"All the energy in oil, gas, and coal originally came from the sun, captured through photosynthesis. In the same way that we burn wood to release energy that trees capture from the sun, we burn fossil fuels to release the energy that ancient plants captured from the sun." (http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module19/Page4.htm)
Seriously? In our country they stopped teaching physical geography at some stage, looks like NZ wasn't the only country to do so. Well pardon me if I came across all haughty taughty.. I thought everyone knew that.
So you're saying that petrochemicals, et al, are indirect solar power ?
Kurtster, let's just stop now. you make me into a worse person than I want to be.
Go check out where oil ultimately comes from.
Interesting. I did not know that.
"All the energy in oil, gas, and coal originally came from the sun, captured through photosynthesis. In the same way that we burn wood to release energy that trees capture from the sun, we burn fossil fuels to release the energy that ancient plants captured from the sun." (http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module19/Page4.htm)
double fail on your part: a) I rounded to the nearest blockhead, look at 2014 compared to 2015, nuclear accounts for roughly 10% in 2014 and roughly 5% in 2015 - I was actually being generous.
b) you are forgetting hydro
What in the hell are you talking about ?
I thought that you said that, 90% of the world's energy is sourced directly or indirectly from the sun.
double fail on your part: a) I rounded to the nearest blockhead, ten percent. look at 2014 compared to 2015, nuclear accounts for roughly 10% in 2014 and roughly 5% in 2015 - I was actually being generous.
Solar and wind generated power are ultimately the only sustainable sources. ALL the energy on this planet came/comes from the sun. We need to stop mining the stored solar energy and start using the solar energy that is dumped on the planet on a daily - sustainable - basis.
So the sun made Uranium and the resulting nuclear radiation / energy ?
And geothermal is solar powered ?
Did AOC tell you this ? The science party, hah !
Energy is conserved. It cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be converted into other forms.
As usual, I could be wrong. I did get my education in public schools.
Solar and wind generated power are ultimately the only sustainable sources. ALL the energy on this planet came/comes from the sun. We need to stop mining the stored solar energy and start using the solar energy that is dumped on the planet on a daily - sustainable - basis.
Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.
It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic.
If, say, wind power were a completely economically viable proposition all on its own—that is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate it—governments would be looking for a way to tax it. Not because windmills have externalities that need to be compensated for, not because windmills are a burden on the public treasury, but because there's money there that the state isn't getting a piece of. They want a cut. Period.
The word subsidy is used (even when it isn't appropriate) because it's emotionally charged. It implies other people are being taxed to pay for something—that money is coming out of their pockets to prop up something that can't support itself. In some cases that is completely accurate, in some cases it's simply false.
We won't make progress on issues if we don't face them honestly.
Wind farms pay a $1/MWh tax in Wyoming. That's in large part because coal, a much bigger employer than wind, makes the state of Wyoming a lot of money in taxes and thus has a lot of political pull. They see it as only fair.
No other state taxes wind power directly. Is that a subsidy? No?
If Wyoming cut that tax to $.687/MWh would that be a subsidy? If it raised it to $1.178 would that mean that it was being subsidized, but isn't any longer? What if that tax could have been raised to $1.1839, but wasn't—is the difference a subsidy?
When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatement—taxes it promised not to collect—to make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!
So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.
This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.
Terminology does matter.
The best example I can think of is when discussing the federal budget, it is common for the framing of a reduction of an automatic increase to be called a budget cut. The budget is still being increased, just not as much. An increase is an increase, yet in political speak, it becomes a cut because it is not a full increase. The federal government assumes that the budget increase is automatic regardless of need instead of using a zero based system where a function is analyzed and say an adjustment for increased efficiency would offset the need for an increase is ignored. This is the primary difference between how the government operates vs a private enterprise.
The only way now that a budget item will not get an automatic increase is if the previously allocated monies are not all spent, and even in that case is still unlikely. This method only causes increased waste and inefficiency where administrators seek out ways to spend all "their" money (our money) regardless of need or merit to insure the next year's automatic increase. This method also assures that there will never be another surplus of government funds. And insures the need for continually higher taxes to pay for increased automatic spending.
This is by far the worst post of yours I have read on RP. "Honesty"? Gimme a break.
Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.
It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic.
If, say, wind power were a completely economically viable proposition all on its ownâthat is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate itâgovernments would be looking for a way to tax it. Not because windmills have externalities that need to be compensated for, not because windmills are a burden on the public treasury, but because there's money there that the state isn't getting a piece of. They want a cut. Period.
The word subsidy is used (even when it isn't appropriate) because it's emotionally charged. It implies other people are being taxed to pay for somethingâthat money is coming out of their pockets to prop up something that can't support itself. In some cases that is completely accurate, in some cases it's simply false.
We won't make progress on issues if we don't face them honestly.
Wind farms pay a $1/MWh tax in Wyoming. That's in large part because coal, a much bigger employer than wind, makes the state of Wyoming a lot of money in taxes and thus has a lot of political pull. They see it as only fair.
No other state taxes wind power directly. Is that a subsidy? No?
If Wyoming cut that tax to $.687/MWh would that be a subsidy? If it raised it to $1.178 would that mean that it was being subsidized, but isn't any longer? What if that tax could have been raised to $1.1839, but wasn'tâis the difference a subsidy?
When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatementâtaxes it promised not to collectâto make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!
So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.
This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.
But I do see an issue and I'm willing to take some steps (even if they are sideways or even occasionally backward) looking for compromise and forward motion. Because if nothing changes and the status quo continues, when the pressure finally breaks, and people get really fed up, you will have people with...
... pitchforks and rechargeable-battery-powered torches!
Kurtster, let's just stop now. you make me into a worse person than I want to be. 
