PDA

View Full Version : Tax on Petro,Solar,Wind and Hydro... Really??? Oooopss. So solly Here is yer O/T Sig.



JRouche
09-26-2015, 02:04 AM
Its a bunch of chit. I know it takes a lot to pull fuel from the ground.

It is a great mechanical process.

Living in California I despise the additional Taxes....

danlb
09-26-2015, 03:00 AM
Taxes have long been used to "persuade" people to make socially acceptable decisions. When I was in high school, the school books called them "Sin Taxes". The flip side is tax relief and subsidies to those who make the "right" decisions.

An example of a sin tax is the excise taxes on cigarettes. The tax is only there to dissuade new smokers from taking up the habit. The tax on all forms of energy is simply a way to make people think about how to conserve. It's MUCH easier to conserve than it is to create new energy.

Personally, I would rather that the politicians stop using taxes to manipulate people. It creates false markets and decisions that may not really in society's best interest.


Dan

RB211
09-26-2015, 09:30 AM
Government knows best... Actually, they just want to pay for their pensions, and 6 figure incomes... Fire em all I say

bborr01
09-26-2015, 09:56 AM
What additional taxes? Got a link?

Brian


Its a bunch of chit. I know it takes a lot to pull fuel from the ground.

It is a great mechanical process.

Living in California I despise the additional Taxes....

Mcgyver
09-26-2015, 09:58 AM
someones been into the wobbly pops? :)

dp
09-26-2015, 11:12 AM
What additional taxes? Got a link?

Brian

Taxes in addition to the expenses of drilling, processing, storage, transportation, and retail sales. California charges a per-gallon tax and a sales tax. They also mandate seasonal blends that cause the cost per mile driven to go up - an indirect expense to the consumer. California rakes in the highest return on investment in retail sales of transportation fuels - they have no investment so it is all profit.

tyrone shewlaces
09-26-2015, 01:02 PM
Another thing that usually isn't pointed out is that the governments pass these taxes for <pick any reason> and then become at least accustomed to or maybe dependent on the additional income by spending projected future income assuming citizens' behavior won't change.
Then when the increased cost does what they said they set out to do in the first place and reduces the use of the thing, they at least whine and complain or usually unethically either push or pass biased, misinformed or outright corrupted propaganda or legislation to keep people from slowing on its use and perpetuate their increased revenue they created for themselves out of thin air.
The deals they've made with the devil (tobacco companies) in the past are one example. Today tobacco use has dropped and is projected to drop dramatically in the coming years due to vapor devices, and a great many government officials have been fear mongering the new vapor device technologies despite that they are proven by reputable studies to be at least 95% safer than smoking tobacco. How can a human of any stripe misrepresent, obfuscate and outright lie to obstruct a new technology that will likely save hundreds of millions of lives this century and still sleep at night? I guess if your bed is expensive enough, anything is possible. Truth is, governments have already spent the money they counted on getting from the profits of tobacco companies via settlements, so they are either simply greedy or at least don't want to face the fallout from raising taxes to compensate for the reduced tobacco revenue.

It's no surprise when politicians show that they think in these terms. They do it all the time. I'll never forget when gas prices shot up after the towers fell and George Bush advised people simply "don't buy gas if you don't need it". What a f*#%&ing moron!!! As if that would help to lower the price at all in the first place. It shot up for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with sales of fuel. Why would lack of sales of fuel lower it back down? But it just floors me that Bush and the rest apparently assume that we just buy extra fuel because we feel like it I guess rather than because we've been driving to work all week and the tank is now "inexplicably" empty today !!! Did I just miss the memo explaining how I can put more gas in my tank than it will hold?

...an indirect expense to the consumer.
It might be somewhat hidden, but I think when cost per mile goes up from packing your fuel with fluff, it's a pretty direct expense to the consumer isn't it?

It's not just taxes that are frustrating. The idea of supply and demand determining prices is becoming a lie, at least for some commodities. Why is it that for the past few years, when seasonal temperatures aren't so bad and the use of heating oil or natural gas for your house drops, you hear reports that they have to raise the price to compensate for decreased revenue from sales? Then the next year when the temperatures are more severe and demand goes up, you hear reports that they have to raise the price to compensate for increased demand? What a sham.

<Rant over>

someones been into the wobbly pops? :)
I want one !!

dp
09-26-2015, 01:28 PM
It might be somewhat hidden, but I think when cost per mile goes up from packing your fuel with fluff, it's a pretty direct expense to the consumer isn't it?

It is indirect in that it does not show up as a line item on your receipt and it isn't advertised at the pump. It is a stealth expense not unlike business or hotel taxes that are passed on to their customers. Hidden is probably a better way to phrase it.

Paul Alciatore
09-26-2015, 01:32 PM
Are you saying that California is now taxing solar and wind energy? Is this only for commercial sources or for everybody who has solar cells on their roof or a windmill generator in their yard?

loose nut
09-26-2015, 01:33 PM
Don't forget the reduced use tax.

Say energy, any type, cost $1/unit and the gov. puts a 10% "reduce use incentive tax" (actually an excuse to raise taxes) on it. Now the energy cost $1.10/unit so people use less. Revenue drops, the gov, having gotten use to spending the additional tax revenue, can't get buy with the reduced revenue so the taxes go up to 15% to make up the shortfall. People use less, revenue drops, taxes go up and on and on until the little guys are seriously screwed.

dp
09-26-2015, 02:05 PM
Are you saying that California is now taxing solar and wind energy? Is this only for commercial sources or for everybody who has solar cells on their roof or a windmill generator in their yard?

Of course they're taxing solar and wind. Both are subsidized and that comes from tax dollars. And because these unreliable energy sources get priority access to the grid when they produce, the efficiency of fossil fuel generation plummets and somebody has to pay for that, too.

janvanruth
09-26-2015, 07:12 PM
Of course they're taxing solar and wind. Both are subsidized and that comes from tax dollars. And because these unreliable energy sources get priority access to the grid when they produce, the efficiency of fossil fuel generation plummets and somebody has to pay for that, too.

Would you call an industry that doubles its prices on short term reliable?
Now how reliable is the price of fossile fuels?
The sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west, quite reliably and for free.
So everything payed for by tax dollars is therefore subsidized and therefore taxed?
Sounds just like a politician, you should run for office.

tyrone shewlaces
09-26-2015, 07:51 PM
Now how reliable is the price of fossile fuels?
The sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west, quite reliably...
Wow man. You really have no idea what reliable power even means do you?
Not trying to hammer you too much, but you should look into it a little. You're reading here, so try a google search and learn about it before making yourself look worse.
And actually, while the sun rises and sets reliably, actually capturing that sunlight is far from reliable and only even somewhat predictable. Yes the price can change, but I'll bet the per-kilowatt charge from your utility is consistent from month to month until rate increases are approved from the agency which lets them do that periodically.

...and for free.
No, harnessing power from the sun isn't free either. The sun may fall on the earth for free, but it still takes a very major in investment for equipment, fuel and manpower just to build and install a wind turbine. I heard a while back that just the fuel it takes to build and install a wind generator (smelting metal, running vehicles and machines, etc.) is more than the coal a regular generator would burn to offset the wind turbine's total power from cradle to grave (they don't last forever), not to mention the maintenance during its lifetime. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but whether it is or not, the costs and fuel involved in building "green" power devices is something that is almost always completely ignored by it's advocates, not to mention the pollution generated from the construction of solar cells.
Don't get me wrong, I would be happy if a power source was developed that would be cleaner than what we've got, at reasonable cost, and reliable enough to not cause frequent and long major disruptions for everyone. But it's just not there yet and you're not looking at the whole picture if you think it is.
It's a very complex issue and over-simplifying is not only incorrect, it's dangerous. Please school yourself on the complete picture. And don't expect to learn it in one day.
Speaking of complex and misunderstood issues, turns out nuclear is a pretty realistic method which should be truthfully considered. Because of the fear of radiation, it is unfortunately just ignored as a possibility. A fear of nuclear accidents is warranted, but the lack of safety with power plants is highly inflated. Before you point to the Japanese tsunami as a case in point, you need to look into why that kind of thing is so much more likely to happen with their plants instead of the design we have typically required in the US. Remember, "big picture".

JRouche
09-26-2015, 10:44 PM
someones been into the wobbly pops? :)

It's the weekend :D I do like to enjoy a Wobbly Pop once in awhile, maybe twice :p
JR

Mcgyver
09-26-2015, 10:50 PM
It's the weekend :D I do like to enjoy a Wobbly Pop once in awhile, maybe twice :p
JR

me to, no issue here....I just could not make head nor tail of that 1st post.....one us musta had a few lol

JRouche
09-26-2015, 10:53 PM
What additional taxes? Got a link?

Brian

Hey Brian. I think DP got that covered. JR

JRouche
09-26-2015, 10:55 PM
me to, no issue here....I just could not make head nor tail of that 1st post.....one us musta had a few lol

LOL Was watchin the News, first mistake... Then logged on here :) Its all good. I do like to vent though.
JR

Paul Alciatore
09-26-2015, 11:02 PM
I have long believed that the only way you can measure how "green" something is is to calculate the total cost in dollars or other currency of the complete system, cradle to grave. The more dollars it costs, INCLUDING SUBSIDIES, the less green it is. PERIOD!

Anything that needs subsidies to exist is NOT GREEN. The free marketplace is THE BEST WAY to conserve the planet's resources.

And those who are trying to force "greenness" on us with taxes and subsidies and regulations and laws are the real polluters and wasters of our resources.




Wow man. You really have no idea what reliable power even means do you?
Not trying to hammer you too much, but you should look into it a little. You're reading here, so try a google search and learn about it before making yourself look worse.
And actually, while the sun rises and sets reliably, actually capturing that sunlight is far from reliable and only even somewhat predictable. Yes the price can change, but I'll bet the per-kilowatt charge from your utility is consistent from month to month until rate increases are approved from the agency which lets them do that periodically.

No, harnessing power from the sun isn't free either. The sun may fall on the earth for free, but it still takes a very major in investment for equipment, fuel and manpower just to build and install a wind turbine. I heard a while back that just the fuel it takes to build and install a wind generator (smelting metal, running vehicles and machines, etc.) is more than the coal a regular generator would burn to offset the wind turbine's total power from cradle to grave (they don't last forever), not to mention the maintenance during its lifetime. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but whether it is or not, the costs and fuel involved in building "green" power devices is something that is almost always completely ignored by it's advocates, not to mention the pollution generated from the construction of solar cells.
Don't get me wrong, I would be happy if a power source was developed that would be cleaner than what we've got, at reasonable cost, and reliable enough to not cause frequent and long major disruptions for everyone. But it's just not there yet and you're not looking at the whole picture if you think it is.
It's a very complex issue and over-simplifying is not only incorrect, it's dangerous. Please school yourself on the complete picture. And don't expect to learn it in one day.
Speaking of complex and misunderstood issues, turns out nuclear is a pretty realistic method which should be truthfully considered. Because of the fear of radiation, it is unfortunately just ignored as a possibility. A fear of nuclear accidents is warranted, but the lack of safety with power plants is highly inflated. Before you point to the Japanese tsunami as a case in point, you need to look into why that kind of thing is so much more likely to happen with their plants instead of the design we have typically required in the US. Remember, "big picture".

JRouche
09-26-2015, 11:59 PM
Some times taxes are very deep and hidden among other Governmental fees. I agree with some others. The Gov., doesn't matter... City, County, State and Fed. All have a budget and all run up against the top of it, poor Governing IMO.

So, like I read here once a Tax is in place it will be there always, and it will grow. It becomes a relied on income.

And the shoe drops: We need Taxes, good ones. I get taxed more for gasoline than the great folks of Hawaii do, what??? My gasoline tax is a bad tax, and no, Jerry did not create that tax. No, the people did, the voters often vote for more taxes here in California. I get it, not complaining, just opening up the steam chest vent :o

Taxes do suck, hind teat.

I have solar and yes, Edison wants to tax it in the coming years. I'm Grandfathered in with a State/Edison Contract. Edison wants a new contract where they can charge folks who are generating electricity, and Edison will "store" it for your future use.

There is no charge for that right now, there will be in my state. And it makes sense. Edison made a deal with my State to absorb our surplus generation of electricity to promote the growth of solar (The Fed. Gov. also).

Sweet deal, I don't need a battery pack, yet. Stuff Edison with power during the day then snatch some back during my low production, NIGHT!!

They are going to charge for that real soon. For new "co-gen" folks, like solar on yer house. They will charge a much higher "fee" read tax compared to now. It costs me about $1.10 to $1.69 a month with Edison. They want to start charging new hook-up a rate. How much you generate is the scale. The more you pump in the more you pay.

I did the work-up and I would have to pay 30-40 a month. Talk about going backwards.. Once again, make the money!! I'm happy to be Grandfathered in. Future owners prolly wont be. I guess Ill stay :D
JR

tyrone shewlaces
09-27-2015, 12:06 AM
Anything that needs subsidies to exist is NOT GREEN.
You bring up something that I hadn't thought of before which makes current subsidized power (or subsidies in general really) even worse than I ever considered.
It seems that some smart group of folks could, and ought to, calculate an equivalence of dollars to pollution. It takes people working, ostensibly creating things, for value (money) to be created. So how does a dollar of government money taken from the workers to hand out in subsidies equate to whatever resources were used up, i.e. coal burned, for that dollar to be available for the government to give away? Add a carbon footprint directly from making money to building the "green" power pockets and the picture looks even worse. I don't see any reason at all why this should be ignored either.

Like I said, the big picture is complex. Things are interconnected in many ways even a smart guy (not me) won't think of.

justanengineer
09-27-2015, 12:15 AM
JMO, but less govt involvement is still too much govt involvement. Many folks always talk about the how the govt needs to push industry to make the right choices bc capitalism doesn't work, JME but they need to move elsewhere.

I've got quite a bit of family involved with wind energy. Sure, there are a few big businesses like good old Enron was that had business models based around collecting subsidies and not making power, but there are also plenty of businesses making real money with power, not subsidies. I know several that paid off their turbines in <5 years while paying local farmers dam good for the privilege of putting up towers. A pair of my cousins' took over their parents farm, then 6 wind turbines went up and gave them an income of $8k/tower-year. No, the turbines don't run every day, like most wind, solar, and other "less reliable" sources they're peak-shaving.

My folks and one of my siblings live within the territory of a village owned hydro co-op. The village owns the hydro station, the lines, the maintenance equipment, and pays the workers well throughout. They also provide power at $0.025/kWh. Electric heat is the best form of heat IMHO.

tyrone shewlaces
09-27-2015, 04:33 AM
$.025 sounds way lower than the sources I could find. Nothing I found was less than $.038. Not saying it's not true or a mistake because I don't know firsthand, but the comparisons I could find show coal to be $.04/kWh, natural gas at $.08 and wind between $.06 and $.20 - why the huge range for wind I don't know. Maybe it's subsidies dropping the low end or maybe it's just regional variation. By the way, it shows hydroelectric to be more than twice what it was in 2003 and that in inexplicable to me. There seems to be significant strangeness in the reports of energy costs. I wouldn't be surprised if the reasons for that are very difficult to chase down regarding the truth of it. It could be there are factors I'm totally unaware of and just as possible it is market manipulation from outside. The energy players are familiar with spinning data at least, and plain ol' shenanigans wouldn't surprise me.

greystone
09-27-2015, 09:59 AM
Fwiw .. Over the last 40 years, avg. power costs have risen 7% y/y.

Today, as-is, the cheapest power produced comes from PV.
New contracts go for, at the low end, 0.04€ / kWh.

Last year, over 50% of all new power installed in the US was from PV.
This is not a coincidence.
Worldwide, the situation is about the same.

PV has won the game, already.
Growth is about 40% y/y.

Every 2 years, the installed base of PV doubles, more or less.
Last year, 2014, PV was 1% of all power worldwide.
=> 2016, PV will be == 2%.
2018 - 4%.

Within 6-12 years, pv will be the nr 1 energy producer in the world.
The variance is wide, as for 3-4 years more, local taxes etc. still affect the situation, a bit.

Examples:
China will install, this year, 17-18 GW of PV.
1 GW == 1 new typical nuke plant.
Typical nukes cost == 10$/W, and take approx. 10 years to build.
Typical PV costs 1.5$, and 0.5$ of this is political bribes.

Actual costs are under 1$/W, and private individuals can today, build systems for 1$/W retail.
Panels cost 0.55$ / W retail, and 0.39$/W to factory.
Costs drop 0.01-0.02 /W /y, today.
This will continue until, at least,5-8 years, likely more.

What happens is that the panels keep getting more efficient.
Same materials, same factory, faster automation.
Build costs go down, a little, but power produced goes up, quite a bit.
Today a std panel == 18% efficient (best 21%).
These get better about 1-1.5% y/y.

loose nut
09-27-2015, 04:10 PM
Around here it's wind turbines. There everywhere and they never put out the advertised power, our electric rates have just about doubled in the last 5 to 8 years, with more increases coming, to pay for them.

wierdscience
09-27-2015, 04:23 PM
Thanks to carbon capture bulls---t our rates locally went up 26% in one year,and now they want another 8% all for a plant we didn't need and nobody wanted that is 320% over budget,3 years behind schedule and still isn't operational.
Meanwhile the cost increase is killing the local economy,at the same time people have less money to spend every single thing they use in their daily lives costs more because of the increase.

mattthemuppet
09-27-2015, 05:04 PM
before people start banging on about the evil of subsidies in renewable power generation (oh wait, they did), just check this out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

"On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)
In addition, Dinan testified that the U.S. Department of Energy would spend an additional $3.4 billion on financial Support for energy technologies and energy efficiency, broken down as follows:

Energy efficiency and renewable energy: $1.7 billion (51 percent)
Nuclear energy: $0.7 billion (22 percent)
Fossil energy research & development: $0.5 billion (15 percent)
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy: $0.3 billion (8 percent)
Electricity delivery and energy reliability: $0.1 billion (4 percent)[25]
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[26] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion."

To paraphrase, about 2-3 times as many tax dollars are spent on fossil fuel subsidies or support compared to renewable energy, and a large chunk of the support for renewable energy is the huge sop to mid-Western corn growers for ethanol production to buy the support of their congressmen and senators (let alone their voters in presidential elections).

We also pay around $20bn in direct subsidies to agriculture and $10bns more in subsidised crop insurance.

Also, the whole idea that "we let the market decide" what is a fair price for anything is complete tosh. Total and utter rubbish.

First, there is no such thing as a "free market" in any country that I know, bar local barter and trade systems. First, no matter how much you decry the influence of government, it will always be there as long as we have a society. There were governments in the colonies, there are governments (however rudimentary) in nomadic African herders, to pretend that there exists such a state a "no government" whilst still demanding all the things that government provides (you know, security, infrastructure, safety nets like the social security most of you are or will soon be drawing) is naive at best. There will always be some influence of government in markets, through regulation (yo, poisoned Chinese powdered milk! Love that minimal government!), standards, taxation etc.

Second, even if there was such a thing as a "free market", which there isn't, it would only be able to accurately and fairly price any given commodity or goods if all the information and costs were included (ie. why the stock market isn't really a "free market"). For energy production by fossil fuels, that would need to include the cost of the pollutants produced. Such as particulates, sulfur and nitrogen compounds and, yes, CO2. I know that it's super fashionable amongst the right to ignore or rebut the idea that we're influencing the climate through CO2 production, but that's like ignoring or rebutting the theory of evolution. Oh wait, they do that too. Oh well, at least they're not involved in making laws in this country. Oh damn, they do :( Anyway, electricity generation has costs, whatever it is from - gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind.

The costs of solar and wind are pretty obvious - building the things, maintaining them, land rent, subsidies.

The costs of nuclear are obvious but rarely addressed - building the things, maintaining them, subsidies, disposing of the spent fuel (guess which is the one rarely addressed in calculating electricity price from nuclear).

The costs of gas and coal are not so obvious and poorly addressed - building the things, maintaining them, subsidies, human cost of pollution (look at China and try telling me that coal stations don't pollute), environment cost of pollution (increase in federal farm insurance cost from greater likelihood of failed crops due to drought (!!) and floods, increase in federal home insurance due to greater likelihood of natural disasters from shifting weather patterns and rising sea levels, increase in federal funding for sea defenses and population relocation etc etc) and probably other stuff that I haven't thought of.

So, do try and tell me that we can let the "market" decide what is a "fair" price for electricity production. I'd love to know how.

wierdscience
09-27-2015, 06:21 PM
Second, even if there was such a thing as a "free market", which there isn't, it would only be able to accurately and fairly price any given commodity or goods if all the information and costs were included (ie. why the stock market isn't really a "free market"). For energy production by fossil fuels, that would need to include the cost of the pollutants produced. Such as particulates, sulfur and nitrogen compounds and, yes, CO2. I know that it's super fashionable amongst the right to ignore or rebut the idea that we're influencing the climate through CO2 production, but that's like ignoring or rebutting the theory of evolution. Oh wait, they do that too. Oh well, at least they're not involved in making laws in this country. Oh damn, they do :( Anyway, electricity generation has costs, whatever it is from - gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind.

First,subsides of any kind to any industry means by default the market isn't free.The watermelon lobby always brings up subsidies to fossil fuel production,but fail to mention any sort of cost/return relationship.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
69% of our energy comes from fossil fuels while 4.8% comes from wind and solar.Wind and solar are massively subsided compared as a whole with FF.

Yes I am on the right,and always will be,I also believe that Evolution is in action and explains many natural processes,but I am not so backward as to fall for a line of BS that says everything in the Universe is an accident nor that CO2 increasing from .037 to .040% will raise the mean sea level and turn the Earth into Venus.


The costs of solar and wind are pretty obvious - building the things, maintaining them, land rent, subsidies.

You forgot the massive pollution in Silicon and rare earths production.Of course it's not in your backyard so.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLC59rCCDc

The irony here being that green is actually quite black and neither solar nor wind power would be possible without FF.
Not to mention all those natural gas peaker plants that make scheme seem possible.


The costs of nuclear are obvious but rarely addressed - building the things, maintaining them, subsidies, disposing of the spent fuel (guess which is the one rarely addressed in calculating electricity price from nuclear).

Those costs are well known and not hidden.They would also be greatly reduced,as would the possibility of a major release event if we hadn't banned nuclear reprocessing.The waste storage problem is partly born of a reduced fuel cycle.


The costs of gas and coal are not so obvious and poorly addressed - building the things, maintaining them, subsidies, human cost of pollution (look at China and try telling me that coal stations don't pollute), environment cost of pollution (increase in federal farm insurance cost from greater likelihood of failed crops due to drought (!!) and floods, increase in federal home insurance due to greater likelihood of natural disasters from shifting weather patterns and rising sea levels, increase in federal funding for sea defenses and population relocation etc etc) and probably other stuff that I haven't thought of.

Again the costs are well known.We have had coal power since when 1890?Technology has moved on and power generation via coal has gotten cleaner.Are you seriously comparing Chinese coal fired plants with western ones?Get real.

We have always had floods,droughts,crop failures,shortages and natural disasters and always will.


So, do try and tell me that we can let the "market" decide what is a "fair" price for electricity production. I'd love to know how.

I would love to know how government can decide what is "fair",after all it has regulated the energy market for the last half century and got us to the mess we have now.

mattthemuppet
09-27-2015, 07:10 PM
First,subsides of any kind to any industry means by default the market isn't free.The watermelon lobby always brings up subsidies to fossil fuel production,but fail to mention any sort of cost/return relationship.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
69% of our energy comes from fossil fuels while 4.8% comes from wind and solar.Wind and solar are massively subsided compared as a whole with FF.

just as fossil fuel production was massively subsidised compared to what came before it. The point is not that subsidies are good or bad, but if you're going to have them at least spend them on something that might improve our environment rather than something that definitely won't. Personally, I'd say get rid of all subsidies and let's see the real (or a large part of) cost of what we eat and consume. On the flip side, we don't actually pay for everything we use as we use it (eg. gas tax and the highway infrastructure fund debacle) so if we're on a "let's make it real" riff, let's add all those costs on. Then we'll really see the howls of protest. It's easy to get rid of something you don't like when doing so doesn't cost you anything.


Yes I am on the right,and always will be,I also believe that Evolution is in action and explains many natural processes,but I am not so backward as to fall for a line of BS that says everything in the Universe is an accident nor that CO2 increasing from .037 to .040% will raise the mean sea level and turn the Earth into Venus.

that's not being backward, that's willfully ignoring the data. Polar ice cover is receding on a multi-decade trend, sea levels are rising and sea temperatures warming, atmospheric [CO2] have increased exponentially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That the data can be imprecise or patchy or the conclusions drawn from it less than the biblical absolutes required by the skeptics doesn't mean something bad is happening and we're a large part of it. The Venus reference is a good point as the atmosphere there is thought to be in the midst of a runaway greenhouse effect. We're clearly not there yet, but I wouldn't want to be around when we hit it.



You forgot the massive pollution in Silicon and rare earths production.Of course it's not in your backyard so.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGLC59rCCDc

The irony here being that green is actually quite black and neither solar nor wind power would be possible without FF.
Not to mention all those natural gas peaker plants that make scheme seem possible.

no I don't, that's presumably part of every thing we manufacture to a greater or lesser degree. You think oil platforms grow in fairy rings or mine tailings are a myth? Or that towing oil platforms into the Arctic and servicing them is an energy zero sum game? Pointing that out purely for renewables is disingenuous.



Those costs are well known and not hidden.They would also be greatly reduced,as would the possibility of a major release event if we hadn't banned nuclear reprocessing.The waste storage problem is partly born of a reduced fuel cycle.

So the US$43bn in liabilities and the $0.3-0.5bn per plant decommissioning cost is part of the electricity price for nuclear power? I was under the impression that those sums were paid for by individual states, which suggests that this is another tax funded cost.

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle



Again the costs are well known.We have had coal power since when 1890?Technology has moved on and power generation via coal has gotten cleaner.Are you seriously comparing Chinese coal fired plants with western ones?Get real.

oh that's right, clean coal. He he. I used to see those billboard ads all the time in PA and VA, wonder why. "Clean coal" implementation costs about 1/3 of a modern coal fired power station output and the output is still anything but "clean", just "cleaner". Those regs also only apply to new builds, old coal fired power stations are largely grandfathered in and so are anything but clean. Why should I not compare US to Chinese coal fired plants? The % of <5yr old coal fired plants in China is waaaay higher than in the US and they're not laggards at implementing new tech. The issue is not quality of plants but number.


We have always had floods,droughts,crop failures,shortages and natural disasters and always will.

of course. However, a large number of very important weather systems (various Pacific and Atlantic gyres, the south asian monsoon) are already being affected by changes in sea temperatures. Think about the bigger picture. The monsoon has become more erratic over the last 20yrs compared with the previous 200. 1 year of complete failure is manageable, 2 years = widespread starvation, 3 years = famine and millions of deaths. Sure $hit happens, but what if we're making it worse? I'm sure that very question will prompt immediate attack, which is completely missing the point - that fact that we don't know for certain that our actions are going to result in calamity isn't a good excuse for doing nothing.


I would love to know how government can decide what is "fair",after all it has regulated the energy market for the last half century and got us to the mess we have now.

it can't and that's not the point that I was making. The point was, as clearly as I can make it, there is no free market. So banging on about "if only the government just got out the way, everything would be perfect" is naive. Even if there was no government, there would be no free market, so using this mythical "free market" to argue for less government is ludicrous. Plenty of other reasons, but that's not one of them.

Mike Amick
09-27-2015, 07:45 PM
Damn .. I was going to say the say thing Mat .. you beat me to it. (slight grin)

PStechPaul
09-27-2015, 09:26 PM
Last time I checked, our government is of, by, and for the people, and in democratic society supposedly the majority knows best and makes the rules. Not to say the average Joe and Jill are all that knowledgeable, but I think most may be trusted to err on the side of caution, while industry pundits who stand to make money from BAU and decimation of regulations, not so much.

wierdscience
09-27-2015, 09:55 PM
just as fossil fuel production was massively subsidised compared to what came before it. The point is not that subsidies are good or bad, but if you're going to have them at least spend them on something that might improve our environment rather than something that definitely won't. Personally, I'd say get rid of all subsidies and let's see the real (or a large part of) cost of what we eat and consume. On the flip side, we don't actually pay for everything we use as we use it (eg. gas tax and the highway infrastructure fund debacle) so if we're on a "let's make it real" riff, let's add all those costs on. Then we'll really see the howls of protest. It's easy to get rid of something you don't like when doing so doesn't cost you anything.

The subsides applied to FF production are there why?To soften the blow to the consumer of ever increasing punitive regulation.Politicians love it that way,they get money from lobbyist to secure the subsidies,money from activist groups to apply more regulation and both subsidies and regulations appeal to one group of voters and keep the others from showing up with pitchforks and torches.
So you and I agree subsides need to go.




that's not being backward, that's willfully ignoring the data. Polar ice cover is receding on a multi-decade trend, sea levels are rising and sea temperatures warming, atmospheric [CO2] have increased exponentially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That the data can be imprecise or patchy or the conclusions drawn from it less than the biblical absolutes required by the skeptics doesn't mean something bad is happening and we're a large part of it. The Venus reference is a good point as the atmosphere there is thought to be in the midst of a runaway greenhouse effect. We're clearly not there yet, but I wouldn't want to be around when we hit it.

Reliable data only extends back to 1850 and in the time since atmospheric C02 has not increase exponentially and neither has temperature.We have only managed .8C since 1850.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

As for sea ice,the doomsday predictions keep falling flat-
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html



no I don't, that's presumably part of every thing we manufacture to a greater or lesser degree. You think oil platforms grow in fairy rings or mine tailings are a myth? Or that towing oil platforms into the Arctic and servicing them is an energy zero sum game? Pointing that out purely for renewables is disingenuous.

Nonsense,of course FF infrastructure has a cost,I never said it didn't.I was merely pointing out your convenient omission of the cost to the environment required for wind and solar.



So the US$43bn in liabilities and the $0.3-0.5bn per plant decommissioning cost is part of the electricity price for nuclear power? I was under the impression that those sums were paid for by individual states, which suggests that this is another tax funded cost.

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle

Ratepayers pay for it-
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html




oh that's right, clean coal. He he. I used to see those billboard ads all the time in PA and VA, wonder why. "Clean coal" implementation costs about 1/3 of a modern coal fired power station output and the output is still anything but "clean", just "cleaner". Those regs also only apply to new builds, old coal fired power stations are largely grandfathered in and so are anything but clean. Why should I not compare US to Chinese coal fired plants? The % of <5yr old coal fired plants in China is waaaay higher than in the US and they're not laggards at implementing new tech. The issue is not quality of plants but number.

Yes,we should believe the Chinese,because they are a human rights leader and leader in green energy and big all around fluffy bunnies so says the RPC People's information ministry.:rolleyes:
Lower particulate=cleaner and no plants here are grandfathered in,that and continually tightening regs are why they are being closed.




of course. However, a large number of very important weather systems (various Pacific and Atlantic gyres, the south asian monsoon) are already being affected by changes in sea temperatures. Think about the bigger picture. The monsoon has become more erratic over the last 20yrs compared with the previous 200. 1 year of complete failure is manageable, 2 years = widespread starvation, 3 years = famine and millions of deaths. Sure $hit happens, but what if we're making it worse? I'm sure that very question will prompt immediate attack, which is completely missing the point - that fact that we don't know for certain that our actions are going to result in calamity isn't a good excuse for doing nothing.

And yet what if we are having no effect and all of this is one gigantic waste of time and resources?Odd that we are having a very quiet Atlantic Hurricane season as he have had for the last 9 years,could it be we are in the valley of a 25 year natural cycle?Could it be the current drought In Cali isn't as bad as it normally gets,there have been many droughts in the recent geologic record that have been far worse,were they due to AGW?


it can't and that's not the point that I was making. The point was, as clearly as I can make it, there is no free market. So banging on about "if only the government just got out the way, everything would be perfect" is naive. Even if there was no government, there would be no free market, so using this mythical "free market" to argue for less government is ludicrous. Plenty of other reasons, but that's not one of them.

The free market is organic in nature,government does not create the market.We built that,not the government,to think otherwise is naive.The government doesn't need to get out of the way,it needs to stop actively causing damage.

I would also point out that the government that tries to do all and be all fails at all.Evidence of this should be fairly clear by now all over the western world.

wierdscience
09-27-2015, 10:21 PM
Last time I checked, our government is of, by, and for the people, and in democratic society supposedly the majority knows best and makes the rules. Not to say the average Joe and Jill are all that knowledgeable, but I think most may be trusted to err on the side of caution, while industry pundits who stand to make money from BAU and decimation of regulations, not so much.

And yet the Founders saw fit to insure we were never a pure Democracy and that the tyranny of the majority were kept in check by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mike Amick
09-27-2015, 10:25 PM
Its really weird how 99% of climate scientists are wrong. But its true .. I heard Rush say it.

wierdscience
09-27-2015, 11:07 PM
Its really weird how 99% of climate scientists are wrong. But its true .. I heard Rush say it.

Yes very strange much like how many of the IPCC panel are not climate scientists,or how both CRU e-mail releases pointed to widespread fraudulent data.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

97% believe that some warming is attributable to man,but far fewer believe the warming is dangerous.Mainly because even at the extremes what we are seeing is well within natural variability.

It's funny that most people who believe corporations or the opposing political party are lying and underestimating the issue,but never question if their sources have inflated the threat for their own gain.

" when in fear when in doubt run in circles scream and shout" great for sapping $Trillions out of peoples pockets.

mattthemuppet
09-28-2015, 12:45 AM
The subsides applied to FF production are there why?To soften the blow to the consumer of ever increasing punitive regulation.Politicians love it that way,they get money from lobbyist to secure the subsidies,money from activist groups to apply more regulation and both subsidies and regulations appeal to one group of voters and keep the others from showing up with pitchforks and torches.
So you and I agree subsides need to go.

no, they're there because big oil, like big anything (Google, GM, Merck etc), have very deep pockets, lots of lobbyists and bankroll the grotesque electioneering funds of US politicians. But hey, if you want to apply a libertarian slant at lobbying and pork barrel politics, who am I to argue?

Thing is though, would you really want all subsidies to go? Food prices, fuel costs, mortgage rates, everything will go up.

New Zealand went cold turkey, can't remember when, in the '80s I think. They coped and are arguably better off for it, but that's a much smaller and simpler economy.



Reliable data only extends back to 1850 and in the time since atmospheric C02 has not increase exponentially and neither has temperature.We have only managed .8C since 1850.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

sorry, I shouldn't use the word exponential as a rhetorical instrument. Let's say linear then. I don't see any data on that site you referenced that shows air temperatures have not gone up consistently since the industrial revolution. In fact, if you look at the 3rd graph, that would most likely qualify as exponential. As for 0.8C being important or not, why don't we leave that one to the people who might know something about it, like climatologists? After all, of some 2000 of them that contributed to the IPCC (membership of which doesn't come in cereal packets), 95%+ stated that they were confident within knowable doubt that climate change was occurring and that it was anthropological.



As for sea ice,the doomsday predictions keep falling flat-
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

3 words, North West Passage

or 4 words, Massive Worldwide Glacial Retreat

or you could reference a paper that's more concerned with how many ferrets Labour politicians stick down their trousers.



Nonsense,of course FF infrastructure has a cost,I never said it didn't.I was merely pointing out your convenient omission of the cost to the environment required for wind and solar.

no, but you were willfully implying, as you are now stating, that I was deliberately ignoring the specific environmental cost of producing the silicon used in solar panels or the fuel required to move wind turbine blades to their sites or whatever. Which, if you read my posts, I was not. There's a little bit about costs after each of them - building stuff, maintaining stuff. For all of them. However, by repeatedly and explicitly stressing the environmental costs of renewables yet as far as I can tell ignoring the similar costs of other sources of electricity you appear to be saying that renewables have environmental impacts over and above those of fossil fuels. Is that the case?



Ratepayers pay for it-
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html

uh huh, as a "unspecified regulatory line item" like the $2.50 a month I pay on my cell bill for who knows what (I'm guessing, as I couldn't see anything on that page to say who exactly is paying for it, other than the parent company, at some point). Is it, and more importantly the legacy cost of disposing of spent fuel, included in the per kilowatt hour cost of electricity? As in, are consumers receiving all the information which they would need to make decisions on electricity use, as one would hope for in a "free market"?




Yes,we should believe the Chinese,because they are a human rights leader and leader in green energy and big all around fluffy bunnies so says the RPC People's information ministry.:rolleyes:

Yes,we should believe Obama,because he's a human rights leader and leader in green energy and big all around fluffy bunnies so says the Whitehouse.:rolleyes

Yes,we should believe Rush Limbaugh,because he's on TV and hate green energy and taxes so says Fox news.:rolleyes

see how that works as a rhetorical argument?

either way, sure US plants are cleaner than Chinese, could be might be, who knows. Is it really that important to the general argument? Even for a new, fully emission kitted out coal plant, are you saying it produces less CO2, SO2, NOx and particulates than gas, nuclear or renewables?



And yet what if we are having no effect and all of this is one gigantic waste of time and resources?Odd that we are having a very quiet Atlantic Hurricane season as he have had for the last 9 years,could it be we are in the valley of a 25 year natural cycle?Could it be the current drought In Cali isn't as bad as it normally gets,there have been many droughts in the recent geologic record that have been far worse,were they due to AGW?

now we're getting into an interesting discussion. A cartoon on a colleague's door goes along the lines of "what if we waste all this money and all we get at the end is a cleaner world?". Go to any high population count city (LA and Mexico City spring to mind from personal experience), go down into the smog and breath the air. Feel your eyes smart and sting. That's just in relatively developed parts of the world. This isn't a zero sum game. Fewer pollutants = healthier people, children that achieve their potential as they're not hamstrung by respiratory ailments. Even if climate change isn't happening, the amount of CO2 we spew into the atmosphere has no effect on anything, there's no way we can keep dumping combustion products into the atmosphere without consequences that affect us. This is not an open system. Surely the effects from decades of ocean pollution (oceans are big, right? We can dump whatever we like into them!) should convince you that doing the same to the atmosphere will bite us in the ass eventually? And that's if you don't believe all those clever climatologists that have made it their lifes work to figure out this stuff for us.

As for the natural disasters thing, us humans suck at this stuff. 2 reasons, we have ridiculously short memories and we also fixate on large irregular effects. So most climatologists will quietly back away from you if you try and get them to predict if natural disasters will increase as the result of climate change. However, and this is a very important distinction, it is increasingly likely that normal weather patterns will become more variable, so that extremes become more likely. For some people, hotter summers (or wetter or whatever) or colder/ warmer winters don't make much difference, for many people, those fluctuations, such as when a monsoon starts and for how long it rains, is literally a matter of life and death. So, sure, from a US centric perspective, we'll probably be fine, give or take. For others, much less so.




The free market is organic in nature,government does not create the market.We built that,not the government,to think otherwise is naive.The government doesn't need to get out of the way,it needs to stop actively causing damage.

I would also point out that the government that tries to do all and be all fails at all.Evidence of this should be fairly clear by now all over the western world.

yah, sorry, don't understand what you wrote there.

mattthemuppet
09-28-2015, 12:59 AM
The IPCC is a UN institution, so clearly it isn't going to be only climatologists. There's a whole bunch of government at all different levels involved, often in censoring the language of the report to be agreeable to all countries involved in the IPCC. Besides, the IPCC does not do climate research. It reviews the existing literature, with emphasis placed on peer reviewed publications, different models, policies and so on, then makes it's recommendations (particularly where more research is needed) on that basis.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

Fifth assessment report[edit]

Main article: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014.[63] AR5 followed the same general format as of AR4, with three Working Group reports and a Synthesis report.[63] The Working Group I report (WG1) was published in September 2013.[63]

Conclusions of AR5 are summarized below:

Working Group I
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".[64]
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years".[65]
Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]

Working Group II
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"[68]
"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"[69]
"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[68]

Working Group III
Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[70]
The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[71] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[72]

wierdscience
09-28-2015, 03:05 AM
no, they're there because big oil, like big anything (Google, GM, Merck etc), have very deep pockets, lots of lobbyists and bankroll the grotesque electioneering funds of US politicians. But hey, if you want to apply a libertarian slant at lobbying and pork barrel politics, who am I to argue?

Thing is though, would you really want all subsidies to go? Food prices, fuel costs, mortgage rates, everything will go up.

New Zealand went cold turkey, can't remember when, in the '80s I think. They coped and are arguably better off for it, but that's a much smaller and simpler economy.

Subsidies and lobbyists are an arms race,politicians are the winners and john Q Public are the ultimate losers.Yes,all subsides should go away.


sorry, I shouldn't use the word exponential as a rhetorical instrument. Let's say linear then. I don't see any data on that site you referenced that shows air temperatures have not gone up consistently since the industrial revolution. In fact, if you look at the 3rd graph, that would most likely qualify as exponential. As for 0.8C being important or not, why don't we leave that one to the people who might know something about it, like climatologists? After all, of some 2000 of them that contributed to the IPCC (membership of which doesn't come in cereal packets), 95%+ stated that they were confident within knowable doubt that climate change was occurring and that it was anthropological.

No,97% of the papers cherry picked by John Cook said that,or so he says,turns out even the cherry picked ones wouldn't go so far as to make such a preposterous claim.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Everyone agrees that the mean temperature has increased by .8c over the last 150 years.However because .8c is well within the range of natural variability for the time set we cannot say proof positive that anything drastic,dangerous or even potentially alarming has occurred.Nor can we say that human activity is the cause.If we had seen 8-10*C rise then we might be concerned,but not at .8 of one degree.



3 words, North West Passage

or 4 words, Massive Worldwide Glacial Retreat

or you could reference a paper that's more concerned with how many ferrets Labour politicians stick down their trousers.

Three words-Blocked and So what?

Didn't read the link,"Artic to be free of ice by 2013" ring a bell.The fools who thought the NWP would free of ice and ended up frozen in?

Glacial retreat,it's been going on for the last 20,000 odd years well before cow farts,coal burning,cars etc.The less ice there is in a given mass the faster it melts even if the air temps remain the same.It's that exponential function for real this time.In a NOAA video pressing the climate change argument they state"polar ice and glaciers act as sort of an ac unit for the globe".Now that begs the question,is the ice melting because the air is warming up,or is the air warming up because the ice is melting?


no, but you were willfully implying, as you are now stating, that I was deliberately ignoring the specific environmental cost of producing the silicon used in solar panels or the fuel required to move wind turbine blades to their sites or whatever. Which, if you read my posts, I was not. There's a little bit about costs after each of them - building stuff, maintaining stuff. For all of them. However, by repeatedly and explicitly stressing the environmental costs of renewables yet as far as I can tell ignoring the similar costs of other sources of electricity you appear to be saying that renewables have environmental impacts over and above those of fossil fuels. Is that the case?

Are you high or having a stroke?:rolleyes: Nowhere did I say FF production doesn't have a cost,everybody knows that.You rocked on about FF costs,but failed to do the same for wind and solar.Don't worry,every other wind and solar proponent omits that little detail too.



uh huh, as a "unspecified regulatory line item" like the $2.50 a month I pay on my cell bill for who knows what (I'm guessing, as I couldn't see anything on that page to say who exactly is paying for it, other than the parent company, at some point). Is it, and more importantly the legacy cost of disposing of spent fuel, included in the per kilowatt hour cost of electricity? As in, are consumers receiving all the information which they would need to make decisions on electricity use, as one would hope for in a "free market"?

Universal Service Fund,it was created in 1996 to do among other things give low cost landline service to the poor and elderly.Later when Bush came into office and after AT&T stopped offering landline service to folks in rural areas the program was expanded to cover basic cell phone service.After Obama took office it was expanded again with a higher threshold income.Lately it has been under investigation because people are paid to get people signed up,but it was found that they were signing up people who didn't qualify and charging $20-100 to sign people up for what is supposed to be a free sign up.
I have no problem with the concept,but it was poorly executed and no one was watching the hen house.Estimated $4Billion in fraud later and here we are.


Yes,we should believe Obama,because he's a human rights leader and leader in green energy and big all around fluffy bunnies so says the Whitehouse.:rolleyes

Yes,we should believe Rush Limbaugh,because he's on TV and hate green energy and taxes so says Fox news.:rolleyes

Rush is on TV???? No,it's one of the basic tenants of science,skepticism.Also realising those promoting AGW have a vested financial interest in seeing it catch hold even more so that oil companies wanting to keep selling oil.Holy indulgences anyone?Oh,I mean carbon offsets,uhuh.


either way, sure US plants are cleaner than Chinese, could be might be, who knows. Is it really that important to the general argument? Even for a new, fully emission kitted out coal plant, are you saying it produces less CO2, SO2, NOx and particulates than gas, nuclear or renewables?

Nope,I'm saying short of Nuclear none of the rest have even remotely energy density to cost ratio.Well maybe Gas,but those tend to be peakers to carry the base load renewables don't.I am saying CO2 is not a problem,SO2 more so and NOx is pumped out by nature in amounts that dwarf us.What's wrong with permitting new state of the art plants that capture nearly all particulates.Oh,wait Obama said he would bankrupt anyone even thinking about building a new coal plant,unless they met strict arbitrary limits set by his trading scheme.


now we're getting into an interesting discussion. A cartoon on a colleague's door goes along the lines of "what if we waste all this money and all we get at the end is a cleaner world?". Go to any high population count city (LA and Mexico City spring to mind from personal experience), go down into the smog and breath the air. Feel your eyes smart and sting. That's just in relatively developed parts of the world. This isn't a zero sum game. Fewer pollutants = healthier people, children that achieve their potential as they're not hamstrung by respiratory ailments. Even if climate change isn't happening, the amount of CO2 we spew into the atmosphere has no effect on anything, there's no way we can keep dumping combustion products into the atmosphere without consequences that affect us. This is not an open system. Surely the effects from decades of ocean pollution (oceans are big, right? We can dump whatever we like into them!) should convince you that doing the same to the atmosphere will bite us in the ass eventually? And that's if you don't believe all those clever climatologists that have made it their lifes work to figure out this stuff for us.

Huh,that's like saying"we took out your appendix and colon so now you will never have appendicitis or colon cancer,sorry about the infection that's killing you.

LA and MC,both built in basins,both had air pollution if you want to improve those places,then do it locally,the rest of the country that has no such problems should not have to pay for it.

wierdscience
09-28-2015, 03:08 AM
As for the natural disasters thing, us humans suck at this stuff. 2 reasons, we have ridiculously short memories and we also fixate on large irregular effects. So most climatologists will quietly back away from you if you try and get them to predict if natural disasters will increase as the result of climate change. However, and this is a very important distinction, it is increasingly likely that normal weather patterns will become more variable, so that extremes become more likely. For some people, hotter summers (or wetter or whatever) or colder/ warmer winters don't make much difference, for many people, those fluctuations, such as when a monsoon starts and for how long it rains, is literally a matter of life and death. So, sure, from a US centric perspective, we'll probably be fine, give or take. For others, much less so.

Most of the "scientists" and activists aren't backing away from crazy doomsday claims,they are the ones making them.The media is riddled with crazy claims to the point even the Pope believes this alarmist pablum.
500 years ago if there was a massive storm or other disaster few outside the immediate area knew of it.Even in the immediate area often times oral history was the only way of preserving the event.Now that the population has increased and distances have been shortened by technology we hear and record every single incident that happens no matter how small.
Just because an area hasn't flooded or been hit by a Typhoon in the last 100 years that doesn't mean it wasn't wiped clean by one 150 years ago.People tend to believe apocalyptic visions especially if they are played up by the media.People also see hoof prints and think Zebra before Horse.


yah, sorry, don't understand what you wrote there.

In a nutshell most of the enterprise we see around us not born of government.In addition the government is trying to do so much it never was given a mandate to do that it is now failing in even it's basic responsibilities.

wierdscience
09-28-2015, 03:25 AM
The IPCC is a UN institution, so clearly it isn't going to be only climatologists. There's a whole bunch of government at all different levels involved.

That should send up red flags by itself.The UN's agenda is global governance full stop and the current IPCC report has nothing to do with Climate change,Man Made Global warming or whatever it's being called this week.

From the report-
""Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years"

The fact that temps are lower now than at any point during the Holocene Maximum should be enough for any reasoned person to draw the conclusion that Co2,CH4 and NOx have little if any effect on global temperature.
The two main drivers of Earth's climate are now and will always be #1 The Sun and #2 water vapor and both out strip the supposed greenhouse gases by very large factors.

dp
09-28-2015, 04:04 AM
That should send up red flags by itself.The UN's agenda is global governance full stop and the current IPCC report has nothing to do with Climate change,Man Made Global warming or whatever it's being called this week.

From the report-
""Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years"

The fact that temps are lower now than at any point during the Holocene Maximum should be enough for any reasoned person to draw the conclusion that Co2,CH4 and NOx have little if any effect on global temperature.
The two main drivers of Earth's climate are now and will always be #1 The Sun and #2 water vapor and both out strip the supposed greenhouse gases by very large factors.

The UN is at least honest - they say the models are wrong and cannot be used to predict future climates, and they admit the models do not match observed climate change and even admit as all skeptics do that the climate is always changing, and that the models are diverging from reality and always have. And they admit that it is only in models, not observed, that CO2 causes global warming. They admit they don't know how to model water in the atmosphere, too, and that water in its various states is a far larger factor than CO2. It is only in the summary reports that they suggest that because models show rising CO2 is a danger it is justified to invoke the precautionary principle - a logical fallacy - it might happen so we should deprive third-world countries the option of cheap fossil fuels. The rest of the world, for their penance, will plant trees to reduce their carbon footprint (See Al Gore) and go on as before.

The reality is simpler - unless the world produces less fossil fuel no amount of wind/solar will make a dent in industrial CO2, and, it can't be shown in the observed climate record that it matters at all. Fossil fuel production is a growing and thriving business. One last point - the interconnected power grid depends upon fossil fuel to keep the lights on when unreliable, so-called renewable energy is unavailable. That is 50% of the time for solar, and an unpredictable amount of time for wind. Stored energy is a net consumer of energy and impractical for vast regions of the world, so don't even go there. Stored energy (ponded water) exists so power companies can be compensated for over-capacity. The inefficiency of pumping water is paid for by consumers.