers with the connivance of the government. Although the motivation behind the California scheme is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, politically incorrect sources of CO2-free electricity, such as nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric, can't be counted as renewable.

People whose knowledge of electricity production ends at their wall outlet are dictating national energy policy. Magical thinking by hopelessly ignorant political activists permeates the alternative energy universe.

How much does electricity from conventional sources cost? If I look at my ComEd (Chicago) bill, the charge for electricity is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH). Additional charges for delivering the electricity and various taxes increase the total to about 10 cents per KWH. This is electricity mainly from coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Electricity is available at the plant gate in much of the U.S. for about 5 cents per KWH.​

19th Century America:

"I'll tell you what, Caruthers, that new electric lamp cost too much and it's impractical. Why what will they thank of next, a flying machine."

 

[bripat9643]

The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power. Don't believe a word of it. One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:

American Thinker- Print Article

Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy.

Solar electricity is expensive and impractical. If it weren't for government subsidies, some explicit and some disguised, the solar industry would collapse. The many claims of competitiveness are always based on ignoring subsidies provided to politically correct renewable power, ignoring the costs associated with unreliability, and ignoring the cost of backup fossil fuel plants.

An example of a hidden subsidy is the California Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from so-called renewable sources by 2020. This mandate forces utilities to contract for expensive sources of energy, such as solar. The cost is passed on to the utility customers with the connivance of the government. Although the motivation behind the California scheme is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, politically incorrect sources of CO2-free electricity, such as nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric, can't be counted as renewable.

People whose knowledge of electricity production ends at their wall outlet are dictating national energy policy. Magical thinking by hopelessly ignorant political activists permeates the alternative energy universe.

How much does electricity from conventional sources cost? If I look at my ComEd (Chicago) bill, the charge for electricity is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH). Additional charges for delivering the electricity and various taxes increase the total to about 10 cents per KWH. This is electricity mainly from coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Electricity is available at the plant gate in much of the U.S. for about 5 cents per KWH.​

19th Century America:

"I'll tell you what, Caruthers, that new electric lamp cost too much and it's impractical. Why what will they thank of next, a flying machine."

No such conversation ever took place. Electricity was cheaper than gas lighting from day one, and it was far safer.

See, that's the problem with libturds: everything they know about the past is pure fiction.

 

[g5000]

Senate Rejects Attempt to End Oil Subsidies

Senate Democrats pressed for a vote Thursday to end some $20 billion in federal subsidies to the largest oil and gas companies. The vote failed, as Democrats knew it would. The effort was a political gesture aimed at highlighting Republican support for the biggest oil companies at a time when some people are struggling to afford filling their gas tanks.

The bill would have affected subsidies paid to BP, Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips.

Democrats had proposed redirecting some of the $20 billion from the subsidies to renew a series of tax credits aimed at manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars.

If that $20 billion of subsidies was not real, then how would it be redirected to solar, wind, and electric cars?

 

[Kosh]

I see the far left posters are at it again:

Solar power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation of the solar panels on a house is close to 30 years. Not to mention that there are environmental groups that are opposed to large solar farms.

Wind power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation is 25 years pending on how big and how many turbines are set up. These are only good in windy areas and once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Wave power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The costs vary and the recuperation costs vary pending the size and area it they are set up in. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Hydro-electric power is another avenue that is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The recuperation costs are around 50+ years pending the size of the damn. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

I see the one far left poster in particular mention the Tesla battery, well those batteries are very harmful to the environment. These cares are limited on the miles it can be driven between charges. And once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years? Not to mention if something bad ever happens the devastation it causes. Many environmentalists are against this, but not as much as all the other forms of energy combined.

Gasoline could be manufactured better to be more efficient and cleaner burning, except that the far left is against lifting the draconian laws put in place to allow tis to happen. So they go to the car manufactures and tell them to adapt the cars to the inefficient way the US makes fuel. Even back in the eighties the Oil companies told congress that they could make the product more efficient and burn cleaner, the far left house run by Tip O'Neil said NO! This later came up once again when the AGW farce was being heard before congress when the Hack James Hansen was presenting his religious belief as science. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Natural gas is a clean and efficient way to power and heat buildings. The methods for gather natural gas have always be in question by the more radical environmental groups, but so far all the money they have spent trying to demonize this industry have shown it is about a belief and not any facts. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Many of the so called alternative energy sources can help supplement energy, but is no where close to replacement. There will be little advancement in these areas. especially in solar and wind as many cash strapped governments have shut down their alternative energy projects in favor of their over bloated social programs.