The unsustainability of "green" energy

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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)

Idiots attacking nuclear power in your link don't have a CLUE as to CURRENT subsidies.

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.**

And liability caps don't cost a THING -- if they haven't been USED in over 50 years.

Sounds to me from the article I just sourced that liability caps are still very much in effect.

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.

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.
  ***

Source: Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes.

But carbon dioxide is killing the planet......waaaahhhh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"According to Noah Chomsky" youre kidding right?

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".

Those numbers are completely bogus.

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

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.

LOL!
Bring it on bitches!!!

 

[hauke]

the basics of this discusion is a lie
the unsustainability of green energy.
green energy is sustainable energy, so its an oxymoron

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the basics of this discusion is a lie
the unsustainability of green energy.
green energy is sustainable energy, so its an oxymoron

Sure, if you waste enough tax money on it, many stupid, uneconomic things can be "sustained".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Green energy works when it's owned by the individual. If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.

My property in San Diego (Coronado) receives 93% of electricity (including my car) used via solar. Still have 21 years on the warranty.

According to Republicans in Nevada, solar should only be for the rich.

So what ?

How much did it cost to replace...full life cycle comparison please.

You can get all the solar you want it you are willing to spend money......IF.

 

[mamooth]

That dang unsustainable green energy just keeps growing.

And 10 years from now, after it's continued to grow yugely each year, we'll still be seeing the same kinds of threads.

U.S. Electricity Generation From Renewables Has Broken Records Every Month in 2016
---
According to EIA’s data, net U.S. electricity generation from non-hydroelectric, utility-scale renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) through June 2016 was 17 percent higher than in the first half of 2015.
---

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That dang unsustainable green energy just keeps growing.

And 10 years from now, after it's continued to grow yugely each year, we'll still be seeing the same kinds of threads.

U.S. Electricity Generation From Renewables Has Broken Records Every Month in 2016
---
According to EIA’s data, net U.S. electricity generation from non-hydroelectric, utility-scale renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) through June 2016 was 17 percent higher than in the first half of 2015.
---

Under the company’s 20-year agreement with Rhode Island’s regulated utility, National Grid , Deepwater Wind will receive 24.4 cents per kwh for all the power those turbines can generate. That’s more than twice the wholesale price that National Grid pays for electricity now. And a lot even for New Englanders used to paying 17 cents per kwh. The average American pays 10 cents.

Worse, the contract has a built-in price escalator of 3.5% per year. That means by the end of the 20 years National Grid will be paying Deepwater 50 cents for each windy kwh.......

Unsurprisingly, Deepwater Wind argues that it is doing Rhode Island a favor. All the power on Block Island comes from generators powered by 1 million gallons of diesel fuel a year, ferried over from the mainland. Its 1,100 utility customers have been paying about 50 cents per kwh in recent years, about half of that tied directly to diesel prices. Block Island will soon be able to mothball those diesel generators, but not because the quaint island is going 100% wind power. Some of the wind power will flow to the mainland over the new $107 million subsea cable that ratepayers are footing. In return Block Island will be able to draw power from the mainland whenever the wind dies down.

The islanders’ new price for power will be on the order of 30 cents per kwh. They will save about $2 million a year on power, displace a million gallons of diesel and eliminate about 40,000 tons a year of carbon emissions. Extremely modest benefits, given the roughly $900 million in costs.

Is America's First Offshore Wind Farm A Real Revolution Or Just Another Green Boondoggle?

Gotta love that cheap wind power.

 

[hauke]

toddsterpatriot is a conglomerate of diffrent bought people, hes not 1 person.

after reading enough of "his" its obviouse, toddsterpatriot is a construct from people who do propaganda

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

toddsterpatriot is a conglomerate of diffrent bought people, hes not 1 person.

after reading enough of "his" its obviouse, toddsterpatriot is a construct from people who do propaganda

Moron says what?

 

[hauke]

todsterpatriot your not a person your a propaganda tool

isn t chicago nr 1 city in the USA for advertising ?

toddsterpatriot is an adman idea

look at that picture i bet a dozen well paied people produced it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

todsterpatriot your not a person your a propaganda tool

When I point out liberal idiocy, I can see why that would upset liberals.
Don't cry.......

 

[hauke]

don t worry your value as an add is going down to zero

create some new man as your propaganda tool , but you are obviouse

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

don t worry your value as an add is going down to zero

create some new man as your propaganda tool , but you are obviouse

Waah

 

[hauke]

just look at the picture thats been designed

 

[hauke]

and now please understand that big oil and coal does have enough money to use even this board to do propaganda, they got a billion dollar propaganda
and a few people working 24 hours a day selling their message just costs 50 000 $ a month

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".

 

[P@triot]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".

I bet your great-great-grandfather saw the first "horseless vehicle" and yelled out "the government should force you to regress back to the days of the Roman Chariot". That's all you progressives do - regress society back to the stone ages.

Think about it honestly for a minute - progressives want to regress us back to the 1800's economically with Karl Marx's failed economic theory. They want to take regress us back to the 1700's politically with a King George III type dictatorship. They want to regress us back to the 1600's with energy - banning coal, nuclear, fracking, etc. and leaving burning candles as our only source of heat and light so that a ****'n shrub in Illinois has better quality of life than a child. And they want to regress us back to the 1500's with education.

Here's the thing sparky - I love technology. I embrace technology like nobody else. I leverage technology like nobody else. But what I don't love is failure. Sadly, you and your liberal pals love failure. You live for failure. You embrace failure like nobody else. The "green" energy pipe dream is decades away. It's been such a catastrophic failure that Jimmy Carter started subsidizing it in the 1970's and here we are over 40 years later and trillions of dollars later, and it still cost millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a ****'n AAA battery.

It takes a very special kind of stupid to embrace failure - but that's what liberals do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".

I bet your great-great-grandfather saw the first "horseless vehicle" and yelled out "the government should force you to regress back to the days of the Roman Chariot". That's all you progressives do - regress society back to the stone ages.

Think about it honestly for a minute - progressives want to regress us back to the 1800's economically with Karl Marx's failed economic theory. They want to take regress us back to the 1700's politically with a King George III type dictatorship. They want to regress us back to the 1600's with energy - banning coal, nuclear, fracking, etc. and leaving burning candles as our only source of heat and light so that a ****'n shrub in Illinois has better quality of life than a child. And they want to regress us back to the 1500's with education.

Here's the thing sparky - I love technology. I embrace technology like nobody else. I leverage technology like nobody else. But what I don't love is failure. Sadly, you and your liberal pals love failure. You live for failure. You embrace failure like nobody else. The "green" energy pipe dream is decades away. It's been such a catastrophic failure that Jimmy Carter started subsidizing it in the 1970's and here we are over 40 years later and trillions of dollars later, and it still cost millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a ****'n AAA battery.

It takes a very special kind of stupid to embrace failure - but that's what liberals do.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn, you bore me too. Way too many words in creating a foolish post.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".

Great Grandpaps HAD a windmill. Used it PROPERLY. To pump water which was stored without loss of efficiency. Didn't try to power a Medical Center with one..



He was smarter than most leftists on energy usage.

 

[Mr. H.]

Green energy would not exist for lack of fossil fuels. And therein lies the irony of the whole bullshit of it all.
Ethanol, wind farms, solar installations. They all owe their allegiance to fossil fuels.

**** that shit.