End Green Energy Subsidies Now!

[The Rabbi]

Non-renewables, by definition, eventually run out.

Renewable energy sources are therefore the eventual source of all energy used by humans on this planet.

It is unclear if oil is non renewable. There is certainly enough to last a very long time

It becomes harder and harder to find and more and more expensive to extract.

^^^Living in a bubble for the last 5 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Alevo Unstealthed A New Gigawatt-Scale Grid Battery Contender Greentech Media

On Monday, the North Carolina-based, European-backed company announced plans to invest $1 billion in turning an old Philip Morris cigarette factory into a battery factory eventually capable of churning out "several gigawatts" per year, CEO Jostein Eikeland told me in an interview. Utility customers in North America are soon to be announced, and the company has already booked about 200 megawatts of orders, enough to fill the factory’s planned production next year, he said.

Alevo says its lithium-iron-phosphate (LiFePO4) batteries are the first to use an inorganic electrolyte based on sulfur, which prevents the chemical reactions that lead to heating, expansion and eventual failure for lithium-ion batteries. Test cells have lasted more than 40,000 cycles in “hammer tests” that completely discharge and then overcharge them over and over again, without significant degradation of performance, he said.

The tools to make wind and solar 24/7.

 

[The Rabbi]

So are you in favor of wasteful corporate welfare to green energy producers or not? I can't tell from your garble.

That "garble" was simplistic enough that a grade schooler could figure it out.
And yeah, we should invest in energy technology research for the long-term welfare of our country's citizens.

Well that wasnt really my question. So I guess you need to find a grade schooler to help you with my posts.

The US subsidizes wind power for example in the billions every year. They siubsidize ethanol as well btw in a variety fo ways.
With cheaper traditional fuel the gap in cost will get bigger and bigger. Should we continue to subsidize green energy when the money could be better spent on other things. Like making sure we have a military capable of fighting wars.

Considering the military (Pentagon) is a cesspool of waste, why not monitor the spending? That would conserve spending that's wasted.
Military Waste and Fraud Are the Main Cause of Our Problems
Military Waste and Fraud Are the Main Cause of Our Problems The Big Picture
15 Facts About Military Spending That Will Blow Your Mind
Read more: 15 Facts About Military Spending That Will Blow Your Mind - Business Insider
Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste
Special Report The Pentagon s doctored ledgers conceal epic waste Reuters
Have any ideas that make any sense at all?

MIlitary spending is the lowest as a percent of GDP in decades.
BUt even so. Is there something that makes you incapable of replying to a topic with opinions and material actually germane to it?

You want me to answer to your opinion. I did.
No, I don't think we should stop subsidizing green energy. However, Green Energy will soon pay for itself. The cost of production of Green Energy has been sliding downwards as the infrastructure for Green Energy has become more plentiful. As this trend continues play out there will be less and less need government subsidies. That's the money side.
Then there's the people side. As I pointed out, Respiratory Disease is on the increase, along with deaths caused by respiratory diseases. The victims for the most part are children and older adults. This primary culprit is fossil fuel pollution. We're never going to quit using fossil fuels but with Green Energy emerging as an alternative certainly helps and also helps solidify America's quest to be energy independent. And of course we should be thinking of our generation, our kid's generations and our future generations.
Finally, you want to take the monies that go into Green Energy and redirect it to the military? As I pointed out, why? This country's military has wasted a ton of taxpayer money already. The military needs some very, very serious auditing. As the links I provided indicate, trillions of dollars have been wasted. Plus, we spend more on our military than the next fifteen countries combined!!!!!
So Rabbi, I answered your OP in entirety with the support of highly credible non-partisan resources. Of course, the Rabbi that everyone knows appears. As other posters have pointed out, you write this OP, don't back it up with anything but your own narrow opinion. When people bring out solid retorts that are backed by facts, you then cry like an infant, call names and of course further erode what little credibility you have left. That's been your M.O. for years. Like I have said before, there are quite a few really solid posters on the right, you aren't one of them

You must have some kind of mental illness.
You failed to answer the question in the OP, other than just saying No. You failed to cite any credible sources whatsoever. You made unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim. You engaged in logical fallacies and non sequiturs to beat the band. You confuse subsidies with researrch funding.
I frankly wonder how you function in any kind of professional environment. You need now to post a graph showing you thoroughly do not understand what is going on.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you end subsidies, causing a massive cutback in the use of renewables, the demand that was consuming those renewables has to go back to non-renewables,

not the least of which is oil, and thus you create an increased demand for oil, which drives up the price,

and further depletes the amount of oil left on the planet.

Thats sort of true.
It would increase demand for oil as a cheaper source. Probably not enough to make a huge difference in price right now. BUt there are also the tax savings and greater efficiency.

The Saudis are currently driving down oil prices to the point they are beginning to threaten the profitability of tar sands production and other such domestic oil sources.

That's also not true. Except in some grossly oversimplified sound bite way. Which is how you approach most of it.

 

[hipeter924]

Under a true free market there are no subsidies or market barriers. Green energy subsidies are what help the US become more energy independent, and fund renewable energy sources. They are more beneficial than subsides to fossil fuels, which will run out by the end of the century. If America gets rid of any subsidies however, agriculture subsidies and oil subsidies cost America the most.

THe fracking revolution has done far more than decades of green energy subsidies to make America energy indepedent.

Hardly. Oil is set to run out by the end of the century, even by the most generous forecasts. Removing green energy subsidies wouldn't help America adapt to the eventual fossil fuels crash. Sunlight should last several billion years, and hydrogen fuel cells aren't that far off from replacing oil in cars either.

There is no evidence that oil will run out. People were saying that in 1976.
Having green energy subsidies will not help America become energy independent either.

Even the oil industry believe the oil will eventually run out, and are investing in alternative fuels. A lot of the technology for extraction wasn't there in the 70s, and they hadn't done as much oil exploration. Most respectable scientists put peak oil near the middle of this century, and expect oil sources to be used up by the end of the century.

Green Energy subsidies help support the construction of wind farms, solar panels, bio-fuels, and otherwise encourage the use of the renewable energy. Shell, BP, and so on have no issues with them, and frankly any argument on removing energy subsidies, be it towards fossil fuels or green energy, and so on - ultimately is about removing artificial factors in the economy. But I would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with green energy subsidies, beyond the premise of involuntary taxation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest 5.2B in Storage Can It Get Approval Greentech Media

Texas utility Oncor wants to spend billions of dollars on batteries to back up its transmission and distribution network -- a major investment in grid-scale energy storage that will require major changes in the country’s most deregulated energy market.

In a first for a Texas transmission and distribution utility, Oncor will seek state regulatory approval for up to $5.2 billion in distribution-grid-connected batteries, with deployment set to start in 2018. According to the Dallas Morning News, Oncor’s plan calls for up to 5 gigawatts of batteries, ranging from refrigerator-sized to containerized units, across its service territory.

And some of the people that will make solar and wind plus grid scale batteries happen.

 

[dblack]

Fine, lets end them for oil companies too.

I notice that you failed to provide actual figures.

Indeed. Stop using the tax code for social engineering.

 

[The Rabbi]

Under a true free market there are no subsidies or market barriers. Green energy subsidies are what help the US become more energy independent, and fund renewable energy sources. They are more beneficial than subsides to fossil fuels, which will run out by the end of the century. If America gets rid of any subsidies however, agriculture subsidies and oil subsidies cost America the most.

THe fracking revolution has done far more than decades of green energy subsidies to make America energy indepedent.

Hardly. Oil is set to run out by the end of the century, even by the most generous forecasts. Removing green energy subsidies wouldn't help America adapt to the eventual fossil fuels crash. Sunlight should last several billion years, and hydrogen fuel cells aren't that far off from replacing oil in cars either.

There is no evidence that oil will run out. People were saying that in 1976.
Having green energy subsidies will not help America become energy independent either.

Even the oil industry believe the oil will eventually run out, and are investing in alternative fuels. A lot of the technology for extraction wasn't there in the 70s, and they hadn't done as much oil exploration. Most respectable scientists put peak oil near the middle of this century, and expect oil sources to be used up by the end of the century.

Green Energy subsidies help support the construction of wind farms, solar panels, bio-fuels, and otherwise encourage the use of the renewable energy. Shell, BP, and so on have no issues with them, and frankly any argument on removing energy subsidies, be it towards fossil fuels or green energy, and so on - ultimately is about removing artificial factors in the economy. But I would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with green energy subsidies, beyond the premise of involuntary taxation.

We were said to reach peak oil about 15 years ago. Or maybe 20. Whatever it is, the notion has been blown away decisively.
ZThe subsidies distort the market for energy and channel resources into inefficient endeavors, costing the economy overall in addition to subsidies.
If oil starts to run out the market will signal shortages and green energy will become economically feasible. No need to pour money down that well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coal will become increasingly expensive, wind and solar are both still on a decreasing expense line. Also, coal has externalized costs such as asthma, and the effects of the lead, mercury, and uranium that the coal fired plants put into the air. Natural gas is facing increasing resistance to it's fracking practices due to careless operators, and the problem of what to do with the used fluids. Lubricating fault lines is not working out so well for the industry.

In the meantime, wind and solar are pollutionless, the energy costs nothing, sunlight and wind are always there, and both can be used in a dual manner. In Oregon, we grow wheat right up to the bases of the wind turbines, and warehouse roofs, the roofs of factories, and commercial buildings would be excellent places for thin film solar, and close to where the electricity would be used, cutting down the cost of transmission losses.

I think by 2020 there is a good chance that we will see coal plants starting to be shut down, and, by 2030, gas plants. Simply on the basis of economics.

 

[hipeter924]

Under a true free market there are no subsidies or market barriers. Green energy subsidies are what help the US become more energy independent, and fund renewable energy sources. They are more beneficial than subsides to fossil fuels, which will run out by the end of the century. If America gets rid of any subsidies however, agriculture subsidies and oil subsidies cost America the most.

THe fracking revolution has done far more than decades of green energy subsidies to make America energy indepedent.

Hardly. Oil is set to run out by the end of the century, even by the most generous forecasts. Removing green energy subsidies wouldn't help America adapt to the eventual fossil fuels crash. Sunlight should last several billion years, and hydrogen fuel cells aren't that far off from replacing oil in cars either.

There is no evidence that oil will run out. People were saying that in 1976.
Having green energy subsidies will not help America become energy independent either.

Even the oil industry believe the oil will eventually run out, and are investing in alternative fuels. A lot of the technology for extraction wasn't there in the 70s, and they hadn't done as much oil exploration. Most respectable scientists put peak oil near the middle of this century, and expect oil sources to be used up by the end of the century.

Green Energy subsidies help support the construction of wind farms, solar panels, bio-fuels, and otherwise encourage the use of the renewable energy. Shell, BP, and so on have no issues with them, and frankly any argument on removing energy subsidies, be it towards fossil fuels or green energy, and so on - ultimately is about removing artificial factors in the economy. But I would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with green energy subsidies, beyond the premise of involuntary taxation.

We were said to reach peak oil about 15 years ago. Or maybe 20. Whatever it is, the notion has been blown away decisively.
ZThe subsidies distort the market for energy and channel resources into inefficient endeavors, costing the economy overall in addition to subsidies.
If oil starts to run out the market will signal shortages and green energy will become economically feasible. No need to pour money down that well.

Peak Oil has not been 'blown away decisively', it is always going to be contentious as it relies on estimates of oil supplies, and on estimates over extraction costs.

 

[Old Rocks]

We will not run out of oil. But as the oil becomes more costly, it will run out of customers as electricity becomes cheaper because of the decreasing price of renewables.

 

[Old Rocks]

Double the range of the EV batteries, halve there cost, and EV will replace ICE engines.

 

[hipeter924]

Coal will become increasingly expensive, wind and solar are both still on a decreasing expense line. Also, coal has externalized costs such as asthma, and the effects of the lead, mercury, and uranium that the coal fired plants put into the air. Natural gas is facing increasing resistance to it's fracking practices due to careless operators, and the problem of what to do with the used fluids. Lubricating fault lines is not working out so well for the industry.

In the meantime, wind and solar are pollutionless, the energy costs nothing, sunlight and wind are always there, and both can be used in a dual manner. In Oregon, we grow wheat right up to the bases of the wind turbines, and warehouse roofs, the roofs of factories, and commercial buildings would be excellent places for thin film solar, and close to where the electricity would be used, cutting down the cost of transmission losses.

I think by 2020 there is a good chance that we will see coal plants starting to be shut down, and, by 2030, gas plants. Simply on the basis of economics.

Nuclear energy is also becoming an increasingly popular alternative to coal in developed countries (despite the nuclear disaster in Japan), and developing countries are turning away from coal due to the negative health effects. Nuclear energy has issues with radiation, but it is quite likely we will have nuclear fusion by the middle of the century once they get over the hurdle of producing more power than they are consuming. I don't worry too much about peak oil or the end of fossil fuels, as viable energy alternatives already exist to replace them.

 

[The Rabbi]

THe fracking revolution has done far more than decades of green energy subsidies to make America energy indepedent.

Hardly. Oil is set to run out by the end of the century, even by the most generous forecasts. Removing green energy subsidies wouldn't help America adapt to the eventual fossil fuels crash. Sunlight should last several billion years, and hydrogen fuel cells aren't that far off from replacing oil in cars either.

There is no evidence that oil will run out. People were saying that in 1976.
Having green energy subsidies will not help America become energy independent either.

Even the oil industry believe the oil will eventually run out, and are investing in alternative fuels. A lot of the technology for extraction wasn't there in the 70s, and they hadn't done as much oil exploration. Most respectable scientists put peak oil near the middle of this century, and expect oil sources to be used up by the end of the century.

Green Energy subsidies help support the construction of wind farms, solar panels, bio-fuels, and otherwise encourage the use of the renewable energy. Shell, BP, and so on have no issues with them, and frankly any argument on removing energy subsidies, be it towards fossil fuels or green energy, and so on - ultimately is about removing artificial factors in the economy. But I would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with green energy subsidies, beyond the premise of involuntary taxation.

We were said to reach peak oil about 15 years ago. Or maybe 20. Whatever it is, the notion has been blown away decisively.
ZThe subsidies distort the market for energy and channel resources into inefficient endeavors, costing the economy overall in addition to subsidies.
If oil starts to run out the market will signal shortages and green energy will become economically feasible. No need to pour money down that well.

Peak Oil has not been 'blown away decisively', it is always going to be contentious as it relies on estimates of oil supplies, and on estimates over extraction costs.

And they've been consistently wrong for about 40 years.

 

[Mustang]

Let's turn every road into a toll road. I mean, why are our taxes going to pay for the paving and upkeep of roads we never drive on. Let's see what happens when people have to pay directly to get their streets paved.

How is that even relevant to the OP?
Do you support subsidies for green power or not?

I absolutely and enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support subsidies for green power. Perhaps you want to see the Chinese and the Germans beat the US to the punch when it comes to developing the cutting edge technology that will allow them to capture the emerging market in renewable energy. I don't.

OK, that's one vote for corporate welfare.
Thank you for your honesty, sir.

What conservatives know about economics wouldn't fill a thimble since the gov't has a LONG history of subsidizing emerging technologies. Acquaint yourself with the railroads, the Interstate transit system, and the running of power lines and telephone poles.

You telling anyone they lack knowledge of economics is hystrical. Especially given the content of your post.

Why don't you acquaint yourself with the Rural Electrification Act and how it benefited farmers, ranchers, and other small towns who had no use for any manufactured product run on electricity before the gov't helped bring electrical power into their homes.

 

[Discombobulated]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

No, you're wrong as usual. Instead of following your stupid ******* suggestions what we ought to do is devote massive resources into research and development of new energy technologies so that this country can lead the way into the 21st century instead of lagging behind with the energy solutions and technology of the 19th century.

 

[Pop23]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Nuclear Power is actually green

I'd subsidize it in a heartbeat

 

[Discombobulated]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Nuclear Power is actually green

I'd subsidize it in a heartbeat

Until there's an earthquake......then it's just radioactive.

 

[Pop23]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Nuclear Power is actually green

I'd subsidize it in a heartbeat

Until there's an earthquake......then it's just radioactive.

Old technology. Quit watching the Simpsons.

France is building them as fast as they can, Germany' dumping them.

The average Frenchman now creates 5 tons of carbon, the average German double that.

It's a win/win. The right gets plentiful energy at a cheap rate, the left get energy independence that doesn't add to global warming.

What's not to love?

Oh, and Big Oil and Big Coal hate the idea. Another win for the left b

 

[Discombobulated]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

Nuclear Power is actually green

I'd subsidize it in a heartbeat

Until there's an earthquake......then it's just radioactive.

Old technology.

France is building them as fast as they can, Germany' dumping them.

The average Frenchman now creates 5 tons of carbon, the average German double that.

It's a win/win. The right gets plentiful energy at a cheap rate, the left get energy independence that doesn't add to global warming.

What's not to love?

Fukushima.