Where have I ever said that? Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them? Why is that?
The unsustainability of "green" energy
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
Where have I ever said that? Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them? Why is that?
mamooth
Diamond Member
Summary:
You claimed every green energy company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies, but no oil company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies.
You gave no evidence at all to back up your claim.
Even when prompted to give any kind evidence, you still refuse to provide any evidence of any sort to back up your claim.
Conclusion: You obviously can't back up your claim. If you could, you would have done so. You just made it up.
Correct. The dams are constantly maintained by the taxpayers, thus they are continuously subsidized. Now, if you want to turn the dams over to a private company i am all for that. Then my statement would no longer apply to that singular form of "green" energy production.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
I am absolutely sure that your ideal business model is Enron.
No, we are not turning over the dams to private enterprise, nor the BLM or Forest Service lands. After President Clinton becomes President after 20Jan16 we will see a marked expansion of wind, solar, and even geo-thermal on the lands of the BLM and Forest Service. The first step will be grids into the areas that are rich in these resources.
I hate to break it to you doofus but it was YOUR hero Ken Lay, who dreamed up the carbon credit scam. So no, it is not I who am a fan of ENRON. That would be YOU!
No, you're the one complaining about government subsidies for green energy. I'm simply pointing out that green energy can make money. Tons of it.
Ok, now you can get back to banning people from here for frivolous pseudo-violations.
Wrong. You all are proclaiming that "green" energy is the bee's knee's. and that we can't live without it. I am stating that we can live BETTER without it as the technology currently stands. The only "green" energy that is truly green anyway is hydroelectric. All others are far far from green. No dearie, the whiners are you and yours.
Isn't it funny how progressives ignore reality and love to pump money into technology's that don't work? Here's the deal moron, the people that you like want the people of the world to spend 76 trillion dollars rebuilding the energy systems of this planet. All in the hope that they can lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years. That is asinine. Through you and your fellow idiots, there will be less energy available at greater cost, and with MORE environmental damage than that which we already have.
Do you understand yet just how ridiculous you are yet?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I'm only interested in the US.
I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.
Might want to read this then...
**In 2009, the G20 group of nations, which includes the United States, pledged to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” to curb greenhouse gas emissions and tackle anthropogenic climate change. However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.**
Source: US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge
This too...
**Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed.**
Source: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Idiots attacking nuclear power in your link don't have a CLUE as to CURRENT subsidies. And liability caps don't cost a THING -- if they haven't been USED in over 50 years. That's all BS.
The only thing the govt needs to do is to fulfull it's broken promise to provide a national waste depository. Not just for the POWER industry -- but for their OWN TOXIC wastelands they created at the nuclear weapons plant. And which pose a much more URGENT and immediate problem than anything in the nuclear power segment.
Takes 0.7 oz per year of nuclear fuel to power a home. CERTAINLY we can accommodate that. That's about a AA battery worth of waste.
And all those loans are LONG PAID off and money made on plants still in safe operation. America will MISS those 50 aging reactors if they go off line due to age. And newer tech will be cheaper, safer, smaller and more modular.
No need to use ad hominems on them -.- The author of the article seems to be making the claim that in the last fifty years, it's been a little over twice as expensive as other sources of energy. As to current subsidies, I found another article that gets into that:
**
Nuclear Subsidies: $7.1 billion a year
As Noam Chomsky points out, most successful US industries wouldn't be competitive internationally if the federal government hadn't developed their basic technology with your tax dollars, then given it away to private companies. Computers, biotech and commercial aviation are examples, and so-preeminently-is nuclear power. Nuclear power still can't stand on its own two feet, but with a sugar daddy like the federal government, it doesn't need to.
The feds still provide the industry with most of its fuel and waste disposal, and much of its research. Between 1948 and 1995, the government spent more than $61 billion (in 1995 dollars) on nuclear power research- almost two-thirds of all federal support for energy research and development. The 1996 figure was $468 million.
The insurance subsidy
Since 1959, the government has also limited the liability of nuclear utilities for damage caused by accidents. Until 1988, the utilities were only responsible for the first $560 million per accident; then the limit was raised to $7 billion.
But $7 billion wouldn't begin to cover the costs of a core meltdown, or even a near meltdown like Chernobyl. That accident's total costs are estimated at $358 billion-not to mention the 125,000 deaths the Ukrainian government figures it has caused.
The Energy Information Administration calculates that if nuclear utilities were required to buy insurance coverage above that $7 billion on the open market, it would cost almost $28 million per reactor, for a total annual subsidy of $3 billion. (Even if it could pay its own way, the risks of nuclear power far outweigh its benefits. But that's the subject for another book.)
Enriched uranium fuel
Before 1993, the DOE (Department of Energy) was responsible for all domestic production of enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. Since then, that's been the job of a government corporation called the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The USEC has been a financial disaster, even for a government program; taking into account lingering liabilities like environmental cleanups, it's more than $10 billion in the hole.
Having made a fine mess of things, the government plans to privatize the USEC. Naturally, they'll try to give the private company buying USEC as many assets as possible, and keep as many liabilities as they can, so that we and our children can pay for them. For example, the DOE plans to take large amounts of radioactive waste from the eventually privatized corporation, even though it has no place to safely store them. These liabilities will cost taxpayers an estimated $ 1.1 billion.
But wait-there's more. We lose on the selling price too, which the GAO (Government Accounting Office) estimates at $1.7 to $2.2 billion. Since the net present value of USEC cash flows is $2.8 to $3.5 billion, taxpayers would be out between $600 million and $1.8 billion on the deal. So the total we'll pay for privatizing the USEC will fall between $1.7 and $2.9 billion.**
Sounds to me from the article I just sourced that liability caps are still very much in effect.
I take it you're talking about the enriched uranium, which the above article references? Why does the U.S. even need to make more bombs anyway? I can't help but wonder how many times the U.S. and Russia can destroy the world over already -.-...
Here's some info on Nuclear Energy from Greenpeace:
***
Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes.
- Greenpeace got its start protesting nuclear weapons testing back in 1971. We’ve been fighting against nuclear weapons and nuclear power ever since.
High profile disasters in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011 have raised public awareness of the dangers of nuclear power. Consequently, zeal for nuclear energy has fizzled. The catastrophic risks of nuclear energy—like the meltdowns of nuclear reactors in Japan or Ukraine—far outweigh the potential benefits.
New nuclear plants are more expensive and take longer to build than renewable energy sources like wind or solar. If we are to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change, we need solutions that are fast and affordable. Nuclear power is neither.
We can do better than trading off one disaster for another. The nuclear age is over and the age of renewables has begun.
The Dangers of Nuclear Energy
Meltdowns like the ones in Fukushima or Chernobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Many of them may never come back. If the industry’s current track record is any indication, we can expect a major meltdown about once per decade.
The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a U.S. nuclear plant can not be dismissed.
There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment, and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on site. The site selected to store the U.S.’s radioactive waste—Yucca Mountain in Nevada—is both volcanically and seismically active.
Beyond the risks associated with nuclear power and radioactive waste, the threat of nuclear weapons looms large. The spread of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a threat for national security and the safety of the entire planet.
***
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
"According to Noah Chomsky" youre kidding right? Those numbers are completely bogus. Counting all nuclear research since 1948 and liability caps that have never been triggered. It's baseless.
Govt shouldn't be involved directly in manufacturing nuclear fuel. IS no longer a sole source and everything is MUCH better without their costly inefficient monopoly. You're quote almost 20 year old material,. And all those 50 reactors have been quietly performing and pumping out reliable services and billable KW-hrs for damn near 50 years (most of them), So any reasonable accounting could only be done from date of initial service to today.
Screw the 20 year old "guesses" by Noam Chomsky... And all that other propaganda you dug up. .
TODAY'S nuclear technology is safer, cheaper, more recyclable. Time to build out some demonstrations and stop ******* arguing about ANCIENT installations and plants that built before the moon landing.
Govt shouldn't be involved directly in manufacturing nuclear fuel. IS no longer a sole source and everything is MUCH better without their costly inefficient monopoly. You're quote almost 20 year old material,. And all those 50 reactors have been quietly performing and pumping out reliable services and billable KW-hrs for damn near 50 years (most of them), So any reasonable accounting could only be done from date of initial service to today.
Screw the 20 year old "guesses" by Noam Chomsky... And all that other propaganda you dug up. .
TODAY'S nuclear technology is safer, cheaper, more recyclable. Time to build out some demonstrations and stop ******* arguing about ANCIENT installations and plants that built before the moon landing.
The article never said "According to Noah Chomsky" (for starters, it's Noam Chomsky, as you later correct in your post to me). Noam Chomsky was only referenced regarding successful US industries in general, not on Nuclear technology specifically. Another thing, I'd like to apologize for not including the source of my article. It was late, and I forgot. The source is here:
Corporate Welfare Nuclear Subsidies: $7.1 billion a year
It's an excerpt from the book "Take the Rich off Welfare".
Saying it doesn't make it so. That being said, I decided to find a alternative sources for this type of information, a double check if you will, and I found some. Here's an excerpt from one article I found:
**
U.S. government subsidies for energy are as old as the nation, says Nancy Pfund, a managing partner at DBL Investors, a venture capital firm, and an anthropologist. In arecent study for DBL Investors, Pfund and coauthor Ben Healey, a Yale University economics graduate student and former Massachusetts legislative committee director, trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789, when leaders of the new nation slapped a tariff on the sale of British coal slipped into U.S. ports as ship ballast.
Using government documents, academic papers, and a mix of other data and reports, Pfund and Healey offer a historical perspective on today’s debate over energy subsidies. Their study finds a paucity of government support for renewable energy sources compared with past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy sources, which helped the country transition to new energy technologies and infrastructures.
The study comes as President Barack Obama continues to push for more government support for renewable, non-fossil-fuel energy sources. This push is intended to mitigate climate-change impacts of energy generation by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, as well as to create new jobs and industries. However, with the failure of solar energy manufacturer Solyndra and the loss of $535 million in taxpayer money that supported the company, Republicans and a few Democrats in the House of Representatives have attacked federal programs that support a transition to renewable energy (C&EN, Oct. 3, page 28).
Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy, and their research supports the view that over the years new transitional energy sources have spurred U.S. economic growth and innovation. But their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.
In comparing current support for renewable energy with past aid for today’s traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.
The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.
Federal support during the first 15 years works out to $3.3 billion annually for nuclear energy and $1.8 billion annually for oil and gas, but an average of only $400 million a year in inflation-adjusted dollars for renewables.
For coal, which generates half the nation’s electricity, the authors were unable to quantify government support for the first 15 years, which includes federal and state aid. Coal, Pfund notes, benefits from a host of centuries-old programs that signal a rich history of aid, which is intertwined with the development of the nation. The aid runs deep and comes in many forms—state and federal tax breaks for mining and use; technological support for mining and exploration; national resource maps to encourage exploration and development; tariffs on foreign coal; and aid to steel smelters, railroads, and other industries that burn coal to encourage greater use and develop a steady market for coal.
“It has been a long heyday for coal,” she says, describing states and workers vying for jobs and business...
**
Source: American Chemical Society
I found yet another article that has a helpful chart to put the subsidies of different energy sources over the decades in perspective:
**
Ever hear the story about why renewable energy can’t compete without a subsidy? You hear it all the time from the fossil fuel industry. And the response from renewables? Take away fossil fuel subsidies, and they’d be glad to compete on level terms.
This graph below, displayed today by David Hochschild, a commissioner with the California Energy Commission, at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in Sydney, illustrates why the fossil fuel and nuclear industries don’t want that to happen.
Studies by the International Energy Agency point out that global subsidies for fossil fuels outstrip those for renewable energy nearly 10-fold. The International Monetary Fund said if climate and environmental costs were included, then the fossil fuel subsides increased another 10 times to nearly $5 trillion a year.
**
Source: The Myth About Renewable Energy Subsidies
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.**
Here's a little clue for you, allowing a business to write off a typical business expense is not a subsidy, even if it is a gas, coal or oil company.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Interesting phenomenon if someone is black and brown some say he can not be black- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
You open a store in the ghetto - you take your chances- Started by CrazyTrader55
- Replies: 2
-
-
Mason Morfit’s Latest Moves: Is ValueAct Pivoting Away from Big Entertainment?- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 1
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
U.S. Rejects Vote to Recognize Slavery as a ‘Crime Against Humanity’- Latest: CrusaderFrank
-
-
