Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Irony!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.
how many tax dollars did the oil, coal, and gas industries pump into the US treasury? how much did solar?
Tax credits for exploration are not subsidies, direct payments and no-pay-back loans to solar companies (solyndra) are subsidies.
if you are going to use the word, at least understand what it means
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?
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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.
The problem conservatives have with solar energy is that it can't be controlled and exploited like other conventional sources of energy that come from mines, and oil wells etc. And why would that be? Because nobody owns the sun.
Consequently, any source of energy that's potentially a rival to the owners of conventional sources of energy who are accustomed to profiting off the exploitation of natural resources, they can expect a dirty fight to keep their energy source as expensive and as unavailable as possible.
Meanwhile, let's pony up some more tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile.
Not at all, we should be using solar, but it should be fiscally viable on its own.
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
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.
The problem conservatives have with solar energy is that it can't be controlled and exploited like other conventional sources of energy that come from mines, and oil wells etc. And why would that be? Because nobody owns the sun.
Consequently, any source of energy that's potentially a rival to the owners of conventional sources of energy who are accustomed to profiting off the exploitation of natural resources, they can expect a dirty fight to keep their energy source as expensive and as unavailable as possible.
Meanwhile, let's pony up some more tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile.
Not at all, we should be using solar, but it should be fiscally viable on its own.
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
Both active and passive solar power are not meant to completely replace any and all other forms of power. They augment them so we're not required to rely 100% on those other power sources. But they end up paying for themselves over a relatively short period of time, and people can actually sell excess power back to the electric company for credit on their bill. That's not a bad deal when you think about it. Imagine coming back from a vacation and finding out your solar panels were making you money while you were away, or that your solar panels are doing the same thing for you during the day when nobody is home. Your furnace is never going to do that for you, is it?
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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?
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
Solana is the first solar plant in the U.S. with a thermal energy storage system that is able to generate electricity for six hours without the concurrent use of the solar field, which is a turning point for renewable energy in this country, being a tangible demonstration that solar energy can be stored and dispatched upon demand.
Solana, located near Gila Bend and about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, Arizona, began construction in 2010 and on Monday, October 7, successfully fulfilled production forecasts required to date and testing for commercial operation. These tests included operating at the turbine’s full capacity while charging the thermal storage system, continuing to produce electricity after the sun went down, and starting up the plant and producing 6 hours of electricity using only the thermal storage system. These tests successfully demonstrated the various operation modes of the plant’s operation.
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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?
October of this year: Abengoas Solana, the USs first large-scale solar plant with thermal energy storage system, begins commercial operation
Solana is the first solar plant in the U.S. with a thermal energy storage system that is able to generate electricity for six hours without the concurrent use of the solar field, which is a turning point for renewable energy in this country, being a tangible demonstration that solar energy can be stored and dispatched upon demand.
Solana, located near Gila Bend and about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, Arizona, began construction in 2010 and on Monday, October 7, successfully fulfilled production forecasts required to date and testing for commercial operation. These tests included operating at the turbines full capacity while charging the thermal storage system, continuing to produce electricity after the sun went down, and starting up the plant and producing 6 hours of electricity using only the thermal storage system. These tests successfully demonstrated the various operation modes of the plants operation.
BTW, solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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?
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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?
Look at you desperately shifting goalposts all over the map to conceal your ignorance.
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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?
Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark. Thanks for playing.
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?
The Abengoa solar plant uses large tanks of molten salt to store the heat energy produced by the parabolic trough technology.
