More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

What's not affordable is doing nothing in the face of AGW and peak oil. What's not affordable are conservatives in Congress. What was not affordable was Bush conservatism. What's not affordable is ignorance. What's not affordable is Fox Opinions.

You lose all around.

I only lose if the government wastes tax dollars to subsidize your losing "green energy" schemes.

Nobody cares if you lose. If you choose to be a loser that's fine. But, we aren't going to follow you down the road. While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore, because Fox Opinions, in the pay of big oil, told you to.

There's a sucker born every minute. The minute you were born, is fully accounted for.

suckers for the win s0n!!!







LMAO....taken responsibility for WHAT???

[/URL]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's not affordable is doing nothing in the face of AGW and peak oil. What's not affordable are conservatives in Congress. What was not affordable was Bush conservatism. What's not affordable is ignorance. What's not affordable is Fox Opinions.

You lose all around.

I only lose if the government wastes tax dollars to subsidize your losing "green energy" schemes.

Nobody cares if you lose. If you choose to be a loser that's fine. But, we aren't going to follow you down the road. While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore, because Fox Opinions, in the pay of big oil, told you to.

There's a sucker born every minute. The minute you were born, is fully accounted for.

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

 

[PMZ]

I only lose if the government wastes tax dollars to subsidize your losing "green energy" schemes.

Nobody cares if you lose. If you choose to be a loser that's fine. But, we aren't going to follow you down the road. While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore, because Fox Opinions, in the pay of big oil, told you to.

There's a sucker born every minute. The minute you were born, is fully accounted for.

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

Only idiots would think that you have any idea what you're talking about.

What's going on is what's necessary. The future has to be different than the past. Conservatism is based on avoiding progress because every time they've tried to solve problems they've failed.

To achieve anything important success is the goal, not the process. There will be successes and failures. The success will outnumber the failures.

The only way to avoid failure is your way. Do nothing.

 

[freedombecki]

I only lose if the government wastes tax dollars to subsidize your losing "green energy" schemes.

Nobody cares if you lose. If you choose to be a loser that's fine. But, we aren't going to follow you down the road. While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore, because Fox Opinions, in the pay of big oil, told you to.

There's a sucker born every minute. The minute you were born, is fully accounted for.

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery that these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don't include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

[ame="http://youtu.be/RtgBWNKwBkE"]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PMZ]

Nobody cares if you lose. If you choose to be a loser that's fine. But, we aren't going to follow you down the road. While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore, because Fox Opinions, in the pay of big oil, told you to.

There's a sucker born every minute. The minute you were born, is fully accounted for.

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don't include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

[ame=http://youtu.be/RtgBWNKwBkE]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

 

[freedombecki]

The court jester keeping the aristocracy laughing during their final days.

Isn't it funny how laughter can bring down a house of cards built on junk science.

No such thing as junk science. That's an oxymoron.

The closest thing is Fox Opinions junk politics.

Yes there is: junk science is "science manufactured by individuals paid by special interest groups."

When AGW "scientists" omitted data on extended length periods to show that global warming was anthropogenic, their error was sending it by the world wide web to all their colleagues, only one or two of whom objected to the ruse to rob honest scientists of foundation funds and put the funds into their own pockets.

More delving into the manufactured anthropogenic global warming omissions showed absolutely no warming anomalies as claimed by them.

Al Gore made millions off Europeans who fell for his schtick, yet you accuse regular people in America like us of ridiculous charges for keeping tabs on these snake oil elements of the scientific community whose political agenda is to get money from foundations who functioned originally to grant science funds to deserving men of truth, and not liars, obfuscation specialists, and people who contaminate scientific studies with junk science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don't include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

[ame=http://youtu.be/RtgBWNKwBkE]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

You need proof that windpower is more expensive?
I should think the massive subsidies it needs are proof enough.
You know that energy cheaper than fossil fuels needs no subsidy, right?

 

[PMZ]

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel


Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

You need proof that windpower is more expensive?
I should think the massive subsidies it needs are proof enough.
You know that energy cheaper than fossil fuels needs no subsidy, right?

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

 

[freedombecki]

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don't include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

[ame="http://youtu.be/RtgBWNKwBkE"]Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube[/ame]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

I choose a small comparison financial analysis:

Solyndra: Bankrupt, American taxpayers (guarantors) out $535 million dollars ( - $535,000,000.00 )
Exxon net worth ( + 281,000,000,000.00 )

Gee whiz, why do you think that somehow green energies are the gift of the gods, when actually, they're parasites sapping America of its fiscal strength while the Al Gores of politics go home proffering the greenies for $50 million in the green a year?

November 13, 2013 2:47 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first month in nearly two decades, the U.S. in October extracted more oil from the ground than it imported from abroad. (Yahoo news) The article also mentions that we are producing 170,000 barrels per day more than the imports.

There went the plan to destroy the oil industry.

*poof*

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

You need proof that windpower is more expensive?
I should think the massive subsidies it needs are proof enough.
You know that energy cheaper than fossil fuels needs no subsidy, right?

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

What subsidies do fossil fuels receive? Spell them out.

 

[PMZ]

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel


Fatal Attraction: Birds and Wind Turbines - KQED QUEST - YouTube

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

I choose a small comparison financial analysis:

Solyndra: Bankrupt, American taxpayers (guarantors) out $535 million dollars ( - $535,000,000.00 )
Exxon net worth ( + 281,000,000,000.00 )

Gee whiz, why do you think that somehow green energies are the gift of the gods, when actually, they're parasites sapping America of its fiscal strength while the Al Gores of politics go home proffering the greenies for $50 million in the green a year?

November 13, 2013 2:47 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first month in nearly two decades, the U.S. in October extracted more oil from the ground than it imported from abroad. (Yahoo news) The article also mentions that we are producing 170,000 barrels per day more than the imports.

There went the plan to destroy the oil industry.

*poof*

So, when a company gets bested in cutting costs by technology development, that's a sign that the technology is dying. I see.

And when it becomes economical to extract oil that used to be too expensive and too low quality, that's a sign that the oil market is recovering. I see.

And when new capacity is virtually all in sustainable energy, that means it's dying.

I see.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell PMZ to go read about the $Bill that California is plowing into Battery Farms just to try to preserve their investments in wind and solar. The costs are not even Tallied yet..

There's a thread "Renewables get more expensive in Cali" that shows you what extremes are gonna be required to attempt to put even MORE of the flaky power on their grid..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

I choose a small comparison financial analysis:

Solyndra: Bankrupt, American taxpayers (guarantors) out $535 million dollars ( - $535,000,000.00 )
Exxon net worth ( + 281,000,000,000.00 )

Gee whiz, why do you think that somehow green energies are the gift of the gods, when actually, they're parasites sapping America of its fiscal strength while the Al Gores of politics go home proffering the greenies for $50 million in the green a year?

November 13, 2013 2:47 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first month in nearly two decades, the U.S. in October extracted more oil from the ground than it imported from abroad. (Yahoo news) The article also mentions that we are producing 170,000 barrels per day more than the imports.

There went the plan to destroy the oil industry.

*poof*

So, when a company gets bested in cutting costs by technology development, that's a sign that the technology is dying. I see.

And when it becomes economical to extract oil that used to be too expensive and too low quality, that's a sign that the oil market is recovering. I see.

And when new capacity is virtually all in sustainable energy, that means it's dying.

I see.

And when new capacity is virtually all in sustainable energy, that means it's dying.

Is that why the EIA says US use of renewables will climb from about 8% all the way to 11% by 2040?

 

[freedombecki]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

I choose a small comparison financial analysis:

Solyndra: Bankrupt, American taxpayers (guarantors) out $535 million dollars ( - $535,000,000.00 )
Exxon net worth ( + 281,000,000,000.00 )

Gee whiz, why do you think that somehow green energies are the gift of the gods, when actually, they're parasites sapping America of its fiscal strength while the Al Gores of politics go home proffering the greenies for $50 million in the green a year?

November 13, 2013 2:47 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — For the first month in nearly two decades, the U.S. in October extracted more oil from the ground than it imported from abroad. (Yahoo news) The article also mentions that we are producing 170,000 barrels per day more than the imports.

There went the plan to destroy the oil industry.

*poof*

So, when a company gets bested in cutting costs by technology development, that's a sign that the technology is dying. I see.

And when it becomes economical to extract oil that used to be too expensive and too low quality, that's a sign that the oil market is recovering. I see.

And when new capacity is virtually all in sustainable energy, that means it's dying.

I see.

I see people getting real good jobs with Exxon.

I saw 1400 people locked out of their jobs at Solyndra, no warning whatever, 18 months after Obama landed on the U.S. Treasury like ugly on an ape for not supplying his political benefactors (owners of Solyndra) $535,000,000.00 of the taxpayers' money overnight. The check was in the mail in less than 24 hours.

Quid pro quo disturbs many taxpayers. Too bad it doesn't bother you to see American families doing backbreaking work to supply terminal benefits to failed businesses because their owners threw a little money at a political candidate.

 

[freedombecki]

I'd like to see your financial analysis that shows that a no fuel no waste energy generator is more expensive than a fuel consuming, waste producing high maintenence fossil fuel plant.

You need proof that windpower is more expensive?
I should think the massive subsidies it needs are proof enough.
You know that energy cheaper than fossil fuels needs no subsidy, right?

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

Shilling for info for your term paper at someone else's expense?

Naughty, naughty!

 

[RollingThunder]

Nobody cares if you lose. If you choose to be a loser that's fine. But, we aren't going to follow you down the road. While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore, because Fox Opinions, in the pay of big oil, told you to.

There's a sucker born every minute. The minute you were born, is fully accounted for.

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don't include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

You two nitwits make it clear that the correct title of this thread should really be "More Proof the 'Skeptics' are INSANE"

 

[flacaltenn]

While you are whining, the government, private investors, energy companies, energy consumers, and environmentalists have taken responsibility for the future that you want to ignore

It's fine when private investors use their own money to invest.
When government wastes tax dollars on unreliable energy, we all lose.
Only idiots think the government has done a good job with "green energy".
There you are.

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

The list of slaughtered species includes eagles, kites, hawks, cranes, bats, ducks, swifts, swans, geese, gulls, bustards, vultures, owls, grouse and more. Bear in mind reported losses don't include carcasses claimed by scavenging animals before being recorded, nor bodies either too small or too mangled to be recognizable or even to leave enough remains to be found at all.

You two nitwits make it clear that the correct title of this thread should really be "More Proof the 'Skeptics' are INSANE"

I note you edited out the KQED video... Didn't watch it did ya? Because if you DID -- you wouldn't be calling folks who care about that bird carnage at Altamonte Pass nitwits. Don't think you EVER read or comment on evidence that's not tasty to you.

You know who NITWITS are??? Idiots that allow an 4000 turbine wind farm to be built right next door to the largest Golden Eagle brooding center in North America.. Now THOSE are certified NITWITS...

 

[RollingThunder]

You need proof that windpower is more expensive?
I should think the massive subsidies it needs are proof enough.
You know that energy cheaper than fossil fuels needs no subsidy, right?

You know that fossil fuels are subsidized, right.

Where is the financial analysis that I asked for?

What subsidies do fossil fuels receive? Spell them out.

Oh jeez, Toadthepatsy, are you in the fourth grade or just retarded?

Energy subsidies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers. Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies. The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011.[1]

Types of energy subsidies are:

* Direct financial transfers – grants to producers; grants to consumers; low-interest or preferential loans to producers.

* Preferential tax treatments – rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, producer levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.

* Trade restrictions – quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.

* Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost – direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.

* Regulation of the energy sector – demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.

* Failure to impose external costs – environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[4]

* Depletion Allowance – allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil, gas, minerals).

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[7] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950-2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefitted most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefitted heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefitted from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefitted from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[8] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
1. Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
2. Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
3. Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:
1. Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
2. Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
3. Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

From civilian nuclear power to hydro, wind, solar, and shale gas, the United States federal government has played a central role in the development of new energy industries.[20]


Has there ever been a level energy playing field? Putting renewables subsidies in context
20 Aug 2012
(excerpts)
In a 2011 study of historical US energy subsidies published by DBL Investors, Nancy Pfund and Ben Healy analyse US federal government support for various energy industries during their formative years. For the coal industry this meant cheap land grants in the 19th century. For oil and gas it was tax incentives during the first half of the 20th century, followed by costs of regulation, civillian R&D and liability risk-shifting among others for nuclear power from the late 1940s. Finally, for modern renewables it was tax incentives from the early 1990s onward. Drawing on government, academic and NGO sources, Pfund and Healy find that when the first 15 years of subsidy life are compared, government support for the oil, gas and nuclear industries as a percentage of inflation-adjusted federal spending far outweighed the support granted to renewables. Taking a longer-term view and again adjusting for inflation, the authors find that between 1918 and 2009, the oil and gas industry received a cumulative $446.96 billion in subsidies compared to just $5.93 billion given to renewables in the years between 1994 and 2009. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry benefitted from a cumulative $185.38 billion in federal subsidies between 1947 and 1999.

Pfund and Healy conclude:

"Current renewable energy subsidies do not constitute an over-subsidized outlier when compared to the historical norm for emerging sources of energy. Rather […], federal incentives for early fossil fuel production and the nascent nuclear industry were much more robust than the support provided to renewables today."​

The study doesn't just highlight the advantage the federal government gave oil, gas and nuclear in the form of subsidies. It also shows that the government continued the financial support as these industries matured, arguably enshrining a market distortion. Pfund and Healy uncover evidence of direct and indirect coal subsidies reaching back as far as 1789 when the US federal government enacted a tariff on imported coal. Coal is not included in the final total of subsidy amounts, however, due to a lack of reliable data reaching back to the industry's formative years in the early 1800s. But it's clear that coal continues to receive subsidies more than 200 years after the height of the Industrial Revolution. The US Energy Information Administration tallied federal government subsidies to the coal industry at $3.17 billion in 2007.

 

[westwall]

Dang.....how interesting is this?

On the Warmist/Skeptics fight >>>>>



I’ve been thinking about what makes the warmist-skeptic fight go on and on. What I have noted is the constant difference in how each side places its emphasis, and that this shows up in its speech. Specifically, the skeptics use declarative, as in “this will”, “this shall” or “this does”, and, of course, its negative equals. The warmists use conditionals, i.e. words like “could” or “should” or “may” or “might” that indicate undefined probabilities and, in truth, possibilities, things that are determinable only after the fact.


Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change



Holy **** isn't that the plain truth? All phonies........

I've been pointing that out for years...

 

[RollingThunder]

The green drones have decided that renewable wind power, which costs more to produce, is better than fossil fuels, although it costs exponentially more to produce, is unreliably inefficient, yields a boring and somewhat dangerous décor in areas that once were beautiful seaside or hilly scenic areas on bird migration paths. Where nature was, windmills are an eyesore, and are facilitating the extinction of certain raptors such as the osprey, one of the most majestic masters of the air.

The wind turbine elitists are concealing the deaths of eagles, swans, and other large birds who will soon be gone if someone doesn't put an end to the madness of open blades and the killing fields they are creating.


Wait till the public finds out about it. Ornithologists have found the green industry to be minimizing the butchery of these reprehensible, mechanical behemoths cause, and their case is here: Pales mortelles - photos | EPAW - Plateforme européenne contre l'éolien industriel

You two nitwits make it clear that the correct title of this thread should really be "More Proof the 'Skeptics' are INSANE"

I note you edited out the KQED video... Didn't watch it did ya? Because if you DID -- you wouldn't be calling folks who care about that bird carnage at Altamonte Pass nitwits. Don't think you EVER read or comment on evidence that's not tasty to you.

You know who NITWITS are??? Idiots that allow an 4000 turbine wind farm to be built right next door to the largest Golden Eagle brooding center in North America.. Now THOSE are certified NITWITS...

Oh fecalhead, you and FoolishBoobie are sooooo clueless and brainwashed. You are too ignorant to have any awareness of the context or the proportions of the different ways that our human activities and other factors cause bird kills so you're easy meat for the fossil fuel industry propagandist who want to stifle their competition.

Do wind turbines kill birds?

With U.S. dependency on foreign oil getting uncomfortably close to crisis levels, any viable alternative energy source is looking pretty good. With environmental damage from coal and gas-derived power already at crisis levels, even alternatives that are decades off are looking pretty great. Wind power, a viable energy source that costs far less than nuclear and coal power and contributes almost no pollutants to the environment, seems to many of us to be almost ideal.

But there are some people who disagree and are fighting the installation of new wind turbines in the United States. They cite bird mortality as an unacceptable side effect of wind-generated power. Through lawsuits and protests against pending legislation, they hope to save huge numbers of birds from death at the blades of massive wind turbines.

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:

(U.S.)
Man-made structure/technology - Associated bird deaths per year

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines - 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides - 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles - 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers - 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines - 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]