Octopus Overlords

Actually, they were.

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually ... As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates U.S. fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies.

LordMortis wrote:

Rip wrote:Of course they weren't receiving millions in taxpayer money.

Do you know that for a fact?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic- ... -tax-rates

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... tax-breaks

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo ... reaks.html

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07 ... -break.asp

A tax break for a company making money != a subsidy or loan guarantee for one that doesn't.

Isgrimnur wrote:Actually, they were.

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually ... As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates U.S. fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies.

If only it were so simple.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... -Myth.html

Rip wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

Rip wrote:Of course they weren't receiving millions in taxpayer money.

Do you know that for a fact?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic- ... -tax-rates

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... tax-breaks

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo ... reaks.html

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07 ... -break.asp

A tax break for a company making money != a subsidy or loan guarantee for one that doesn't.

So you are claiming you know for a fact that those companies were not receiving millions in taxpayer money? I don't know it to be true one way or another but generally speaking the oil industry is receiving billions of tax payer money every year AND tax breaks for a company making money does = a subsidy. That exactly what tax breaks are.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=subsidy

LordMortis wrote:

Rip wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

Rip wrote:Of course they weren't receiving millions in taxpayer money.

Do you know that for a fact?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic- ... -tax-rates

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... tax-breaks

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corpo ... reaks.html

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07 ... -break.asp

A tax break for a company making money != a subsidy or loan guarantee for one that doesn't.

So you are claiming you know for a fact that those companies were not receiving millions in taxpayer money? I don't know it to be true one way or another but generally speaking the oil industry is receiving billions of tax payer money every year AND tax breaks for a company making money does = a subsidy. That exactly what tax breaks are.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=subsidy

Direct subsidies per unit energy to US power generation technologies

Subsidies TWh $/MWh
Coal/Refined Coal 1085 1572 0.69
Natural Gas/Petroleum Liquids 2346 1033 2.27
Nuclear 1660 789 2.10
Biomass 629 57 11.04
Geothermal 345 165 2.09
Hydropower 395 266 1.48
Solar 5328 19 280.42
Wind 5936 168 35.33

So what you're saying is it's is probable that those companies were receiving millions in tax payer money?

Also note, this is not me defending SUNE. My memory, which could be way off, was that they took a shitton of subsidies to purchase a shitton of assets and then turned around and sold those subsidized assets to the independent Chinese interests and it all sounded very criminal to me.

LordMortis wrote:So what you're saying is it's is probable that those companies were receiving millions in tax payer money?

What I am saying is they may have received some but that Oil/Gas receives a little over $2 per MW/hr produced while Solar get $280 per. Comparing total $ of two techs producing on a vastly different scale is misleading.

Mature tech versus emerging tech. Which one needs more investment per unit to get to market as a viable competitor?

Also, we're less than five years removed from record profits for the oil industry.

Rip wrote:
Of course they weren't receiving millions in taxpayer money.

No, they weren't. They were receiving billions.

Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade.

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
Of course they weren't receiving millions in taxpayer money.

No, they weren't. They were receiving billions.

Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade.

In order to help push production up over 1000 Terawatt Hours. Solar produces 19 Terawatt Hours. To get Solar up to that other than years of time you would need $1T or more.

How much did we give oil from 1860-1960 in today's dollars?

Rip wrote: In order to help push production up over 1000 Terawatt Hours. Solar produces 19 Terawatt Hours. To get Solar up to that other than years of time you would need $1T or more.

Dude, you're being ridiculous. You first imply that green energy can't work even when heavily subsidized, so people show you oil and gas failures, you then say they didn't take tax payer money, so people show you that they did and do take tax payer money. Your argument now has moved from Green Energy is a boondoggle that burns tax payer money for no outcome, to Green Energy burns more tax dollars than oil and gas per terawatt generated.

Well no shit, sherlock. If it were competitive already, we'd be using Green Energy in bulk already. Green Energy doesn't have almost 200 years of infrastructure investment to rely on, and it's still a growing field and tech.

We AREN'T there yet. No one here is claiming we are. But the plan is to reduce our reliance on Oil and Gas, and that's a worthy goal and one worth working towards, and investing in.

If the new isn't immediately more efficient than the old, then he wants no part of it, and we shouldn't either.

Isgrimnur wrote:If the new isn't immediately more efficient than the old, then he wants no part of it, and we shouldn't either.

That's the GOP way. If it doesn't pay dividends by the end of the current election cycle, they have no use for it.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: In order to help push production up over 1000 Terawatt Hours. Solar produces 19 Terawatt Hours. To get Solar up to that other than years of time you would need $1T or more.

Dude, you're being ridiculous. You first imply that green energy can't work even when heavily subsidized, so people show you oil and gas failures, you then say they didn't take tax payer money, so people show you that they did and do take tax payer money. Your argument now has moved from Green Energy is a boondoggle that burns tax payer money for no outcome, to Green Energy burns more tax dollars than oil and gas per terawatt generated.

Well no shit, sherlock. If it were competitive already, we'd be using Green Energy in bulk already. Green Energy doesn't have almost 200 years of infrastructure investment to rely on, and it's still a growing field and tech.

We AREN'T there yet. No one here is claiming we are. But the plan is to reduce our reliance on Oil and Gas, and that's a worthy goal and one worth working towards, and investing in.

The oil and gas failures don't have anything to do with energy production. They fail because of costly extraction that isn't viable on market change. Market changes aren't behind the solar failures, they fail because they don't generate power as efficiently. Oil/Gas conversion to electricity efficiency hasn't changed much, and on top of that Oil/Gas is used for tons of things Solar can't and won't ever be used for.

Rip wrote: ...and on top of that Oil/Gas is used for tons of things Solar can't and won't ever be used for.

Which is exactly why we should be pushing for alternative ways to create energy so we can save oil and gas to make plastics and lubricants and whatnot.

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote: ...and on top of that Oil/Gas is used for tons of things Solar can't and won't ever be used for.

Which is exactly why we should be pushing for alternative ways to create energy so we can save oil and gas to make plastics and lubricants and whatnot.

Not worried, there is plenty of oil. Potentially over a Trillion barrels just in the Green River formation. That is 3-4 times the known reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Thinking we are going to run out of oil is so 1970s.

Thinking running out of oil is the problem is so 1990s.

Zaxxon wrote:Thinking running out of oil is the problem is so 1990s.

The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones. And we wouldn't have had a Bronze Age without government subsidies.

Kraken wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:Thinking running out of oil is the problem is so 1990s.

The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones. And we wouldn't have had a Bronze Age without government subsidies.

The Solar Age?

What are we going to make out of sunlight?

Are you jumping right over into energy->matter tech?

I doubt at that point any of this conversation will be meaningful as we can just lay waste to the planet and then terraform it back to our liking.

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Zaxxon wrote:Thinking running out of oil is the problem is so 1990s.

The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones. And we wouldn't have had a Bronze Age without government subsidies.

The Solar Age?

What are we going to make out of sunlight?

Are you jumping right over into energy->matter tech?

I doubt at that point any of this conversation will be meaningful as we can just lay waste to the planet and then terraform it back to our liking.

No one is going to do any jumping anywhere until you let go of your oil and gas dependency.

If you haven't been paying attention, we're working towards the battery Era.

Conceivably with fusion sources in addition to renewables.

Pyperkub wrote:If you haven't been paying attention, we're working towards the battery Era.

Conceivably with fusion sources in addition to renewables.

Huh? Are you using era in place of age?

I never realized batteries were a resource.

So we may end up with Battery Park actually being made from batteries?

I think I will just wait for the Uranium Age.

All the power I need for a lifetime in a container the size of a pack of smokes.

Check the article on uc Davis researchers and recharging batteries. One of the problems with solar has been storage. With infinitely recharging batteries and fast charging, one of oil's main advantages (portability) is gone.

I think you are missing my point.

Stone Age (stone a material) so you can make stuff out of it
Bronze Age (Bronze a material) so you can make stuff out of it
Iron Age (Iron a material) so you can make stuff out of it

Oil you can make stuff out of it including creating energy.

Solar power. You can make energy with it, But that is it. Nothing else.
Materials>energy because without various materials energy is useless. Although it can be helpful in acquiring/producing various materials.

TL;DR If it isn't matter it doesn't matter.

False equivalence. There's no real beef with using oil as a material, just with burning it. We didn't burn stone, bronze, or iron, and we don't need to make stuff out of wind and sunlight.

Kraken wrote:False equivalence. There's no real beef with using oil as a material, just with burning it. We didn't burn stone, bronze, or iron, and we don't need to make stuff out of wind and sunlight.

Yea I got that. I agree I want to develop other sources of energy. My point is when you look at subsidies you have to realize that one(Oil/Gas) is subsidizing something that produces energy AND a wide assortment of very useful materials. The other(Solarpower) only produces energy. When you consider the levels of investment/subsidization you have to do it through that lens to properly assess the return on investment.

When was the last time we named an age after a material?

Alefroth wrote:When was the last time we named an age after a material?

I would argue the Iron Age has never ended. It will see us into the Dark Matter Age.

Rip wrote: Solar power. You can make energy with it, But that is it. Nothing else.

Plants.

Fitzy wrote:

Rip wrote: Solar power. You can make energy with it, But that is it. Nothing else.

Plants.

Solar energy doesn't make plants, just helps them grow. Otherwise there would be plants on the moon.

He a moon plant denier! Get him!

Rip wrote:

Fitzy wrote:

Rip wrote: Solar power. You can make energy with it, But that is it. Nothing else.

Plants.

Solar energy doesn't make plants, just helps them grow. Otherwise there would be plants on the moon.

Have you been to the moon?

Rip wrote:

Fitzy wrote:

Rip wrote: Solar power. You can make energy with it, But that is it. Nothing else.

Plants.

Solar energy doesn't make plants, just helps them grow. Otherwise there would be plants on the moon.

Sufficient and necessary seems an odd game. What does oil and natural gas really do? Have you ever seen them burn without oxygen or make plastic without without heat or lubricate without a frictioned surface?

LordMortis wrote:

Rip wrote:

Fitzy wrote:

Rip wrote: Solar power. You can make energy with it, But that is it. Nothing else.

Plants.

Solar energy doesn't make plants, just helps them grow. Otherwise there would be plants on the moon.

Sufficient and necessary seems an odd game. What does oil and natural gas really do? Have you ever seen them burn without oxygen or make plastic without without heat or lubricate without a frictioned surface?

Burn without an oxidizer, yea sorta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_fuel_II

BTW, you realize lubricate is a verb not a noun right? A lubricant is a lubricant irrespective of whether it is actually lubricating or has anything to lubricate.

As far as making plastic, heat is just energy so oil can produce the energy to transform other oil into plastic.

But in the end of course oxygen is necessary it is needed for most everything including the need to need anything. I guess we can call all of time the Oxygen Age.

You really are the most annoyingly obtuse tool I've ever encountered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RunningMn9 wrote:You really are the most annoyingly obtuse tool I've ever encountered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and you are the most sensitive, fragile, and thin skinned person I have ever encountered.

Do you need us to set you up a safe space?

That's me, fragile and thin-skinned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously, Rip.

Rip wrote:The clean energy failures don't have anything to do with energy production. Oil and gas failed because of costly extraction that isn't viable on market change.

Mortoned. The issue for SUNE isn't core profitability, it's that the costs of debt fueled expansion exceeds immediate cash flow. Extraction of solar and wind is competitive after construction. Bankruptcy will clear up the financial balance sheets. Much like when the railroads were built.

Oil and gas DID pursue expensive to extract reserves that are now uncompetitive with lower oil prices. As usual, Rip has the economics ass backwards.

Zarathud wrote:Seriously, Rip.

Rip wrote:The clean energy failures don't have anything to do with energy production. Oil and gas failed because of costly extraction that isn't viable on market change.

Mortoned. The issue for SUNE isn't core profitability, it's that the costs of debt fueled expansion exceeds immediate cash flow. Extraction of solar and wind is competitive after construction. Bankruptcy will clear up the financial balance sheets. Much like when the railroads were built.

Oil and gas DID pursue expensive to extract reserves that are now uncompetitive with lower oil prices. As usual, Rip has the economics ass backwards.

Thus costly extraction that isn't viable in the current market. That isn't backwards, I was spot on.

On SUNE you sound like at the CLECs investors that kept saying "but we have a positive EBITA", having a positive cash flow when you throw out a crapload of your business costs does not a healthy investment make. Those CLECs failed as these solar companies are/will. In the case of the telcoms the investors and bondholders lost pretty much everything they invested. The big difference is the solar power firms are taking tax dollars down with them.