Welcome to PatsFans.com

Poor subsidize the !%

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12

    More crony capitalism + renewable energy nonsense based on dubious Man MAde Global warming assumptions:

    Make 29% On Your Money, Guaranteed! | Watts Up With That?

    Under this scheme the rich investors are GUARANTEED a 29% ROI, and in a kicker the energy consumers (including the poor) get to pay and additional 50% on their electrical cost.

    Can you say regressive tax on the poor?

    I knew you could.


    Following image originally from NYT on report:

    [​IMG]



    So the poor pay more for energy investors guaranteed $334M profit.
     
  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    How are you arriving at the conclusion that this is GUARANTEED? (aside from the article telling you so, that is)

    I see significant assumptions in there re. both revenue and operating costs that are anything but guaranteed -- and the treatment of tax considerations is questionable.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2011
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12


    They are guaranteed that the electricity they produced is going to be purchased at above market rates.

    The Feds shouldn't be investment capitalist and shouldn't force consumers to buy the product of an enterprise.
     
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    It says the power can be sold at above market rates -- it doesn't say there is any guarantee and also doesn't provide any evidence that the figures are correct.

    You're also leaving out the cost side. and any #s to support the tax claims.

    So, again, where is the guaranteed 29% ROI?


    agreed -- but that's not the same as a claim that the investors are being guaranteed a 29% ROI
     
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,305
    Likes Received:
    228
    Ratings:
    +530 / 14 / -28

    Bechtel, the leader in renewable energy, is building it so it will wind up costing double the cost..
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,463
    Likes Received:
    232
    Ratings:
    +364 / 15 / -13

    Nevermind that the link essentially plagiarizes the New York Times article, which is sleazy of that website in my opinion.

    Stacking Clean Energy Subsidies - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

    which links to:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/b...ucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?_r=1

    Obviously, this is an aggressive strategy to get serious investment into solar energy in order to make it a real alternative. In the past, oil companies have done what they can to shut down solar energy companies, and the lack of investment in solar energy led to less development.

    I'm not against these kinds of government programs; we certainly saw similar types of things with programs like Reagan's space shield. It's difficult to get investors in speculative technologies without providing incentives. Were the incentives too great? Quite possibly. On the other hand if solar energy becomes a practical reality it could be good for the country. In a socialist system, your complaint would not be necessary. The government would say this is a project worth investing in and then do so, without using private investment. In your world, there would be no computer or internet, since those two were originated through government investment (and I bet there were plenty of incentives for early investors).

    The New York Times article notes:

    Industry executives and other supporters of the subsidies say that the public money was vital to the projects, in part because financing for renewable energy projects dried up during the recession. They also note that more traditional energy sectors, like oil and natural gas, get heavy subsidies of their own. For example, in the 2010 fiscal year, the oil and gas producers got federal tax breaks of $2.7 billion, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration.

    “These programs just level the playing field for what oil and gas and nuclear industries have enjoyed for the last 50 years,” said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy Industries Association. “Do you have to provide more policy support and funding initially? Absolutely. But the result is more energy security, clean energy and domestic jobs.”

    ...

    “The private sector really has more skin in the game than the public realizes,” said Andy Katell, a spokesman for GE Energy Financial Services, which like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other financial firms has large investments in several of these projects.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2011
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,861
    Likes Received:
    349
    Ratings:
    +737 / 11 / -7

    Patters, Patters, Patters. You clearly didn't read the Fossil Fuels Uber Alles playbook before posting.

    What you have to do is express the existence of incentives as the worst possible thing that's ever happened but only as it relates to alternative energy. Any other incentives, well, you have to take those case by case, and above all, never characterize their effect on "the poor" :rolleyes:

    Crocodile tears from the right, as they call for the poor to be taxed more, the rich to be taxed less, and the "temporary" (and epically irresponsible) Bush cuts to be extended FOREVAH.

    Thanks for the lulz, 13.

    PFnV
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12

    The author acknowledges the NYT of course, in his observations. He looks at the economic consequences of the money the government spends and how it impacts those who can least afford to subsidize the rich.

    The other issue with so called renewable energy is the issue of energy density. Due to the laws of physics Wind and Solar will NEVER be able to power an industrial society as we have .So large amounts of money spent trying to convert to solar is a waste and benefits the 1 the left likes to whine about, and hurts the poor they claim to care about.

    Funny how some don't use their head and instead favor dumb projects simply because it makes them feel like they are noble for supporting 'good' energy instead of 'evil' energy, regardless of the reality.
     
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,463
    Likes Received:
    232
    Ratings:
    +364 / 15 / -13

    That's so Malthusian of you, pf! Using today's technology, you're certainly right, but one presumes with further development it will become more and more efficient. Right now, I think solar panels only use about 20% of the energy they receive, but that will change with more investment. I believe you will someday be eating your words! There are many people out there who believe that solar and wind power can meet all our energy needs.

    I do not believe that privatization (started by Carter, by the way, and advanced by Reagan) is the best way to go. It would have been better for the taxpayers and for fairness if the government itself directly invested in solar energy development as a way of getting the technology off the ground, like they did with computers and the internet. So, we agree in part, but the problem remains what do we do about supporting technologies that may be 20-30 years away from being profitable? How do we compete with those countries that invest in those technologies if we don't invest ourselves or provide incentives for investors?
     
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    Which "law of physics" tells you that, 13?

    An automobile will never be powered by a solar panel, but the idea that solar could NEVER be an important energy source sounds like a guy with an agenda who pretends to know more about science and technology than he does.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,861
    Likes Received:
    349
    Ratings:
    +737 / 11 / -7

    Well, thing is, 13's an engineer, not a scientist. You know. The vision thing.

    :)

    Ready for your daily energy density argument?

    zzzzz.

    PFnV
     
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,948
    Likes Received:
    160
    Ratings:
    +452 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    So are you telling us you and Patters are "OK" with investors being guaranteed a certain roi?
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12


    Better than believing in fairy tales like a little child.


    Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2011
  14. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    There was no guaranteed ROI here, PR.
     
  15. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    Like the idea that there is a law of physics dictating that solar can't be an important energy source?

    Ignorance, indeed.
     
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12


    Solar will be a niche product because the energy produced will always be more expensive.

    After all the billions put into Solar and wind it is less than 1% of the market worldwide.

    The number of watts/m^2 for Solar even with 100% efficiency would require an area ~ the size of Texas to provide electricity for the US, this would assume no clouds..... It is simply not realistic. How many batteries are require to store electricity for use when the sun isn't shining?
     
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    Which "law of physics" dictates that, 13?


    How much area would be required to fuel the entire US using each other method of energy? Lets look at apples and apples here, 13.

    and then lets look at the facts that (i) we're not discussing all electricity being generated by solar and (ii) obviously, solar panels don't all have to be in 1 place or exclude other uses of that area -- unlike nuclear plants and other power facilities

    (btw, what energy figures are you using for the potential of solar?)

    Solar certainly has its limitations -- but you're a long way from making a case that solar can "never" be an important energy source.
     
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12





    No what the laws of physics dictate is the number of watts/m^2 one can obtain from Solar. That amount of energy isn't sufficient to provide a major % of the power required by an industrialized society.




    A few on the topis you bring up:

    Five myths about green energy

    Energy Tribune- Understanding E = mc2

    The mighty thorium | The Columbus Dispatch

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/energy-environment/25chinanuke.html?pagewanted=all

    Generation III reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  19. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,257
    Likes Received:
    140
    Ratings:
    +297 / 3 / -4

    Let me know when you decide to answer either of the specific questions I asked regarding your claims:

    How much area would be required to fuel the entire US using each other method of energy?

    what energy figures are you using for the potential of solar?
     
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,188
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +309 / 9 / -12



    The information was in the links here is a quick excerpt to make it si,ple.

     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>