The unsustainability of "green" energy

[bripat9643]

Now you're asking me to accept the opinion of a bunch of oily politicians

Or the big oil CEO's that have asked for those subsidies to continue. Kinda funny. Both sides admit they are subsidies. Somehow you know more than either.. Hmmm.

They have asked for something to consider. You want to call them "subsidies," but there's no evidence that they are subsidies.

 

[Slash]

The difference between writing off a typical expense related to your core business and getting a government check for buying a certain type of car and not for buying a different type of car is pretty clear.

Again, you don't get a check, not even a voucher (like the cash for clunker bailout). I don't know why you need to lie to prove your point, but when you lie to make your point sound good, it defeats your argument.

You get a tax credit. Same as some people are able to use on electricity that comes from coal/oil that we've had out there for decades to reduce costs to the consumers. Only difference is the EV one has a limit. And electric cars aren't the only ones you can get a tax credit on. By your own definition, not a subsidy (unless you are saying oil and coal are subsidized).

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing to do with Green; just lousy management strategy.

Nobody knows how to deny reality, science, facts, or the truth like Danny here. Good grief. Daniel - you don't have the slightest concept about "management strategy".

Green energy costs an unimaginable fortune and produces the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. Ergo, it's a product nobody wants. I'm not paying $170,000 for solar panels when I'll die long before I'll ever spend $170,000 on my energy bills.

You uneducated progressives would understand that if you understood basic economics and concepts such as ROI.

lol. dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about microeconomics, either.

SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.

 

[danielpalos]

That would be a sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Subsidy.

THank you. We agree.





What other industries buy something, oil field or mine, for instance, and extract a portion (deplete) that purchase over time?

All sorts do. Any resource company does. Happens with water rights. My company has plants and equipment that have depreciation schedules that are written off. Nobody gets that kind of deal that you've shown they make specifically for oil.



Oil company buys a well with a 6 year expected useful life, a farmer buys a combine with a 6 year expected useful life.
They both get to write down their investment over that time.

It's not fair!!! Oil companies don't get to write off farm equipment. LOL!

Great choice. Show me that farm depreciation laws that they lobbied for. Show me that a farmer can buy fertilizer, store it and not even use it, but gets to write it off at a tax exemption as he did use it.


Specific circumstance, natural resource deposit depleted over time, specific schedule for writing down that depletion for that specific industry.

And like you say the advantage that they get is better than others. Thus a subsidy. Thanks


No. I do think people whining about typical tax deductions are pretty stupid though.

Not typical. As you've shown you've been unable to find their counterparts across other industries. Thus by your definition... a subsidy.

You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.

Why would Google get a depletion allowance? Do they buy a natural resource that is depleted over time?
Why would Facebook write off intangible drilling costs? Zuckie drilling something?

Google would use the standard tax law, same as facebook. If they bought a building, they would not get that depreciation deal. If they bought processors, they would not be able to just write them off unless they were actually using them. It's a benefit specifically for the oil industry.

You know what. I don't even know why I am bothering with your circular logic. Take it up with the Congressional Budget Office that testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that in 2013 alone, fossil fuels got 3.2 billion dollars in subsidies. Take it up with the actual people that gave them the subsidies that they are full of it and don't know what they are talking about.

Explain to them how you of all people are in the know moreso than the people who ACTUALLY GRANTED THE SUBSIDIES.

They didn't count drilling costs as a "subsidy" as you're doing. Nor did they count most of the other things you can't as a subsidy.

First of all, the data Murray cites confirms that the coal industry receives over $1 billion in subsidies for electricity production alone. From the CNBC article Murray referenced:

In 2013, electricity production and federal utilities that rely on coal received $1.08 billion in direct cash outlays through federal programs, tax benefits, research and development funding, loans and guarantees, the EIA found.

That’s half of the $2 billion that Murray ridiculed Tesla for “receiving.” But keep in mind that Tesla didn’t get any such direct cash outlays, but rather the American car buyers that choose to buy a Tesla or any other electric vehicle receive this cash.
--https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/11/24/taking-more-comprehensive-look-coal-subsidies

Why sink public funds into fossil fuels? That money would be better spent on a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).

 

[Slash]

How is the reduced amount of oil remaining not equivalent to depreciation?

Because of how the oil industry got their tax laws written. They can pump 2% of their oil from a well, but take the tax writeoff for a depreciation of 15%. That's tax fraud without that specific oil industry law in place.

You're confused. If you use cost depletion, you can't have an adjusted basis below zero
If you use percentage depletion, you deduct 15% of your gross income.

Now you are catching on. That's how it should be right? Build a plant for 20 million. Expected life is 20 years, you deduct a million a year off your income for 20 years to get to 100% and you are done. If the plant runs for 30 years, you can't do any further deductions after you've recouped your tax credits for the 20 million dollar initial investment. You can't recoup more than your investment. If you did, that would be tax fraud.

Oil industry, you find a well with expected life of 20 years to pump it out. You can deduct it ALL in 7 years. You can then keep deducting 15% of the cost of that well per annum in perpetuity. It's a really sweet deal that oil has spent hundreds of millions to keep on the books and gotten returns in the billions every year for a century. They can deduct more than the investment. It was intended as a subsidy to get the petroleum industry up and going with the explosion of use of the automobile.

 

[danielpalos]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The difference between writing off a typical expense related to your core business and getting a government check for buying a certain type of car and not for buying a different type of car is pretty clear.

Again, you don't get a check, not even a voucher (like the cash for clunker bailout). I don't know why you need to lie to prove your point, but when you lie to make your point sound good, it defeats your argument.

You get a tax credit. Same as some people are able to use on electricity that comes from coal/oil that we've had out there for decades to reduce costs to the consumers. Only difference is the EV one has a limit. And electric cars aren't the only ones you can get a tax credit on. By your own definition, not a subsidy (unless you are saying oil and coal are subsidized).

Again, you don't get a check...You get a tax credit.

A tax credit is different than a government check in the following ways.

1)
2)
3)

LOL!

And electric cars aren't the only ones you can get a tax credit on.

Cool! Which other cars are being subsidized?

By your own definition, not a subsidy

Is the credit a "sum of money granted by the government" and does it "assist an industry or business" so that the "price of an EV may remains low or competitive"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is the reduced amount of oil remaining not equivalent to depreciation?

Because of how the oil industry got their tax laws written. They can pump 2% of their oil from a well, but take the tax writeoff for a depreciation of 15%. That's tax fraud without that specific oil industry law in place.

You're confused. If you use cost depletion, you can't have an adjusted basis below zero
If you use percentage depletion, you deduct 15% of your gross income.

Now you are catching on. That's how it should be right? Build a plant for 20 million. Expected life is 20 years, you deduct a million a year off your income for 20 years to get to 100% and you are done. If the plant runs for 30 years, you can't do any further deductions after you've recouped your tax credits for the 20 million dollar initial investment. You can't recoup more than your investment. If you did, that would be tax fraud.

Oil industry, you find a well with expected life of 20 years to pump it out. You can deduct it ALL in 7 years. You can then keep deducting 15% of the cost of that well per annum in perpetuity. It's a really sweet deal that oil has spent hundreds of millions to keep on the books and gotten returns in the billions every year for a century. They can deduct more than the investment. It was intended as a subsidy to get the petroleum industry up and going with the explosion of use of the automobile.

They can pump 2% of their oil from a well, but take the tax writeoff for a depreciation of 15%.

No. They can deduct 15% of income on that 2% of oil. Less oil, less income, 15% of less is less.

Oil industry, you find a well with expected life of 20 years to pump it out. You can deduct it ALL in 7 years. You can then keep deducting 15% of the cost of that well per annum in perpetuity.

Unless you have a link to back up this claim, I'm going to call BS.

They can deduct more than the investment.

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

DERP!

 

[danielpalos]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

DERP!

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

DERP!

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.

 

[danielpalos]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

DERP!

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.

Market based proof? The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

DERP!

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.

Market based proof? The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.

Market based proof?

What other proof is there?
There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.

 

[danielpalos]

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.

DERP!

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.

Market based proof? The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.

Market based proof?

What other proof is there?
There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.

Except, nothing but repeal is worse. Only the laissez-fair, right wing, does that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DERP!

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.

Market based proof? The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.

Market based proof?

What other proof is there?
There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.

Except, nothing but repeal is worse. Only the laissez-fair, right wing, does that.

Obama couldn't repeal supply and demand.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing, never gets it. Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.

Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.

Market based proof? The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.

Market based proof?

What other proof is there?
There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.

Except, nothing but repeal is worse. Only the laissez-fair, right wing, does that.

Obama couldn't repeal supply and demand.

democrats are more willing to simply use capitalism, for all of its worth; the right wing is still too fond of their socialism on a national basis.

 

[danielpalos]

End the drug war, right wingers. Nothing but repeal is, right up y'alls alley.

 

[P@triot]

lol. dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about microeconomics, either.

Everybody takes us seriously on economics - that's why the American people turned to us after you Dumbocrats ran the entire economy into the ground.

 

[P@triot]

democrats are more willing to simply use capitalism, for all of its worth

 

[P@triot]

End the drug war, right wingers. Nothing but repeal is, right up y'alls alley.

End the drug war, Dumbocrats. Encouraging and legalizing chemicals (along with promiscuity, immortality, and corruption) is right up "y'alls alley".