U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-28-2009, 11:33 AM
 
39,279 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Let me remind you that your coal-fired plants would NEVER have been built without hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidies.
Well I don't now what the total amount is but going back to the same EIA document in 2007 total subsidy for coal was 932 million, in 1999 it was 567 million. BUT and this is big BUT, of those two figure combined more than 1 billion went to R&D. The money being spent on wind and solar is all going to direct tax breaks to subsidize production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2009, 11:46 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,121,084 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Well I don't now what the total amount is but going back to the same EIA document in 2007 total subsidy for coal was 932 million, in 1999 it was 567 million. BUT and this is big BUT, of those two figure combined more than 1 billion went to R&D. The money being spent on wind and solar is all going to direct tax breaks to subsidize production.
Once again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In your world, hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidies for COAL POWER are fine.

ANY subsidies for WIND POWER are bad.



Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: southern california
55,572 posts, read 74,459,549 times
Reputation: 48019
other than an extreme affection for the repeat button on the keyboard and a deep love of chevron and OPEC what motivates this OP?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 01:13 PM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,885,993 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Once again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
In your world, hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidies for COAL POWER are fine.
ANY subsidies for WIND POWER are bad.

Why?
We're some of those subsidies part of the program of Rural Electric Coops across the United States which allowed government moneies to extend electric service to all of the rural country areas not originally available to country and farm folk ??? I believe many of those gov subsidies were cut back drastically by Bill Clinton in a speech he made once when he was the President.

I use to belong to the Anza Rural Electric Coop which serviced the San Jacinto Mountains and I have to admit it was great because otherwise we would have been at the mercy of Southern California Edison or San Diego Gas & Electric and both had outrageous rates. Especially during those bogus Enron years. Our rates were always cheap and the electric was produced out of Benson Arizona and fired by coal mined up around Navajo Reservation I believe. My bill always averaged all those 24 years around $48 dollars a month. No bad considering I did quite a bit of irrigation in those days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 09:49 PM
 
39,279 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Once again, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In your world, hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidies for COAL POWER are fine.

ANY subsidies for WIND POWER are bad.

I'm pointing out what reality is and to your number of hundreds of billions would be an exaggeration I think. It hasn't reached 1 billion in 2007 and going back to 1999 it was little over half a billion.

The point is the subsidies going to renewables are significant compared to the power generated. If you're subsidizing 50% of the wholesale cost of the electric that is a lot. You're not even in the ball park of being competitive.

Add to that we're subsidizing the production costs of something that costs. If anything that money would be better spent on R&D.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 10:10 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,121,084 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I'm pointing out what reality is and to your number of hundreds of billions would be an exaggeration I think. It hasn't reached 1 billion in 2007 and going back to 1999 it was little over half a billion.

The point is the subsidies going to renewables are significant compared to the power generated. If you're subsidizing 50% of the wholesale cost of the electric that is a lot. You're not even in the ball park of being competitive.

Add to that we're subsidizing the production costs of something that costs. If anything that money would be better spent on R&D.
Subsidies for Clean Coal Miss Mark, Critics Say Douglas Jehl / New York Times 4aug01
Public Citizen | Energy Program | Energy Program - The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill
Coal subsidies far outweigh funding for renewables: Greenpeace. 30/04/2007. ABC News Online (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1910116.htm - broken link)
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...rticle_id=5995
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 11:03 PM
 
39,279 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post

LOL... The documentation I linked to is a EIA document which is the equivalent of the CBO where energy data and analysis in the US is concerned and you're pointing to me articles citing sources like Greenpeace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 11:33 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,121,084 times
Reputation: 3889
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
LOL... The documentation I linked to is a EIA document which is the equivalent of the CBO where energy data and analysis in the US is concerned and you're pointing to me articles citing sources like Greenpeace.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt now, is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2009, 11:53 PM
 
39,279 posts, read 40,634,876 times
Reputation: 16108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks View Post
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt now, is it?
I'd suggest finding some better sources and researching them instead of simply pasting the first couple of links that show up in Google that support your position. If I wanted to I could find articles supporting anything I want but I don't do that because the integrity of such sources is questionable.

Let's look at the link you used citing Greenpeace as an example because it's from 2007 just as the EIA report:

Quote:
The study commissioned by Greenpeace found in an average year, the Government subsidises coal, oil and gas companies to the tune of about $9 billion.
But renewable industries like solar and wind received $330 million.
Report author Chris Reidy says he is surprised by the disparity.
"There's just very little support going to renewable energy," he said.
If you look at the EIA report Ethanol by itself received 3.25 billion so their figure of $330 million is laughable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2009, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,247,809 times
Reputation: 948
Repeat after me, "I love Cap & Trade. It is my friend"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:49 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top