Green energy - house of cards.....

[ActionDave]

You have my vote.

I'll take that, but more importantly, do I have your contributions?

 

[iwire]

I'll take that, but more importantly, do I have your contributions?

You can have 100% of what I donate to elections.

 

[mivey]

A clip from Chairman of the Bored: For them to say the things I truly feel and repeat my words like ones who kneel

No Sinatra fans?

From "My Way":

"...
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!"

 

[kwired]

If I were granted such power I would do two things in quick order-

Mandate that all road construction be done at night and remove all advertisement of feminine hygiene products from television.

I just seen a comment recently that mentioned something like: I can't wait for the election to be over, so all the TV ads will again be for erectile dysfunction products, or feminine hygiene products

 

[hillbilly1]

You guys are better electricians then politicians. You sound like a bunch of old women arguing over bridge.

The purpose of the green initiative is a cleaner environment. The political BS is secondary, try to see it for what it is. It will cost some money but its worth it.

All energy is subsidized one way or another don't get hung up on it. If you think its a fad this time and your not keeping up with the technologies your going to find yourself outdated pretty quickly.

Anyone seen the encyclopedia salesman lately?

Hate to bust your bubble, but the political BS is primary, just follow the money. Tax exemptions for GE, bailouts for contributors of certain political parties. GE is buying up a bunch of Volts to help their guy. There is a very limited market for electric cars, but yet were are spending huge amounts of the taxpayers money on them. Politicians of both parties use our money to chose the winners and losers, when the free market should decide.

 

[kwired]

Hate to bust your bubble, but the political BS is primary, just follow the money. Tax exemptions for GE, bailouts for contributors of certain political parties. GE is buying up a bunch of Volts to help their guy. There is a very limited market for electric cars, but yet were are spending huge amounts of the taxpayers money on them. Politicians of both parties use our money to chose the winners and losers, when the free market should decide.

Did you mean GM instead of GE?

 

[hillbilly1]

Did you mean GM instead of GE?

GE got the tax exemptions as I wrote, and GM got the temporary extension on life, it is still going under due to bad management and contracts.

 

[cosmo]

The comments on Big Oil subsidies are interesting. Most people would think they are not necessary, but after reading this article; http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...il-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/ it kind of makes sense while they are still there.

 

[kwired]

GE got the tax exemptions as I wrote, and GM got the temporary extension on life, it is still going under due to bad management and contracts.

Just checking. I was not necessarily aware of the GE thing, but did know about GM.

 

[gadfly56]

The subsidies provided to fossil fuel enterprises dwarf those bestowed upon green energy initiatives by an order of magnitude or two, as if Exxon and their ilk needed them to stay in business. The "free market" does not exist in the real world.

OK, I call "BS" on that one. The problem is that some folks just have trouble with the English language. They think that if the government lowers somebody's tax rate, that's a subsidy. It isn't. A subsidy is when the government writes you a check and you have income you wouldn't otherwise have, NOT when they decide to take less of YOUR money. By that measure, "Big Oil" doesn't come close.

More interesting facts. About 47% of wage earners don't pay income tax, and have no skin in the game. Take the remaining 57% and rank them from the guy who paid $1 to the top income tax payer. All the money paid by the bottom 50% is what Exxon-Mobil pays in a year.

 

[kwired]

OK, I call "BS" on that one. The problem is that some folks just have trouble with the English language. They think that if the government lowers somebody's tax rate, that's a subsidy. It isn't. A subsidy is when the government writes you a check and you have income you wouldn't otherwise have, NOT when they decide to take less of YOUR money. By that measure, "Big Oil" doesn't come close.

More interesting facts. About 47% of wage earners don't pay income tax, and have no skin in the game. Take the remaining 57% and rank them from the guy who paid $1 to the top income tax payer. All the money paid by the bottom 50% is what Exxon-Mobil pays in a year.

Is there really only one guy that paid $1 Do we know who he is?

 

[gadfly56]

Is there really only one guy that paid $1 Do we know who he is?

Well there's probably more than one guy. My father-in-law does our taxes, but the last time I did my own if you owed less than a dollar you could round down to zero. At $1.01 you could round down to $1, but you still had to pay. Out of 80 million or so tax returns, odds are there's a few at rock bottom.

 

[Haji]

Any failure of green energy revolution ( or communism revolution) may have to do with the incompetence of technical people implementing it ( bribery of political leaders and officials in the case of communism revolution), IMO and not due to any defects in its principles. The reported failure of wind mills is for on shore ones, perhaps due to any incompetence in the installation locations for capturing maximum wind energy, as this is apparent from no ban for funding from the British Government for off-shore wind mills.

 

[Gold]

Anyone seen a solar installation pay off without tax credits since the 1970's?

With Tax credits payoffs have been as low as 4 years(tho not typical)

What would the cost of nuke or hydro be without subsidies?

If you insist on removing subsidies when comparing green tech then consider the subsidies of what your comparing it too.

For instance we haven't had any solar wars.

There hasn't been any wind power proliferation treaties.

Iran isn't trying to build a Hydro plant.

You cant "enrich" a fuel cell.

The cost of solar/wing/micro generation in terms of tax dollars is a pittance compared to just about everything else the only difference is the end result. Clean power and energy independence. The reality is a net lower cost for green power.

Hate to bust your bubble, but the political BS is primary, just follow the money. Tax exemptions for GE, bailouts for contributors of certain political parties. GE is buying up a bunch of Volts to help their guy. There is a very limited market for electric cars, but yet were are spending huge amounts of the taxpayers money on them. Politicians of both parties use our money to chose the winners and losers, when the free market should decide.

This would be a great topic for a political forum but I can't go there without a sheepton of drama and a mass banhammer so I'll skip it.

OK, I call "BS" on that one. The problem is that some folks just have trouble with the English language. They think that if the government lowers somebody's tax rate, that's a subsidy. It isn't. A subsidy is when the government writes you a check and you have income you wouldn't otherwise have, NOT when they decide to take less of YOUR money. By that measure, "Big Oil" doesn't come close.

More interesting facts. About 47% of wage earners don't pay income tax, and have no skin in the game. Take the remaining 57% and rank them from the guy who paid $1 to the top income tax payer. All the money paid by the bottom 50% is what Exxon-Mobil pays in a year.

wut? Chicken Steve?

A subsidy is a wtf ever you want to call it, were splitting hairs, an SREC isn't a subsidy by your definition but its been argued to death so either consider the srecs and tax credits when looking at the cost of solar or calculate the net cost of wars, treaties and security when comparing to nuke power. You can't have it both ways. On a level comparison the green techs smoke the current megaproducers in every category including cost. They produce more US jobs cost less cleaner more scaleable.

 

[PetrosA]

OK, I call "BS" on that one. The problem is that some folks just have trouble with the English language. They think that if the government lowers somebody's tax rate, that's a subsidy. It isn't. A subsidy is when the government writes you a check and you have income you wouldn't otherwise have, NOT when they decide to take less of YOUR money. By that measure, "Big Oil" doesn't come close.

More interesting facts. About 47% of wage earners don't pay income tax, and have no skin in the game. Take the remaining 57% and rank them from the guy who paid $1 to the top income tax payer. All the money paid by the bottom 50% is what Exxon-Mobil pays in a year.

Tax breaks ARE subsidies. The Earned Income Credit (Child credit) is a subsidy, just the same as money given to farmers, the difference being that in the case of EIC, it directly affects a single family's ability to exist or not, whereas farm subsidies may be given to corporations in addition to a family that may farm for a living. Tax rebates or credits on wind or solar projects are also subsidies. There's only a semantic difference between the government giving you a check vs. a rebate - the result is the same; you keep money you wouldn't otherwise have kept.

The bottom 50% of wage earners don't even belong to the middle class and below that line you only have the categories: blue collar, poor and poverty stricken. Only 34% of US households (one or more earners) make more than $65,000. Electricians in my area (to keep this applicable to the forum ) seem to be making $15-$30 per hour, depending on whether they're union or not. I think an average wage would be about $18/hr which puts an electrician deep in the blue collar range if he's living alone, and into the poor or poverty categories if they have a family, so, with a few kids and a wife staying at home to take care of them, the child credits will easily eliminate their obligation to pay taxes and probably everything they paid in will be returned to them. This is a subsidy that benefits both the electrician who can now spend a little more on his family, and his employer who can continue to pay him a wage that really isn't enough to live on.

 

[gadfly56]

Tax breaks ARE subsidies. The Earned Income Credit (Child credit) is a subsidy, just the same as money given to farmers, the difference being that in the case of EIC, it directly affects a single family's ability to exist or not, whereas farm subsidies may be given to corporations in addition to a family that may farm for a living. Tax rebates or credits on wind or solar projects are also subsidies. There's only a semantic difference between the government giving you a check vs. a rebate - the result is the same; you keep money you wouldn't otherwise have kept.

The bottom 50% of wage earners don't even belong to the middle class and below that line you only have the categories: blue collar, poor and poverty stricken. Only 34% of US households (one or more earners) make more than $65,000. Electricians in my area (to keep this applicable to the forum ) seem to be making $15-$30 per hour, depending on whether they're union or not. I think an average wage would be about $18/hr which puts an electrician deep in the blue collar range if he's living alone, and into the poor or poverty categories if they have a family, so, with a few kids and a wife staying at home to take care of them, the child credits will easily eliminate their obligation to pay taxes and probably everything they paid in will be returned to them. This is a subsidy that benefits both the electrician who can now spend a little more on his family, and his employer who can continue to pay him a wage that really isn't enough to live on.

OK, now I call "double BS" and here's an English lesson:

Definition of SUBSIDY
: a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

The above is from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. You don't get to redefine words to suit your political inclinations. A man may call himself a radish, but that doesn't make him one. And notice even in your own example, the EIC reduces the tax, it's not an outright grant of money. IT'S NOT A SUBSIDY! The government is merely declining to take what was already theirs! In the end, if your example family's total income is $35,000 then the most they end up with is $35,000.

Feed in rates - which are enforced by various government Utility Commissions - for wind and solar power that are above the market rate for the power produced are subsidies, taking my money and giving it to the "green" producer. That doesn't happen for "Big Oil".

 

[suemarkp]

Tax credits, and I believe it is also true for the EIC, can give you money via a tax refund (e.g. you could have no income and pay no tax, and get a "tax refund" via the EIC). Tax deductions can't give you extra money, they can only bring your income down to zero (can't have a negative income). Tax credits keep going and can give you money when the tax column goes negative.

I'd argue that both categories are subsidies, but the tax credit is the more valuable one.

 

[PetrosA]

OK, now I call "double BS" and here's an English lesson:

Definition of SUBSIDY
: a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

The above is from the Merriam Webster online dictionary. You don't get to redefine words to suit your political inclinations. A man may call himself a radish, but that doesn't make him one. And notice even in your own example, the EIC reduces the tax, it's not an outright grant of money. IT'S NOT A SUBSIDY! The government is merely declining to take what was already theirs! In the end, if your example family's total income is $35,000 then the most they end up with is $35,000.

Feed in rates - which are enforced by various government Utility Commissions - for wind and solar power that are above the market rate for the power produced are subsidies, taking my money and giving it to the "green" producer. That doesn't happen for "Big Oil".

Mark brought up a good point that the EIC will actually give you money back that you didn't pay into taxes. I know, I've been there. Your argument that my definition of subsidy is BS sounds rooted in this opinion piece. Investopedia.com does include "tax reduction" as a form of subsidy and the definitions on wikipedia.com and elsewhere also leave the door open to that since releasing a person or corporation from the obligation to pay taxes means that the government will have to collect those taxes from someone else to come up with the money needed to make the budget work or incur a deficit. Taxes are the rule, and subsidies or tax breaks are the exceptions to the rule - not the other way around. The fallacy I see in your argument and the one in the opinion piece I linked to is the assumption that tax breaks "allow someone to keep the money they are entitled to" which is completely false. Taxes must be paid to retain all the privileges of citizenship and everybody knows this going into the game. Tax breaks are applied unequally across the board to those who may qualify or know about them or who have enough influence to get them written into law.

 

[mivey]

My supplier is subsidizing my business. He gave me a reduced price on supplies.

A robber subsidized me the other day. He emptied my wallet at first but had compassion and gave me back enough to take the bus home.

 

[pfalcon]

Okay,

... So far, my rate has not increased one cent because of it. ...

Not directly. But your federal taxes are being increased to pay for such things. So in reality - Yes, your rates have gone up because your paying more in federal taxes to subsidize wind power.

... The two sources of energy do not really belong in same conversation as they typically are not used to power the same things.

Because both are too inefficient to be widely used. Therefore the feds are subsidizing both. Since the feds have to collect $10 to pay out $1 that makes the subsidies grossly expensive.

The corn producers are not paying for your ethanol powered truck, the tax payers and consumers are. Everybody wants to raise taxes on the evil corporations, but those taxes are passed right on to the consumer as a cost of doing business. (Unless they are given a special exemption like GE, it's called crony capitalism)

Yep.

To some of us, we have killed the goose. To others, we are collecting the golden eggs, and still others are tired of feeding the damn thing because it isn't producing enough eggs to support the feed costs. I happen to be collecting some of the eggs at the moment.

From that basket at least. You're paying out far more than you collect to supply other chicken coops.

You don't need money to create jobs, just a plan. Most of the financing comes from banks based on business plans, not out of rich people's savings so trickle down (no one ever seems to comment on the "trickle" part of that phrase...) is not what's at work.

No, actually businesses get their primary loans and money from investment banks not consumer banks. That's Warren Buffet and George Soros bankrolling those jobs. The rich get a cut of the profit and the non-rich get jobs.

The quickest and cheapest green energy is conservation. ...

Current studies show that the more efficient an energy source is - the more uses we put it to. Gas mileage hasn't increased as dramatically as it should have because vehicles have increased in size as gas efficiency went up. In short, when efficiency creates surplus energy people find a new use for it.

Most of the jobs sent overseas are jobs we are not willing to do anymore, at least for what they are worth. ...

For a $20/hr job - you really only get to keep <$12/hr - and your employer actually pays >$30/hr. Consider how social security is calculated - only half is shown on your check and the other half is hidden but paid by your employer. Now apply that to a job for a high school kid. $10/hr is really $6/hr and cost the employer $15/hr. So the illegal can negotiate anything under about $12 to entice the employer and the kid will quit. Who wants to work for $6/hr next to someone earning $12/hr on the same nasty job?

... There are plenty of folks at the moment who have plenty of drive and desire to work who are on unemployment or in sub-subsistence jobs. ... The able-bodied folks that are content to sit at home on the dole are a tiny minority and don't cost the average taxpayer enough to register.

Yes, there are plenty of folk who would work or unemployment during good times wouldn't drop toward 3%. Even so, there are a lot of able-bodied folk who are not a "tiny" minority or during good times it wouldn't stay above 3%.

Sorry, but it is true. The lazy stay-at-home bum is largely a myth perpetuated for political reasons. Most of the genuinely lazy folks I know are wealthy.

You need to get out of your suburb and visit other parts of town. Laziness is not absent from either group.

We probably wouldn't have Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Fuel Cells, Geothermal or any micro-generation.

All those energy types were being researched LONG before the feds got involved. And they probably would have made faster progress without the feds dictating their research directions.

The subsidies provided to fossil fuel enterprises dwarf those bestowed upon green energy initiatives by an order of magnitude or two, as if Exxon and their ilk needed them to stay in business. The "free market" does not exist in the real world.

Actually the feds pull out of oil more tax money than the oil company keeps.

Tax breaks ARE subsidies. ...

Effectively though not literally. If you have five competing companies and only give a tax break to two ... then you run three of them out of business. Not technically a subsidy but definitely choosing who gets to make money and who doesn't.