If my math is right, that was enough solar added in this one year (outside of residential) for 2M homes. There are 13M homes in the state, according to the census.

The goal is 33% total power in the state to be renewable in 6 years.

This seems like remarkable progress in this arena!

Ken, that's excellent news. Could you please give us a link to the original source?

Excellent news for whom?

It is only excellent news, if it is not be subsidized by rate and tax payers, which it is not.

All this does is increase the cost of doing business.

Whether it is subsidized or not, having a big solar plant go online is great progress.

Sometimes progress is expensive, and sticking with old ways is the cheapest way to go. But in the long run, burning more coal and gas, and importing more oil will get us deeper into trouble, whether it is economically or environmentally.

I drive a dual mode (electric/gas) vehicle for those reasons. It was not the cheapest car I could get, but it sure helps curb the oil import imbalance. The surprising thing is that it is proving to be quite economical, and in several more years is likely to prove the most inexpensive to operate car I could have bought. (It costs me 2 cents a mile in electric mode, which is most of the time.)

I hope the long-term proves to be just as smart for the new solar facility.

Sorry, meant to include:

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/20...tric-grid-than/

WB, it all depends upon if you want to count subsidies equally.

We fought the first Gulf War specifically and strategically to protect our major source of middle east oil from being captured by Saddam, Saudi Arabia, and to recapture Kuwait, another major source.

That war eventually let to 911, and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So if you want to add up the cost of those wars, including the deaths of thousands of Americans, I'd be happy to compare the balance sheets.

I don't know if you lived through the OPEC embargo decades ago, when Americans waited in lines for hours to get limited amounts of gas. I do. I far prefer to find ways to become independent of such scenarios.

I appreciate that others prefer to declare war on others who have the resources that we covet, and take those things away from them by force. Certainly it's the historical way.

Having spent time in the Sandbox, I prefer to go the route of energy independence.

I have no problem with alternatives...as long as they are not subsidized. They should compete for their business with fossil fuels. Just like Ford competes with General Motor..errr...Chrysler...errrr...make that Toyota.

There isn't anything that is as efficient as fossil fuels and as long as they are inexpensive and plentiful, they should be developed and used...damn, I haven't heard the words peak and oil together for a long, long time.

I just wish all those who are big on these products would be willing to pay the full ticket. Why should I be happy to pay more for electricity? Why should I be happy to see energy intensive business move to places that have lower energy costs? Be the move foreign or domestic. Hmmm...getting the folks who will be losing their jobs to pay for it...nice.

Fossil fuel subsidies and other hidden costs

Burning gasoline to power a car wastes 75% of the energy in the fuel as waste heat. Even if oil weren't subsidized, driving on battery power is 1/2 to 1/3 as costly. Electricity can be generated way more efficiently from fossil fuels, and when it can be generated from the sun, the energy is free!

We are not talking about cars or oil! That is why I used fossil fuels rather than gasoline/diesel/heating oil. The last time I looked oil provided less than 2% of generation.

It cost a heck of a lot more to produce kwh of electricity with solar than gas or coal and our utilities have to buy it at a profit.

If it cost more in one location than another people either move to the low cost provider or do their expansion in those locations. The State of California is chasing energy intensive industries away with their policies...see aerospace, furniture and heavy manufacturing.

If the government pays its favored fat cats a subsidy. What is the cost of that subsidy? What opportunity is be passed up to this favored set of million and billionaire a few more sheckels? I believe the economic term is opportunity costs.

The cost of being more green than the guy next door, is the guy next door that isn't so green gets your jobs.

There is a cost to your position, just acknowledge it.

I agree, the corporate welfare for the oil companies should end.

$2.4 Billion: subsidies to the Big Five producers debated and defeated in the Senate in 2011 and 2012

The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was debated and defeated by the Senate for two years running, and would have eliminated $2.4 billion in annual tax deductions for the five major oil companies: BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips.

$4 Billion: Subsidy cuts President Obama proposed in the 2013 budget.

President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he’s been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them.

Now that we have the Citizens United vs FEC ruling by the Supreme Court, it will be even more difficult for people to affect the way government works.

Since corporations can throw megabucks at elections, getting subsidies for corporations rolled back is becoming an evermore remote possibility.

You might consider the following: why is gas so much cheaper in the US than in most other countries? It is because it is subsidized. So is coal, so is natural gas.

But you also miss another very important issue: fossil fuels are the source of many, many, many unique chemicals that cannot be produced in any other efficient way. Simply burning up that source seems crazy. You will find that $100 bills burn just fine, but it would be rather crazy to start your fires with them. But it WILL work.

You should also consider the security of fossil fuels. 1 dirty bomb in a coal producing field will have knocked it out for, what, 100 years? Where do you get your energy then? Declare war I guess?

Having diverse sources of energy is a good thing, and concentrating on a variety of clean methods primarily is the best.

Creating subsidies that encourage a good thing, which results in a development of an industry which progressively gets cheaper, is good strategy.

The price of solar panels has dropped more than 90% in the last year or so. Why? Because there was a market for them.

Patton was stopped during WWII because the 3rd Army ran out of fuel. We can continue to follow this model, with the associated risks, or we can look at other models.

LADWP just released an EIR to install 200MW of solar PV panels 10 miles north of Lone Pine on 1,200 acres. The project is called Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch and of course there is local opposition. I think it's a great start and there's room for a lot more of these installations.

Battle for Solar Power in Owens Valley

The Draft EIR is here.

Now if we could just get new solar powered dehydrating toilets for Mt. Whitney...

The dissent by Justice Stephens was concluded with perfection:

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

I appreciate the conversation taking place on this thread, as it is backed by articles, history, and civilized discourse -- three attributes rarely seen on forums.

Thanks for taking the time to participate.

Am quite sure this is the project DWP wants to build across from Manzanar.

I've hiked extensively in that area of the Sierra and Inyos, and what has always struck me is the number of valleys and areas quite out of sight of US395 and public view. Aside from being a few miles away from major transmission lines, they seem like ideal sites for such projects. This isn't just my opinion, but also those of my hiking companions, often retired scientists & engineers from China Lakes NWS.

Sometimes I wonder if DWP's proposals are designed to inflame public opinion, and thereby divert attention away from their pumping and water projects!

I spent some time reading the EIR. It's got maps, photos and it explains the process that led them to this location. This spot had the minimum disruption to the ecosystem and it was far enough from 395 to be low visibility. They actually changed the location as a result of feedback from the public scoping meetings in Lone Pine in 2010.

I also want to emphasize that this project makes economic sense on its owen (pun intended). LADWP is doing this to increase their amount of green energy for state goals and for their own internal policy goals for 2030. They've already exceeded the requirements for reducing greenhouse gas to 1990 levels back in 2011, they're actually on track to be 20% lower than 1990 by 2020 and striving for 30% lower in 2030.

This is a common theme in California, it turned out that the Kyoto Protocol that was so scary to some was actually quite easy to meet and many utilities are already beyond that years ahead of schedule.

LADWP, like most every utility and every major oil company, they recognize the need to reduce their carbon output. Even Exxon Mobile is taking action (while funding science deniers on the side). Visit any oil company website or utility and you'll see they all have plans to reduce their carbon footprint. It makes good business sense and nobody is subsidizing them to do this. The subsidies out there are mostly going to individuals installing roof top solar or buying a high tech car (hybrid, hydrogen, electric) or charging stations. Just like building roads and an interstate highway system, and funding research, the government has a role in setting direction through policy and investment. Like it or not, our government is an important player in developing infrastructure that makes businesses possible.

Mark my words, you will see a lot about hydrogen fuel cell cars in 2015 in California. Every auto maker has a fully functional model in service ready for mass production. Toyota just announced they are going to start selling their hydrogen fuel cell car one year earlier than anticipated. A change on this scale requires financial incentives to get mass production ramped up. And it requires coordination of the fueling stations as the new vehicles hit the road.

> Am quite sure this is the project DWP wants to build across from Manzanar.

A few years ago, LADWP proposed covering the surface of the Owens Lake bed with a solar power array. It probably would have eliminated the need to water the surface to keep the dust problem down.


> you will see a lot about hydrogen fuel cell cars in 2015 in California.

The down-side of hydrogen power is that Hydrogen is created from hydrocarbons -- fossil fuels. I understand splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is far more expensive.

Really Ken, gas cost more here because of subsidies, eh. Hmmm...the Commex price is about $2.67/gallon. This price is good in Turkey, Central African Republic or US of A. Where's the subsidy? This is what people willing to pay for this plentiful commodity.

It's how it is taxed. See $3.60 gas in CA, <$3.00 in TX and whatever it is Europe.

No, Patton was not stopped because he ran out of fuel. The Supreme Allied Command decided, that it was in the best interest to allow the finite supply of fuel in Northwest Europe for Operation Market-Garden...and Patton was wily guy who never let his army totally run out of fuel. There was plenty of fuel in September 1944, there was plenty of shipping, after the Allies cleared the North Atlantic and Mediterranean in 1943 but there was not infrastructure. Cherbourg, Marseilles and Antwerp had not come on line and the Allies decided against a planned pause at the Seine to build supply dumps. See PLUTO, Normandy Beaches and Red Ball Express. Just like there is plenty of NG, Coal for cheap power generation. Your analogy is faulty.

According to this Bloomberg Report, Turkey currently has the most expensive gasoline - Turkey
Price per gallon of gasoline: $9.89, Rank by most expensive gas: 1

Follow this link for more info on gas prices around the world.

I was in Ireland in October. This Bloomberg report is for Q3 of 2013, and their price of $7.79/gallon seems about right.
Here's an old (2007) link to the subsidy...accurate it is.

This is often true, but not necessarily so. There are power sources that produce 24/7, in spite of the fact that power is needed much more during daylight hours.

Nuclear is a good example. What do you do with the power in the middle of the night? We don't have a battery system to store it, although the system in the state water project that pumps water uphill from one dam to the higher, to be used at a later time, functions sort of like a battery. But you could also use that unused, cheap, excess energy to crack water into hydrogen.

Most power systems have a power curve that is optimized for maximum efficiency at peak output. So it is cheaper and more efficient to run the system full-bore, than it is at half capacity. But you have to find uses for that power, perhaps hydrolysis is one.

We have two of those water storage "battery" systems near here, one to east one one to the west. San Louis Reservoir takes water from the Calif Aqueduct to fill the reservoir, then generates power when it drops back down to the O'Neill Forebay. The Helms project raises and drops water 1500' between Courtright and Wishon reservoirs.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

you are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts:



http://www.generalgeorgepatton.us/ww2.html



http://books.google.com/books?id=RfJ_LL8...gas&f=false

The 250th Artilliary Men Remember:



There are many hundred other sources of what happened to Patton's Third Army on Sept 1. It is not disputed.

You might ask the following question: who owns those valleys that you mention?

The land that LADWP is proposing to build upon is land it already owns.

I'm curious how happy the Owens Valley residents would be if LADWP proposed a massive land acquisition? My guess would be a massive reaction of inappropriateness.

"Don't they have enough???" would be the likely rallying cry......

Ken - I believe most of that land is already publicly owned by either the DWP or the BLM. Real estate brokers in the area say that 97% of the land in the Eastern Sierra is publicly owned, primarily by the BLM, the USFS, the LADWP, the DOD or the USPS.

Here's a link to several wind projects proposed for the upper Mojave and Sonoran deserts.

LADWP already owns almost all the private land in Owens Valley, so there's nothing more to acquire. The "rally" ended long ago, but the crying continues.

I predict a lot more of these solar installations in the valley once this one proves to be a success. Rather than hide the panels as much as possible, they should be used to educate people on renewable energy - the benefits, challenges, and trade offs.

Damn, just learning about this Patton thing, eh. You needed to spend time finding links

Let's see I've read a couple of million words war in northwest Europe, Ken.

Patton never ran out of gas. No Army ran out of gas. Patton was stealing gas from Hodges and utilizing captured supplies. Did he have what he wanted...no. He had what Supreme Allied Command gave him to take a defensive posture. You probably are not aware the terrain of northwest Europe favored advances by 21st Army Group, not 12th. Patton choose to push the limits of his supplies and then some hoping to get Eisenhower to give him more fuel, which is what Patton did. Supplies favored Montgomery for his push into Germany through Arnhem.

BTW, the shortage of gas and supplies was anticipated the moment they crossed the Seine and chased the Germans across France. This happens all the time in war. See the Soviets on the Vistula and Oder; and to the United States in GW II. Don'cha know the operational plan of Overlord? I did mention it. How many trucks does it to to provision a field army that is 60 miles away? How many when it is 400?

What do you think about a Patton offense toward Frankfort on Main? You know the one with no gas and a manpower shortage as the front lines became 2 miles longer for every mile of advance since the would have had to have put 21st Army Group plus the US 1st and 9th Armies and 6th Army Group on the defensive. The port of Antwerp was not operational until November 30th, 1944. The war was destined to be over in 1945.

Gee, no comment on how the price of gasoline works, eh.

Let's see: I provided links to the official George Patton site, the official artillary site, as well as a general history site.

You have provided NO links, whatsoever.

So what are you asking for links? YOU provide some links.

Here is one by the people running the Red Ball Express, US Army Quartermaster Foundation
Fort Lee, Virginia:

http://www.qmfound.com/pol.htm

Captain Daniel G. Grassi

Quartermaster Professional Bulletin - Summer 1993



WB, until YOU start to post some links that support your position, you're the odd man out.

You may have read one million books on the subject. It doesn't mean that you understood any of it.

I have no doubt of that. But my point that the land is NOT owned by LADWP, and would have to be acquired, still stands.

The politics of LADWP acquiring a large amount of land in the Owens Valley would be poisonous, to say the least, would probably take years, and would be fought tooth and nail by the residents of OV, just out of spite.

Why do I have to provide links, Ken? Just read Weigley, Ambrose, D'este, Pogue, Blumenson, Eisenhower, Hastings, Kershaw, Brown and many I have failed to mention. I am not going to waste my time with websites on a subject I know thoroughly.

It's all common knowledge that Patton was put in a defensive position and Allies would run short of supplies once they crossed the Seine. You seem to be avoiding this issue like Superman avoids Kryponite.

There was this thing called the Transportation Plan the Allies employed in May 1944 to isolate the Norman battlefield. This destroyed bridges and railroads. As I mentioned, there was suppose to be an operational pause. Once they crossed the Seine they knew they were going to bog down, like all Armies do when the out race their abilities to supplies. Hmmm...funny how, you have not mentioned Crerar, Dempsay, Hodges and Truscott and their fuel situation. I digress...Patton refused to go on the defensive against order which exacerbated his problems. Again, there were plenty of fuel in Europe. The problem was one of distribution...and you can't distribute all that swell when you ain't got bridges or railroads.

The United States Army stripped its newly arrived mechanized infantry division of their trucks so, they could chase the Germans as far and as long as they could, knowing full well all good things come to an end. For Patton this was Lorraine, Montgomery, it was a bridge too far and Hodges met his match in the Hurtgen. Allies could not campaign without fuel getting to the troops...PLUTO was not cutting it with an expanding US Army. Hmmmm...Bomber Command, Fighter Command, Costal Command, 8th, 9th, and 15th USAA could fly with no restrictions on fuel.

The problem was port facilities. Cherbourg was small and did not open to September, Antwerp was taken early but Monty in his infinte wisdom decided it was in best interest to meet the reconstituted German Army in Holland rather than clear the Scheldt Estuary in Belgium. Marseilles was too far away for 21st and 12th Army Groups.

You have to have an operational pause to allow supplies to be accumulated. Do yourself a favor and read Glantz's "When Titans Met", this will give a working idea how all the big battles of Europe fought in WW II. Be it deep penetration, blitzkreig or mobile operations...it was run until you could run no more then wait as your supplies were replenished...I did mention the Oder and Vistula, didn't I. Patton could run no more in Lorraine, Hodges in a bloody forest and Montgomery at the Lower Rhine. BTW, when was the next Allied big offensive? September...no, October...no, November...no, December and January...See Battle of Bulge, February...yeppers. Where they went all the way to the Elbe, crossing at Barby in late March or early April...see 2nd Armor and 83rd ID.

Wanna tell me how Patton would have ended the war in 1944? You seem to be the Pattonophile.

Hmmmm...How's about that price on gasoline works thing? No comment,eh.

This WWII history stuff is interesting, but it seems a bit off the topic of solar energy in California. Just saying.

Guys, WWII stuff is so far off topic that it's ridiculous. Let's get the discussion back to current times and related to Solar, etc.

interesting news. I was also recently in Palm Springs (after Mount San Jacinto again!) and I was surprised to see so many more wind turbines down there. It was like a forest of them!

Steve,

I've tried 2 or 3 times to bring it back to solar...errr...oil...errr...gasoline. Ken doesn't want to substantial his assertion that price of gasoline is subsidized in this country. I offered up a recent COMEX price for unleaded as a basis.

I did not take this neither to oil nor WW II, others did. I just stated the Patton analogy was faulty.

I will go back to...if you subsidize solar or wind, for that matter. What are you willing to give up? The EU is a little pissy with the UK these days for the folly of subsidizing wind power at 3 times the wholesale price.

All this does is make the rich richer at the expense of those who can least afford it. I thought the group of folks who champion this kind of thing also champion income inequality...just saying. You can't have both, these interest compete.

Hey WBT, you never commented on the $4 billion a year in tax breaks that go to the oil companies. Of the 10 largest corporations in America, 4 of them are oil companies. Talk about the rich getting richer.

Wind power is the fastest growing new energy source because it is economically viable on it's own. With the recent big drops in solar panel costs, PV is also booming.

There are subsidies for homeowners to install solar panels, but that's not causing the rich to get richer. And the power companies are mostly happy because it keeps them from having to build new power plants to handle peak loads. Peak solar power just happens to coincide with peak demand in the heat of the summer, so this is a win win situation. But at some point, solar will mature and hit a critical mass where subsidies should be phased out. Now if we can only phase out the oil company tax breaks...

I am trying to understand the two sides of this discussion. Feel free to clarify if I am not comprehending correctly.

Ken: Oil companies are subsidized via tax breaks (enough links are available to substantiate this fact. Bee) Therefore, this financial support/break allows petrol companies to sell/charge artificially lowered petrol prices.

WBTravis: Petrol isn't subsidized at the refined/consumer level, so the product is not artificially price-adjusted. Therefore, Solar viewed as more economical is seen as such because it IS subsidized?

Please state your positions in a few sentences, so I can evaluate what both of you are conveying (I have gotten lost in the long paragraphs)

SN,

Which tax breaks are they and how do the differ from any other business? Tax breaks are not subsidies.

We have a Frankenstein monster of a tax system, which allow politicians to reward their friends allies. I would be very happy with zero corporate tax and a consumption individuals tax...all the games go away. All corporations do is a act as tax collection agency for the government. Only people pay taxes.

Again, what does oil have to do with power generation?

Bee,

Gasoline was the commodity Ken claimed to be subsidized. You can subsidize it until the cows come home and it is meaningless because the market determines the price people are willing to pay for it worldwide. All you need is a tanker, storage farm and chain of distribution and you too can have ~$2.67/gallon unleaded gasoline. The price can be easily check on commodity exchanges.

It was the Dukes, it was the Dukes.

It amazes me how those with an agenda (on both sides) redefine or manufacture their own "facts". Yes, what "subsidies" do oil companies get, specifics please. I've heard oil companies writing off their capital expenditures (equipment, etc) claimed to be labeled as a "subsidy" but this is depreciation that all companies take and a legitimate expense.

Now, an example of a true subsidy is the ethanol boondoggle, bad for consumers, bad for the environment, bad for engines, yet we can't get away from it. The libs, greenies, Iowa and Archer Daniels like it though.

Back to oil, it is the most taxed product on earth. It is taxed out of the ground (royalties), the high paid employees who work it are highly taxed, it is taxed during transportation, it is taxed at the port of entry, at the pump, fed, state and local taxes. Tax, tax, tax for every level of government. I'm sorry, what were those subsidies again? (please be specific).

From Sept 7, 2011, The Republican Debate at the Reagan Library, former Gov. John Huntsman of Utah said:

Text quoted here.

Here's a video of that on YouTube.

A "subsidy" is, by definition, any monetary assistance, be it a direct payment, tax relief, grant, etc to a particular group. Allowing a $4 billion per year tax break to oil companies is a subsidy. Regardless of how anyone thinks the tax system should be, this is what it is based on the current rules. If you're concerned about the deficit, or about fairness, or about the rich manipulating government, or about subsidizing an industry with tax money, this should concern you.

The oil companies also produce natural gas, which is the prime fossil fuel competition for solar power. So yes, it's related to the solar industry. Just as you're concerned with subsidizing the solar industry, you should be concerned with subsidizing the oil & gas industry (the largest industry in the world). We, the taxpayers are $4 billion per year less in revenue that would otherwise be collected without these special breaks given to the oil and gas industry. The nuclear industry is also highly subsidized with a wide variety of assistance from research to waste disposal. And I agree that ethanol is oversubsidized, which demonstrates the power of agribusiness. A little help would be fine, but it's crowding out other alternatives such as methanol produced from waste.

It amazes how people can be okay with subsidizing large established industries year after year, but if the government wants to help to help kick start a growing industry by helping a homeowner or business put solar panels up, that's communism or socialism or whatever the latest buzz word is.

I think it's fine to help jump start industries that have compelling promise to improve our society such as clean renewable solar energy or high efficiency cars. It's like training wheels until they can grow up into mass production and compete with mature industries. Pretty much every government in the world does this, so we'd be at a disadvantage if we didn't. But these should be temporary, certainly the largest and most profitable companies in the world shouldn't need handouts from taxpayers.

SN,

Which tax breaks that differ from any other corporation? This seems to be a question that you or any here seems to want to answer.

I've already stated my position on taxes. I believe corporations should be neither taxed or subsidized. Therefore, I believe in a tax system that is fair to all, not fair to those who are favored by those in power at a particular point in time.

So what are you willing to give up for funding an inefficient, more expensive and not as reliable form of power. Me, I not willing to give up a damn thing. Again, you want to transfer from those who can least afford it to those who can most afford it then complain about the income inequality that your proposal exacerbates...if you are like most of the proponents of this scheme. Are you willing to see jobs go to other states or countries? That is the end result of this scheme.

Alternates time will come when they are the most efficient, least expensive from of power.

What Huntsman said is irrelevant, Steve. Unleaded gasoline is a commodity on an exchange. If the economy goes in the toilet its price will go down, if the economy is smoking it goes up.

Hmmm...who would you rather have protecting the sea lanes or oil supply? Or playing the roll we play? China, Russia or the feckless western Europeans, who could not move troops from France to the Balkans without the help on the US of A.

However, the subject is solar subsidization, not oil, not WW II. At least, that is what I have been told.

What are you willing to give up, for more expensive inefficient power?

Several links above describe the well-known $4 billion per year tax breaks given to the oil/gas companies and only to the oil/gas companies. I'm surprised you haven't heard of them before. If you claim that every corporation gets similar tax breaks, then you should provide examples, the burden is on you to show that every corporation gets similar tax breaks.

So it's okay for the oil companies to get $4 billion per year in special tax breaks, and apparently every corporation gets special tax breaks, but the solar industry doesn't deserve any help whatsoever? If that summarizes your position on the existing tax system, and I stated mine above, then let's just agree to disagree then. This is not the thread to discuss alternative tax systems, this is based on current reality.

Back to the South Owens Valley Solar installation, which seems to be economically viable all on it's own - we might see it shimmering in the morning sun from Mt. Whitney some day. Seems like a very promising project to me, one of many new large scale solar projects that are coming on line, under construction or in planning. The solar industry is expanding rapidly. Most people see that as a good thing.

I don't understand how it is irrelevant. Sure it is a commodity in its current state -- propped up by the current tax status and the current world order. But outside and above those props, WE are paying significant dollars to keep that present state.

If we had more solar power, more wind power, more electric power vehicles (and yes, more nuclear power, especially Thorium-based), we would NOT need to import millions of barrels of oil and give away billions of dollars to OPEC countries.

And by the way, how is solar inefficient? It's free! Burning gasoline is about the most inefficient use of energy -- 75% is lost in waste heat!

So what would I give up?
1. Paying big bucks to countries with lots of people who would like to see us die.
2. Paying big bucks for the military to ensure that they don't.
3. Lots of ozone and air pollution -- 50% of the air pollution in our state is vehicle based.
4. Worrying that there won't be any oil left in the future for my grandchildren.

I'm really glad there are incentives to move energy use towards solar and wind-power. I wish some of my tax money would be used to further the development of Thorium-based nuclear power. I would much rather see more used for those things instead of being used trying to get more oil at the cheapest rate.

Not to pile on to what Steve wrote, but we humans are burning fossil fuels at a rate that is changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Perhaps 97% of climate scientists are all conspiring to exaggerate the effects of what we're doing, but maybe not. Even Exxon Mobile, the most aggressive of science denying corporations is changing their tune. Let's not get into an endless debate, just consider what Exxon is now saying:

Exxon Mobile Climate Change Policy

"There is growing recognition that addressing the risk of climate change will require significant efforts by both the developed and the developing world."

"ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions."

"At ExxonMobil, our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions focuses on increasing our own energy efficiency in the short term, implementing current proven emissions-reducing technologies in the medium term, and developing breakthrough, game-changing technologies in the long term."

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future. "

This is great stuff, guys.

So far, my favorites are, not necessarily in this order: "Tax breaks are not subsidies"; "Royalties are taxes": "Oil executives pay big taxes", and "Greenies and libs love corn ethanol".

Oh, and that Exxon is now all the way up to 2007 in its PR. Which they call, hee-hee, "Policy".

I just got done reading an article about our friends, the Europeans. It seems they are more than a bit of upset that they are paying twice as much for the power than we are and it has an economic effect...go figure. They went all in subsidizes worse rather than developing their on continent gas...because the anti-science anti-fracking crowd.

They have decided it is their best interest to open more coal fired plants and mine lignite. Lignite doesn't exactly burn as clean as hard coals but it's widely available on the continents as anyone who has read Adam Tooze's book, Wages of Destruction can tell you...see Herman Goering Works.

Steve,

People make the price of all commodities...taxes and local policies are irrelevant. If there is a glut of any commodity the price goes down irrespective of government policy...it goes up if there is a shortage. It is what people are willing to pay for a good or service.

I like the anti-military stuff but you fail to answer the rubber meets the road question. If not us, who? If we recede from the world stage someone takes our place. Who takes our place in guaranteeing the free flow of basic commodities around the world? Our military spending has been going down for a long time...it's now about 4.5% of GDP.

Let's see if I got this right, we are going to use expensive renewables and this will occur in a vacuum. Energy intensive jobs will not go to China or India, where they burn a bunch of coal...and are adding coal fired plants like crazy, and they don't do diligence when it comes to pollution controls like we do. Kind of defeats the purpose and all this wonderful green stuff.

Again, we are talking NG, coal and power generation, not oil. Oil provides ~1% of power generation.

This oil thingy you are obsessed with...hmmmm...if we do not buy 17% oil, which comes form OPEC nations, it is going to stay in the ground, right? They are not going to get their coin to fund martyrdom operations, right? China and the Euro's are not going to buy what we do not buy. Help me with this.

Let's see, there was this guy called Ehrlich, who said we'd be out of basic commodities by 1985. We were not. Now, you believe your kids will not have oil. It's as anti-science a position as Erlich's. We have fracked out way to essentially energy independence on mostly private lands.

You don't seem too exercised by the loss of employment of your fellow citizens. That is the position you seem to be advocating.

May 2013 Headline BP and Shell raided in European commission price-rigging inquiry European commission carries out 'unannounced inspections' to investigate claims prices were rigged for more than a decade.

Oct 2012 Headline Shell and BP accused of collusion in South Africa. A six-company price-fixing racket spanning decades.

Jan 2002 Headline State (Hawaii) settles oil suit for 1%. The $2 billion action over inflated gas prices finally sputters out for a penny on the dollar.

Jan 1993 Headline Chevron, Mobil, Shell Oil to settle price-fixing suit. $151 million settlement involving 10 oil companies.

The Future is Bright.

Interesting graphic. Our generation is small in comparison to Germany, Italy and Spain.

Siemens (Germany) bought the largest American solar PV manufacture ARCO Solar in 1990. It was later bought by Royal Dutch Shell in 2002 and then acquired by SolarWorld (Germany) in 2006. They're international with manufacturing in both USA and Germany and doing quite well. Germany has seen the light.

Yeah, the US lost it's lead and dropped to 6th place, but more important is the steep growth curve. With growth comes mass production which lowers cost which drives more growth which lowers cost which drives more growth, it's exponential.

And with this growth comes....JOBS. Lots of them.

"The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades." (Timbuk3)

"If they don't care why should we?" Yikes!




Keeping our money in the US is a bad thing? Help ME with this.



By what I have read/heard, there is not an infinite supply of oil even by way of fracking. PS check out the new earthquate patterns that have suddenly appeared in the hydro release areas, adds a little spice to life!



Alas the demise of the buggywhip maker!


I am with Salty on this: am I really reading this all correctly, Dog?? (gonna have to re-name you now that you are a land-lubber)

wbtravis wrote:
> People make the price of all commodities...taxes and local policies are irrelevant.

You keep saying that, but I just don't get where you get the irrelevant part. The cheapest ain't always the best.

It is in our (and our government's) best interests to maximize the production of non-fossil-fuel energy sources, especially renewable sources. Erlich may have been off the mark by a number of decades, but he was not wrong. ...unless you align yourself with the "anti-science" people who claim the earth somehow keeps "making" oil.

> Our military spending has been going down for a long time...it's now about 4.5% of GDP.

Yet it is still more than the sum of the 5 next highest spenders:

from List of countries by military expenditures
The world's top 6 military spenders in 2012.


If this country were spending on research, education and infrastructure investment like we do on the military, there would be NO jobs problem.

> if we do not buy 17% oil, which comes form OPEC nations, it is going to stay in the ground, right?

No, the cash stays (and more jobs stay) in this country.

Actually the earth will make a fresh batch of oil and gas created by photosynthesis (driven by solar energy) and compressed by geologic tectonic processes (driven by geothermal energy)...in about 100,000,000 years or so. We'll just need to go back to the caves and wait it out, then we can burn it all up again in a few hundred years - exhausting the waste into our atmosphere with no consequences whatsoever. No worries, what could go wrong with that plan?

SN, you sound like one of those stinkin' environmentalists.  

Not really, I just have kids and I'm quite sure the earth is round and our atmosphere doesn't extend to the Milky Way.

SN,

What did I say was incorrect? There is a commodity market place, you can buy unleaded gasoline at ~$2.67/gallon. If there is more supply than demand the price goes down, more demand than supply it goes up. There are bad actors everywhere, if I remember correctly, there was this guy who said if like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Again, what does this have to do with power generation? Oil produces 1% of electrical power...more reliably than either wind or solar.

Steve,

The question you refuse to answer is who do you want to guard the sea lanes? A tangential question...who else is capable?

What Huntsman says is not relevant. Hmmm...if this bothers him so much why don't write a check to Uncle whenever the family ships loads of resins around the world. The sea lane thingy isn't just oil.

Why are carbon emissions up in Germany? Why are they going back to lignite?

Turn out the lights, the party is over. At least in Germany, in early December.

Ever wonder why the 8th Air Force could only fly a few days a month before they went to radar bombing towards the end of the war.

Lot'sa extra Euros for something that doesn't work all that swell.

http://tinyurl.com/pvh49ac

Then there is the Europe's appetite for cheap power.

http://tinyurl.com/kokh26j

China and India...wants it cheap, too.

http://tinyurl.com/lpu6ef5

If you can get behind the WSJ pay wall.

Where will all the power intensive industries go and their jobs with them? Hmmm?

Bee,

Item #1...where did I say that. We will do diligence but if they are the low cost provider, that where people who need cheap power will go. Defeating your carbon emissions reduction because China and India do not have our regulations.

Item #2...We don't buy that much oil there to begin with. How is putting up a slew of solar panels going to foreign reduce oil consumption. If you think this is going to take money out of hand of the Mullahs in Iran...you are mistaken.

Item #3...Really, can you prove there isn't an infinite supply? Or a supply that gets us to the next thing? Pricing indicates this commodity is anything but rare. Science keeps find more ways to maximize supply. Again, this discussion is about the subsidization of renewables.

Items #4...the refining of oil, the making of paper and chemical production are not buggy whip jobs. They are generally high paying jobs but new plants will be built where power is cheap, not where it is expensive.

As you might know the left tells us we should be paying more taxes. Hollywood is about as left as they come but when it comes to paying their fair share they refuse. They take their productions to places that give them incentives...tax breaks (lower costs), so that they might make more money. This is what will happen whenever there is an incentive...cheap power is that incentive to power intensive industry.

Coal plants elsewhere in the world are the unintended consequence of renewables because people want cheap power.

Bee,

Item #1...where did I say that. We will do diligence but if they are the low cost provider, that where people who need cheap power will go. Defeating your carbon emissions reduction because China and India do not have our regulations.

I should not have used quotations (not sure how to express an interpretation of a quote). I was attempting to display how I was interpreting the quote. If the solar power is available HERE, it would seem that it would become cheaper for the power generators to obtain this source of power generation VS purchasing overseas. Yes, start-up is more expensive than existing infrastructure, however, all innovations begin this way.

Item #2...We don't buy that much oil there to begin with. How is putting up a slew of solar panels going to foreign reduce oil consumption. If you think this is going to take money out of hand of the Mullahs in Iran...you are mistaken.

(chuckle) No, +-US money does not effect the flow of $$$ to the mullahs (I lived in the Middle East -- I know how that all works)Investing/building 'putting up a slew of solar panels' (as you put it) is an investment in cleaner air, water, & insures an infinite supply of energy.

Item #3...Really, can you prove there isn't an infinite supply? Or a supply that gets us to the next thing? Pricing indicates this commodity is anything but rare. Science keeps find more ways to maximize supply. Again, this discussion is about the subsidization of renewables.

"Or a supply that gets us to the next thing" (intentional quote) Conventional drilling/pumping method had run dry in many of the oil fields of the US, so that fracking became 'the next thing'. So what comes after fracking? Should we not be working on 'the next thing'?

Items #4...the refining of oil, the making of paper and chemical production are not buggy whip jobs. They are generally high paying jobs but new plants will be built where power is cheap, not where it is expensive.

The guy who owned the shop that made buggy whips may have begged to differ in his day. I guess we should have put off the car to save those jobs. Hybrids like the Volt & Prius were laughed out of the boardrooms for a long time and they were initially expensive. Based on the sales records only after a year the Prius was on the market definitely proves that people ARE willing to make a hefty investment for overall returns.

As you might know the left tells us we should be paying more taxes. Hollywood is about as left as they come but when it comes to paying their fair share they refuse. They take their productions to places that give them incentives...tax breaks (lower costs), so that they might make more money. This is what will happen whenever there is an incentive...cheap power is that incentive to power intensive industry.

Not sure of the relevence here, hopefully someone else will take this one up

Coal plants elsewhere in the world are the unintended consequence of renewables because people want cheap power.

I don't follow the logic with this one, either. Solar power -- like the hybrid vehicles- will be more expensive initially, however, as it is streamlined -- like the hybrid vehicles -- it will become cheaper.

And the US EPA is in bed with the greens. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Enough said.

http://freebeacon.com/emails-show-extensive-collaboration-between-epa-environmentalist-orgs/

I give up, what did I say that you said was incorrect? In reading your latest blast of posts to Steve, Bee and myself, I don't know where to start.

1. Commodity price of oil.
2. Lecture on Supply and Demand 101.
3. Obama claiming you can keep your doctor.
4. Oil produces 1% of electricity (repeat)
5. Accusing Steve of dodging a question about who's guarding sea lanes (don't recall Steve being asked that question).
6. Something about writing a check to Uncle (Sam?) whenever family (who's family) ships loads of resins around the world.
7. Strange accusations about Germany because they had a week of foggy weather in December with low solar and wind production.
8. Rambling about 8th Air Force could only fly a few days a month before they went to radar bombing towards the end of the war.
9. List of items for Bee to address from China to India to Mullah's in Iran, paper and chemical production, Hollywood liberals, and the grand finale:

Renewable energy causes more coal plants to be built.

Did I miss anything? Excuse me, I would love to debate the benefits of solar energy, but I don't know which topic to pursue.

I read the article end to end. Not much of a smoking gun there, mostly angry interpretation of a couple quotes without context. I guess it doesn't matter that it was investigated by an Inspector General who found EPA’s actions “conformed to agency guidelines, regulations and policy.”

This article fits the stated agenda of the Freebeacon perfectly:

Whether it’s exposing cronyism, dissecting the relationship between the progressive movement and the mainstream media, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that currently is not being fully covered by other news organizations.

Yeah, I bet you won't see this story get much professional attention outside of Kansas.

To get back on topic, here are a couple interesting recent breakthroughs in solar energy research:

Cambridge U. potential to double PV power output

Univ of North Carolina - Hydrogen Storage of Solar Energy

This seems a lot more exciting high tech science than fracking - which is basically injecting chemical solutions into bedrocks and aquifers. I guess it depends on how you feel about science.

SN,

1. Where did I provide the price oil. Hint: I never have. I have talked about the price of unleaded gasoline. This price is available on the internet just like APPL, IBM, HAL, HQH, PAA, ETP and CSCO.

2. Tell me how supply and demand works...I always thought when demand goes up with constant supply, price goes with it. Tell me where I am wrong.

3. Obama not only did that but did it many times. A lot of those times he did so with a , period. This is public record.

4. Oil produces one percent of power productions...I thought it was 2% until I was an Exxon commercial last week. Care to offer a link that states other wise. I got the 2% on Wikipedia.

5. Steve offered up a Amb. John Huntsman quote which states the price of gasoline would be if we were protecting supply...oil travels on the ocean in tankers. However, we do not protect just oil, we protect those Nikes, laptops and iPhones...just saying. Care to answer if not us whom question?

6. See #5

7. I offered up links on that one...sorry you did not read them. Northwest Europe has horrible weather...it is documented. Read about the 8th Air Force or Operation Watch on the Rhine. 95% of electricity produced in Germany was non-renewable because solar and wind were idle because of no sun and wind.

8. See #7. The weather in northwest Europe is historically bad, especially in winter.

9. Let's see, if someone needs cheap energy and there isn't any where they are, someone will build it where there is some. China and India are building it. Germany is building it. When Dow Chemical needs a plant to they will not build it where energy and regulation costs are high. Supply and demand at work. They will do it where emission regulations are not stringent as ours. I have a customer who use to be the post child for SCAQMD...they took people to see their fiberglass gel coat operation. AQMD came in one day tried fine them, they had exceed their daily quota a few days but were well within their yearly quota. Long story, short, most of their operation is now in Mexico, where they are using chemical long banned in California to make better products than they could make in California...Adidos a couple hundred jobs. Businesses will do what is best for their business be it Dow Chemical, the Weinstein Bros. or the small Fiberglass shop. I don't know what the buggy whip company will do.

Again, I have no problem with solar energy when it is competitive with others types.

BTW, what is going to happen to those plants in Germany when the population declines to 60 million mid century and there is one worker for one benefit recipient? Sometime before that the subsidy will go away and these plants will have to compete with lignite. The welfare state depends on expanding populations for handing out the goodies to their friends.

Hmmm...and from one of the PIGS...http://tinyurl.com/qgw7j62
See the next to the last paragraph.

Bee,

1. Innovation is not driven by government. It is by individuals HP and APPL were started in garages.

2. Solar provides an irregular expense from of energy. See Germany this past December. Again, I do not have a problem with solar. I'd just like to see the proponents pay more for their power rather than the many who can least afford it.

3. I've got no problem working on the next thing and for it to be there when science finally fails the oil industry. Right now, we are awash in NG and coal. At current oil prices coal hydrogenation should be economically feasible, I read an article about 4 or 5 years ago as it being a way to lower jet fuel prices when oil was above $42/bl.

4. How much would a Volt without the subsidy? I know I would not pay what they would have to ask, if the car came to market a true cost plus Gross Trading Margin. Especially in if I drove in Minnesota in winter where electrical range is about 40 miles. I've zero problems with any energy efficient vehicle that is not subsidized...let it compete with clean diesel technologies out there...see VW, Mercedes and BMW. It the iterim...high paying jobs will leave California and the United States to places with lower regulation and lower energy costs. I am seeing that already in my industry...more imports, less domestic product...I see a basic commodity, whose specialty products were once almost 100% domestic.

Not listed as 5. The Hollywood examples shows even people who support taxes...you can substitute solar, will go where they need to go to get around regulation, taxes to reduce cost of goods and increase net profits. If they leave Solar Land for Lignite Land and Lignite Land isn't as stringent with regulations, what have you gained? Cleaner air? Cleaner water? No, you have lost jobs. Carbon emissions know no border.

More bs as usual. "...eight of the 10 most popular drugs produced by one of America's largest pharmaceutical companies were developed at the National Institutes of Health, which is a huge taxpayer-funded research complex. Most of today's anti-cancer drugs also have come courtesy of the National Institutes of Health."

Countless examples abound of government funded innovation. Try the Internet (DARPA) and CERN for starters. Without them, the web and the software standards driving this BB wouldn't exist. The list is endless.

> Countless examples abound of government funded innovation.

Add to that nuclear power. ...only Thorium reactor research funding was killed -- because it didn't produce byproducts for nuclear weapons. I am sure the congressman who killed it would also support the "If not us then who?" questions.

And to answer that question: The rest of the freakin' world! Let them step up and police the commerce. Create a void, and someone will fill it.

Chiming in with Kevin and Steve:


"At the end of World War II, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) began to advocate better research and development of prosthetics. Through government funding, a research and development program was developed within the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Veterans Administration" Source


Okay, enough for me -- this reminds me too much of trying to reason with my 5-year-old nephew: I talk till I'm blue in the face, and he repeats the same nonsense over again.

WBT, I think we hit both sides of most of the 9 item list. As Bee wrote, this could go on forever. Good time to let it rest.

I'm glad you have no problem with solar energy. At least we agree on that, if not on how best to move forward in a complex and strongly divided political world.

So, most innovation is by government, really. Who held the patent on teflon, nylon and kapton? Who developed ways to put adhesive on teflon. Post-it notes came from where. The list is endless.

Who commercializes it? The government...hmmm...what is that Soviet product you just had to have?

I realize there is a need for government in development of certain things. Power generation is not one of them. It seems to me if renewables were feasible the venture capitalists would be all over it...but they are not. The ones that are there are there because of government money.

It seems you all have no problems with high paying jobs leaving California and United States for places who will provide inexpensive power. Have you check the labor participation rate recently.

Now Kevin, first one to profanity loses.

> So, most innovation is by government, really.

Earlier you were completely dismissing any innovation by government, and saying there should be no financial participation or help from the government. So you got a load of examples to the contrary. I think we can all agree that innovation and research can come from anywhere.

But the problem lies in the fact that exploiting the cheapest and easiest source of energy -- oil, coal (and that lignite) -- is shortsighted. I was debating with someone over the same issue, and he finally came out and wrote: "I don't care about the future, because I'll be gone."

The big problem IS that I care about the future. --for my grandchildren and theirs. And everyone else's grandchildren, too. That is why it is important to work TODAY to improve the methods and use of renewable energy instead of fossil fuel.

The government helping with solar power research, even subsidies for solar power (and electric vehicles too), is a very good use of tax money, in my opinion. It enables companies to compete with those cheaper (currently more available) energy sources, and along the way, further research and technology, so that in the future, moving toward ever-heavier use of renewables will not be as painful and cost so much.

Believe it or not, life is not all about immediate profit. This might be hard to accept, but societies and governments sometimes make decisions that are good for the next generation and beyond. One of the ways this is done is to help jump start new technologies that promise to improve society, such as clean renewable energy. This is done through research and policy. The direction that we take is mostly determined by who we elect. Elections have consequences. Americans didn't vote for "drill baby drill" in 2008 or 2012. Maybe next time.

I care about the future, Steve. I mentioned the future of Europe and the WZ universe ignored it. So, I pose it again, what happens in most of western Europe in mid-century when their populations are in steep decline and these power plants are in default because they can't meet their nut without the subsidy they are counting on to operate? This means Europeans will have to cost plus for power...with no subsidy. This means their power hungry "buggy whip" jobs are going elsewhere...with their young educate put upon work force. None of this is new, I've been reading about it for more than a decade.

The welfare state cannot operate without expanding populations. All you need to do is read about what is going on in west Europe to see the future of renewables. The only area they have seen a reduction in carbon emissions is air and sea transportation...everything else has seen increase. Energy, manufacturing, agriculture and waste management.

Another topic, is the labor participation rate. How can you pay for these subsidies with less and less people in the work force?

I point out what is going on and what is the future but I not told I wrong but to ignore reality. Like electric cars with ranges of 40 miles in winter are something I should gladly pay $40K...with a government subsidy.

Sorry, this is an economic loser and the primary loser is the future generation. California is the leader in this economic suicide pact...how many airplanes are made here? How many in 1975? How many cars? How many in 1975? How much furniture? How much in 1975? This stuff doesn't happen in a year or two years but in decades.

SN,

I show you our future in the European example and you ignore it. Please do not characterize my position as one of now. I look at Europe and see the future...and it ain't pretty.

Tell me where I am wrong about what is currently going on in Europe. You know the Europeans are so forward looking on this stuff. You might be able to pick up a solar farm cheap shortly, all you will need to do is operate at a profit with no subsidy. Are you interested?

WBT, I read your links regarding Europe.

The first one came from a global warming denial site making a big deal about a 1-week stall out in solar and wind energy in Germany in December. Is that a surprise to you? A December storm in Germany creates a week of bad weather for solar and wind energy? Solar and wind need massive energy storage in order to really phase out fossil fuels - that's the last piece of the research puzzle and it will be solved. The other energy sectors are filling in the gaps until that happens and solar installations take over more of the market share. It's part of the transition process.

Your second and third links show that demand for coal, in particular the cheap and dirty lignite coal, is increasing. This supports the need to move faster to bring cleaner energies online.

As to the overall state of renewable energy in Europe, it's nice that you're concerned about the Europeans, but they're booming and growing faster than predicted. Subsidies vary from country to country and keep changing, but production is up dramatically everywhere.

Here are some links to reports on the state of the solar and renewable energy market in Europe.

Solar Energy in the European Union
Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union
Global Market Outlook for 2013-17

Here's a really detailed report on the Global Future of Renewable Energy using scenarios developed by Exxon Mobil, BP, the International Energy Agency, Greenpeace, and others going out to 2050. Wide range of projections falling exactly like you'd think with Exxon pessimistic and Greenpeace the most optimistic. The middle ground is probably what will happen, which is a lot of growth for renewable energy.

REN21 Renewables Global Futures Report (GFR)

Here's Shell Oil Predictions using a range of scearios. Lots of interesting info in here. "By 2070, the passenger road market could be nearly oil-free and towards the end of the century an extensive hydrogen infrastructure rollout displaces oil demand for long haul and heavy loads. By this time, electricity and hydrogen may dominate, and affordable, plug-in, hybrid hydrogen vehicles offer the ultimate in flexibility and efficiency."

CNN Money
There are more solar energy workers in Texas than there are ranchers. In California, they outnumber actors, and nationwide, America has more solar workers than coal miners.

edited to add more links.

SN,

How do redistribute wealth, if there is no wealth...I paraphrase the French socialist Hollande? Europe is dying...literally; therefore, cannot sustain the current level of subsidies.

Your argument sounds like the Krugman's stupid argument, if FDR just tripled the size of the government rather just double it in the 4 years, we would not have had the depression of 1937. Not taking into account what is politically feasible. The trend in Europe is reversing and demographics will not allow it to return to current levels. The 70 year old party is ending...someone has to pay for not having enough children.

Just because subsidize renewables, it does not make them any less expensive. You still have expensive power...and economics dictate, businesses will search out the lowest cost provider, be it in China or India. When you transfer these businesses to China or India, you transfer them to places that do not have the same stringent pollution controls we and the Europeans have. This is one of the basic arguments for building Keystone Pipeline, that and the elimination of less safe rail and sea transport.

I like the denial rhetoric. It's, it's so Holocaustal. Which kills your argument as far as I'm concerned. You ask an irrelevant question. Did Germany get 95% its power in December from fossil fuels? It did because Germany is not suited for solar, in the winter particularly. Sorry, if you don't know your history about the weather in northwest Europe, it is readily available...Any book on the 8th Air Force or Bomber Command; or the Battle of the Bulge will do.

Again, I have no problems with renewables. I just want the proponents to spend there money on it. Not the money of those who can least afford it.

BTW, I am still waiting for my lesson on supply and demand.

WTB, your opinions about Europe, Krugman, FDR, etc are noted. Only time will tell how things play out, but I think Europe will adjust and adapt. As you can read from the reports I linked to, European renewable energy is very likely to continue to grow at an impressive pace, faster than any other energy source. And you're right about things shifting to other countries, as much as renewable energy is expanding in Europe, the rest of the world is catching up and future growth of solar is projected to be even faster in Asia and the Americas.

So I'll speculate a little as well. I'm optimistic that air and water pollution will eventually contribute to a revolt in China when the effects start to really sink in. They've embraced our capitalism and eventually I think they will embrace our environmental ethics to some degree. The US and Europe will be looked at for leadership when they finally realize they can't just keep burning coal, dumping hazardous waste, and doing everything on the cheap.

As for supply and demand, subsidies have fueled demand, which has allowed mass production to lower prices of solar cells and wind turbines. Lots of jobs have been created in the process. So you need to subtract the income taxes that all these solar workers are contributing to the treasury from the cost of the subsidies, and consider all the spinoff jobs that are created along the way. This is how government policy and investment can jump start an industry struggling to get a foothold in the market. We're in agreement that at some point subsidies should be be phased out. It's all about timing and minimizing uncertainty. You just seem to be on a much shorter timeline, that's all (like phase them out yesterday).

I'll weigh in with this video shared by fishmonger in the Cool Videos thread. As he wrote, "this should really be in the Solar Power thread, but I think more people will look here."

It's a 10-minute video talking about what could happen if global warming continues too far unabated. The crux is that at some point, massive stores of methane which are currently sequestered away could be released if ocean waters warm enough and the Tundra thaws. Compared to the effects of global warming caused by CO2, the methane release will be far worse. The video compares it to any of the 5 "mass extinctions" over the course of geologic history. If we push the atmospheric conditions to the "Tipping Point", it's Game Over!

It makes me wonder whether having children was a wise thing to do. It certainly gives me validation that any cutback in the use of fossil fuels is good.

Here's the video. Watch it and ponder it.   Last Hours


One of the comments posted recently to the video:
"This is the ultimate human IQ test! Are we going to get a failing grade? The price will be high, indeed."

I just want to comment on WBT's line:
> ...someone has to pay for not having enough children.

I am internally shocked when I hear people say that. I was talking with a person some months ago who firmly believed that part of our economic problems were caused by the slowing of population growth. Shocked the first time.

Then I read an article a few weeks about trouble in China due to their population decline. Shocked the second time. (Search Google news for "china population decline" to see the articles.) I am appalled that people think that population growth should continue. There is a finite amount of resources in this world, and for every new human, there is that much less to go around, and in the current world, there is that much more demand for cheap fuels.

WBT's line reminds me a third time.

I cannot believe people will not consider the future impacts of their present actions.

Risk = Probability of Something Happening x Consequences

There are public policy guidelines for "allowable risk" based on the number of lives lost in an event, which then leads to an acceptable probability of "failure" for design criteria (remember failure can't be 0, there's always some possibility of an event however unlikely). These guidelines are surprisingly consistent and used around the world to guide decision making for aviation safety, nuclear safety, dam safety, automobile safety, building safety etc. I happen to work with these principles and methods every day to deal with uncertainty in a logical manner. For example, the probability of a nuclear plant failure or other disaster causing hundreds of deaths should be well below 1 in 1 million per year. The landing gear subsystem on airplanes strives for even higher reliability numbers (1 in 1 billion) because there are so many landings per year and landing is just one way that a plane can fail.

If you apply these principles to the climate change debate, with risks such as those in the video above, the justification for taking action to reduce those risks becomes obvious. It's easy to be a skeptic because science is never 100% certain. But if you want to make the case for NOT taking action to lower the risk, you have to be VERY sure this is all an elaborate hoax with conspirators in every major agency and university around the globe. In mathematical terms, a skeptic has to show that roughly 95% of climate scientists have less than roughly 1 in 1 million chance of being right to take on a risk like this without doing something to address it.

So as skeptics look at the mounting body of scientific evidence and search the corners of the internet for someone who will tell them it's all baloney, they need to ask themselves honestly if they're THAT certain all these experts are THAT wrong. They need to be 99.9999% sure that the climate scientists are wrong. As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky?"

Looking at this from a risk perspective, providing subsidies for renewable energy is extremely well justified to help reduce risk. Subsidies are really just a drop in the bucket for justified action to reduce the risk, given the potential consequences of burning fossil fuels on this scale. When you consider the $4 billion tax credits that the oil companies are getting every year, it seems like a very good idea indeed to help the renewable energy sector gain momentum as fast as possible in as many ways as possible.

Looking at this from a political perspective, we'll probably debate ourselves to death.

edited and reedited to try and make this as clear as I can.

SN,

Krugman thing is not opinion. The government of the United States went into a depression in 1937 after doubling in size after 4 years. What is opinion is his claim by Krugman, if more money was thrown into the New Deal, the depression of 1937 would have not have occurred.

No that is not how supply and demand works. Sorry, no cookie. What subsidies are is a form of a command economy. Where has a command economy worked? Eastern Europe? What you do is taking money that is working efficiently and put into inefficient projects, that is what subsidies are. Also, you are transferring wealth from poor/middle class to rich...I guess income inequality is a bit lower on the dogmatic list of things.

Again, how does Europe move forward when it population is shrinking. The party is over. The news is the subsidies are going away in Spain and Germany. You can have faith in socialist governments finding a way. With shrinking population, the population get older...and less energetic when it comes to wealth creation, there are less workers to recipients...in western Europe it will get to one to one. The wealth is going away with the shrinking population. This means things will have to go...inefficient things, like renewables. Tell me which shrinking corporation stays in Dow 30 for any length of times?

Why aren't you willing to pay for expensive power? I'm sure PG&E would accommodate your demand for green power and the price that goes along with it.

Well Krugman won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics. I'd say his "opinions" are highly regarded. The experts call them "established theories."


You just keep forgetting to discuss your position on those $4 billion per year oil subsidies. Must be tough to reconcile the obvious contradiction - do you love oil companies more than you hate subsidies?


So we need the population to keep growing with no limits to what? 100 billion people on earth? 500 billion? 1 trillion? Just like oil - it will last forever, and just like the atmosphere - it's limitless. Address Steve's comments on that one, but perhaps another thread would be more appropriate.


Actually, you can sign up for 100% renewable energy from PG&E for a few extra dollars per month. I'm not on PG&E, but I understand the program is doing quite well.

SN,

Krugman has no proof this would have worked it is opinion. BTW, his Nobel Prize was not for his work on Keynesian economics. Morgenthau, FDR's Sec. Treasury at the time, said at the time and I paraphrase...we spent all this money and all we have to show for it is more debt. The facts are the government doubled and it caused another depression 1937. Throwing government money at things does not guarantee the results you want. More taxpayer money at solar will not make it more efficient, it will only add to $17 Trillion in debt we already have. All they are is a drag on the economy.

I have asked and you, and other proponents of inefficient energy, have refused to answer, what are the classification of the tax breaks and how do they differ from what other companies get? The left loves this Frankenstein monster of a tax system when it is benefits their friends, not so much when it benefits unfriends...just a bit inconsistent. This is why I am for the elimination of income tax and a consumption tax...with zero business taxes.

If you want a healthy welfare state you need healthy growing populations. This is what you want. How do you subsidize things with a growing dependency class and shrinking working class. All this stuff has been in Time Magazine multiple times over the years. Obviously, this is something you what to ignore, which is typical of stage one thinking. The populations of most of Europe plus Japan are in irreversible decline. Half the households in Scandinavia are total one person. With decline in population comes economic decline. Tough choice will have to be made, cutting subsidies to efficient energy will be low hanging fruit. It is already happening.

Hmmm...100% Renewables. I don't remember anyone putting in separate lines for renewables. Power is a fungible good, signing up for green power is line buying a carbon offset for your Gulfstream G 5...it's all feel good. BTW, This does not say it reflect true cost plus profit.

What a pessimistic depressing view of the world. You must be a real joy around the campfire.

I can't think of anything more to add about solar energy, and I'm done going back and forth over unrelated conservative blather. I listen to FM radio, sorry.

Oh my, not related. If you can't continue subsidizing solar energy, it has to compete, if it has to compete, it fails.

Pointing out putting solar plants in the part of the world that does not get much sun much of the year is blather.

Pointing out that to redistribute wealth you need vibrant expanding state, not one moving in the oppossite direction is blather.

Pointing out that this more than solar good, fossil fuel bad is bad is not the entirety of the argument.

When all else fails attack the person, not his argument. Who cares if you listen to FM...of course your implying I get all my information from Limbaugh, Hannitty or some equally bad ill-informed guy du jour. This is just another variant of the you watch Faux News and are influenced by the Koch Groups...it is so typical.

It always gets to ad hominem...and the first to ad hominem, like profanity loses.

This conversation has been hard to follow but today's WSJ has an interesting editorial: Whistling Past the Wind Farm
Europe abandons country-by-country CO2 emissions targets. 1/23/14 3:49 pm ET

Among other notes:
---On Wednesday the European Commission abandoned country-by-country targets for greenhouse-gas emissions after 2020.

---Take Spain, where financial incentives for renewable energy have driven renewables to as much as 25% of electricity generation. They have also left the country with a $41 billion gap between what energy costs to produce and what utilities can charge for power. Mariano Rajoy's government has been scrambling to scale back the subsidies and close the gap.

--In Germany, Angela Merkel is also seeking to push through cuts in wind and solar subsidies and to cap new installations of renewable capacity going forward. Germany's feed-in tariffs—which guarantee renewable-energy suppliers above-market prices for their power—have helped drive up retail power prices by 17% in the past four years while costing utilities and small businesses billions.

--European leaders are also finally figuring out that America's shale natural gas boom is giving the U.S. a significant energy cost advantage. Many European companies are moving production to the U.S. so they can stay competitive

--Europe's anticarbon policy implosion ought to be a lesson to Americans, though most U.S. media still fail to report it.

Chicagocwright,

I've been reading about problems with renewables in Europe for well over a year and Europe's demographic nightmare for well over ten years. It's there, if you search it out. One of the first things talked about when the PIGS came into the news were subsidies for Spanish wind energy.

What is happening in Europe is our future, if we do not reverse current trends.

If people want inexpensive energy, some bright profit minded corporation or government will provide it, period.

WBT, If you don't see how you've gone off topic into the weeds, get some feedback from others. Others have given up trying to follow your divergence into endless topics, and I have my limits too. You also keep baiting people by claiming they ignore some specific point in your long list of diatribe. It's painfully obvious. Since Chicago brought this back on topic, I'll contribute again to the thread, but I'm going to try and ignore your baiting BS about other nonsense. I could find a way to tie this in with Santa Claus somehow and claim its relevant to solar energy and then claim you haven't addressed my comment about Rudolph. Its really that obvious and ridiculous. One of your posts had 9 different topics including WWII bombing raids and Hollywood. Of course you found a way to weave some "logical" explanation for all the various topics in that rant. Its really not that hard, but its exhausting to read.

There's no doubt the EU is struggling with energy prices and a lot of other economic issues. Their aggressive approach to renewable energy helped drive down costs for the rest of the world, but unfortunately for the EU they paid much higher prices even a few years ago. The revised EU policies (yet to be decided) will surely roll back subsidies, but they keep high targets for carbon reduction. The new policy will surely allow more flexibility in how each country meets targets, which is a good thing. These changes are not all that surprising or dramatic. I can think of a lot better ways to do what they are trying to do, but with all these different countries involved, I'm surprised they can agree on anything.

As I wrote again and again, subsidies should be used to jump start things and eventually they should be phased out. EU "subsidies" are passed directly on to the consumer as higher costs, not like tax break subsidies here in the US. The EU also has much fewer natural resources than the US and they are made up of a number of different countries rather than states who all speak the same language. We are not on the same track as the EU, but of course nothing will stop you from going on and on about how we are. Whatever.

Your reply to the $4 billion dollar oil company subsidies is that every corporation gets these so it's okay. That claim is false and your solution is unrealistic. We're not going to switch to your preferred tax system anytime soon. Its so obvious we should just eliminate subsidies for the largest most profitable companies in the human history.

Yesterday (Jan 24) was National Shout Out Day for Solar Energy. The idea was to print a sign and post a picture to show support. I wonder if Exxon will do something like this, "Shout Out Day for Oil Company Subsidies"

Conclusion from another article:
Why do we have oil subsidies?

If we are to have a productive discussion of fossil fuel subsidies, it is important that participants understand what they are, their intended purpose, and the projected impact of removing them. Projecting the impact requires more than a guess. Because of misleading political rhetoric, people imagine these subsidies as cash payments to oil companies. But, many of these subsidies are not what people think they are. In many cases they are benefiting people who have nothing to do with the oil industry — yet the money spent on these programs is still tallied against the oil industry. The result is a great deal of anger over spending that often benefits the angry people. That is why it is so hard to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies; a majority of the population likely supports at least some of them without realizing that they are in fact subsidies. And until those who are loudly screaming that we must eliminate these subsidies actually take the time to understand what they are — as well as the impact of removing them — we can expect there will continue to be much heat and little light on this topic.

SN,

What bait is that? It's all tied together. You can't have vibrant welfare state...if you do not have expanding populations that keep the work force young and energetic. Sorry, you don't see how economically tied together. They are approaching one recipient for one worker. This eliminates a lot of the fun things governments can do to screw up their economies...namely subsidies to inefficient industries like solar. They are already happening hard targets are becoming soft goals, the rate of subsidies are going down, this will make the difference between profit and insolvency for most. It will definitely capital harder to get for solar startups.

I did not any such claim about the $4 billion in tax breaks, I asked you to tell where they are special and different from any other corporation. You don't care if they are not special, all you care about is that they exist and an industry you don't like gets'em just like all other industries. I did not say the FAIR TAX would be enacted, just that it eliminates political shenanigans, like we have now. You like the shenanigans for your favorites, hate'm for those you don't like...I just hate'm, period.

Which companies are the most profitable? In 2012 both Chevron and Exxon Mobil's net profit was less than 10% whereas Apples was over 20%...you don't know what you are talking about. You are just repeating tired environmentalist talking points. BTW, these are easy to find numbers all you need to do is type XOM, AAPL and CVX in Yahoo Finance.

Perfect example of how you are going into the weeds - welfare state, unlimited population growth yada yada yada. This thread is about SOLAR ENERGY. Start another thread "Why the world needs 1 trillion people"


CNN Money 2007
1. Exxon Mobil
The oil giant racked up $39.5 billion in earnings last year, the largest-ever profit in U.S. history. That figure topped the previous record of $36.1 billion, also set by Exxon Mobil, in 2005. Profits were up 9.3% from the previous year, while sales rose 2.2%.

Chicago, I read your Forbes article link and noticed a heck of a lot of speculation about how people like these tax breaks for the oil companies without any polling data or other sourcing whatsoever. The explanation is that people are so confused they don't understand the tax breaks. This is not complicated stuff, this US News and World Report article explains it just fine. "Why Big Oil Should Give Up Its Tax Breaks"

"These tax breaks were mostly established decades ago to stimulate oil drilling and production on U.S. shores. The five firms that qualify for the breaks are now among the most well-established and profitable companies in the world. Two of them--BP and Royal Dutch Shell--aren't even American companies. Along with the other three--Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips--the five companies combined earned $116 billion in profits in 2011. If the tax breaks were eliminated and the whole tally came straight out of the bottom line, with no offsetting savings, the total decline in profits would be a paltry 1.8 percent."

Actually I DO know what I'm talking about, WBT. According to this Wikipedia Table and other sources, the most profit ever made by a company in human history is $46.5 billion by Exxon Mobil.

ExxonMobil also holds the 2nd 3rd, 4th, and 5th spots for the most profit in a single year. Oil companies hold more than 60% of the spots in this table of record profits (37/61). Whatever you think about tax breaks for them, lets be clear the oil companies are quite profitable. I can't believe this was even a question. Bee was right about 100 posts ago, this is like arguing with a 5 year old, it just keeps going and going.

Unless there's something more to add about Solar Energy, let's wrap this thread up. It's getting very repetitive. If this is about winning, congratulations, you wore everyone down, your certificate is in the mail.

I think the question is regarding the "tax breaks" or "subsidies". I'm not certain but I think the arguments are is if oil companies get any different tax breaks than any other corporation. What also seems implied by the earlier WSJ article is that "Renewable" energy is not profitable and the only way for it to survive, at least in the short term, is a different type of subsidy that is not at all analogous to the tax breaks received by Big Oil and other corporations.

My take is that it seems to be a very weak argument to bring Big Oil into the discussion on whether or not Renewable Energy deserves subsidies. If you start that premise then it seems to me like one needs to supply counterpoints to the experience in Europe where renewable energy and subsidies are not fairing well.

Chicago, you raise valid points about how "on topic" subsidies are to solar energy but its been discussed already. This is a long thread with a lot of divergence going on (from WWII to Hollywood to Nobel prizes for economics to Europe to population growth). There should be plenty of links and discussion for anyone interested in every aspect of solar energy, if you can sift through the haystack.

Its become pointless to just keep going on and on endlessly. The debate has digressed to how profitable the oil companies are and how many people the planet can hold. It's a bit ridiculous at this point.

SN,

Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. Profits are based on percentages, not gross amounts...you know like the federal deficit is not based on its gross amount but as percentage of GDP. 9% isn't a whole lot of dough, considering the risk they take with exploration and refining plus they give a few points back to shareholders in dividends. They could put the whole shebang in preferred shares and walk away with close to 8%. But you want to take part of that away just because you don't like them.

Percentages tell what you can do going forward not gross amount.

Thanks for providing us with grade A stage one thinking...see Thomas Sowell for an explanation.

Sorry for confusing you, WBT. When I wrote that Exxon Mobil was the most profitable company in human history, I meant they made the most profit of any company in human history. And they did - also 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, and 5th place. Redefining "profit" so you can claim I don't know what I'm talking about and then accusing me of "Stage One" thinking is baiting and insulting.

Can we find some common ground to bring this to an amicable conclusion? Do we agree on anything? Maybe not, but we should be able to end this l o n g thread without accusations.

SN,

Exxon Mobil is only the most profitable by your fallacious metric. Can you do more with 9% raise or a 20% raise? BTW, why do you want to punish a company that gained 10.5%/year over the last 5 years...it is expended to expand at a rate of .77% over the next 5, according to analysis because you and your ilk don't like their business but a company like Apple who has gained 58% over the last 5 years and will continue to grow at a 16%/year clip for the next 5...nada, because you like them. Rules are for everyone, not your favorites. Want to tell me what XOM is getting that is special...I've asked that of you for over a week and you haven't been able to give a cogent response. It's been their bad and they need to be punished for being successful.

How can we end this amiably? I don't think it can be done, since you decided to call me a liar...that's what bs means, and implying I'm someone who gets their information from talk radio. I think I have accurately described your thinking...solar, solar, solar...and nothing else, this all occurs in a vacuum. I've given example after example of what will happen if you use capital inefficiently...and what has happened in the past. Nope, solar, solar, solar. That is stage one, ignore the unintended consequences, solar, solar, solar.

My position has been consistent, let it compete on a level playing field. Let's make it on its own.

Good grief, WBT! Your pro-Big-Oil rants are incredible.

Why in the world are you so much against using solar power? It is really the ONLY energy source that is unlimited and its use has NO negative impact on our environment.

There are plenty of reasons everyone in the world should be more careful with the use of fossil and other fuel sources, and the fact that the supply is finite apparently carries zero weight with your reasoning.

All you seem to care about is treating every energy source as a commodity, where the cheapest is best and the richest people should be able to burn it as wantonly as they please. And it's just too bad for those poor suckers that are trying to cut back on their population growth and those poor suckers that don't live on land where there is a glut of natural gas. Let them eat cake!

I live in a city where stupid voters passed an initiative outlawing the use of water meters because they didn't believe over-users should be penalized. Even though the water table has dropped a hundred feet in the past century, and now they have to compete with agriculture for surface water. Fortunately, in order to qualify for water supplied by (ugh!) the federal government, the city is now required to utilize water meters. Funny part is that my water bill has actually decreased. Now, the same group of idiots is trying to pass an initiative preventing the city from improving the water-delivery infrastructure. Kick the can down the road -- I don't care, because I'll be dead and gone before everything falls apart.

At some point in time, a majority in the world will come to realize how penny-wise and pound foolish this commodity-based waste of oil and fossil fuels is, and how valuable utilizing solar energy is. But it is clear that you will never be convinced.

Six pages! Good grief. Paleeeezzzzze, is it not time to put this thread to rest?

For me, this really raises a question: So, why is it that many (most?) people, when presented with sound and factual arguments, turn a deaf ear, unless those sound and factual arguments support their own point of view? I am really thinking more on a national level here, about our Congress and Senate, but in some small measure the comments apply to our community here as well.

Why do we become liberals or conservatives (with a few independents thrown in), and adopt the party line, without independent thought or reason.

When is the last time you observed a Liberal or a Conservative listen thoughtfully to the others point of view? No doubt there are exceptions, but not so many I think.

Will we ever evolve from our “Pack mentality”, and base our opinions on facts and reason?

Perhaps not in the near term, since I believe it is widely held that most of our decisions are made based on emotion, not reason and rational thinking. When you see something moving in the grass do you look closer to see what it is, or do you immediately step back, fearful of what it might be?

According to Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University in Atlanta and the author of a book called “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation” (Public Affairs), what decides elections are people’s emotional reactions, even if they don’t recognize it.

We see this “pack mentality” exemplified at the State and National level with the performance of our legislators.

In California our legislators were unable to submit a budget that our governor would sign for 85 days past the due date. Our Federal representatives cannot agree on a course of action to deal with Healthcare, Education, Immigration, the Banking Crisis, etc…., without self serving pork barrel additions. Even if they do "agree" the second guessing/back stabbing never ends!

And, we see this behavior here on “The Whitney Zone”. There seems to be no end to the debate, and little agreement on any “facts”.

I wonder if this is a function of “evolution”. That some of us learned early on that for the individual to succeed the community/society must succeed. That no matter what a fine seaman (or woman) you are, if the ship sinks, you will go with it. While others learned that self reliance was the pathway to success. That we evolved with two different philosophical points of view. Hence, the division between Liberals and Conservatives.

The Liberals recognize the “greater good”, and are willing to make personal sacrifices for the community. They have a greater appreciation for the society, and can see “globally”. They understand the value of unity, and are willing to share.

On the other had we have the Conservatives, who tend to be focused on smaller social groups (could be a group of one). Want it now, and tend to take care of # 1 only. Really do not have a moral conscience (or much of one), and feel that everyone should fend for themselves. You know “Take personal responsibility”, (unless you are a banker).

I guess you can tell from my characterzation of the Liberals vs. Conservatives which side of the debate I fall on, but I do try to make an honest attempt to consider the data. I do not think the Oil companies are evil. They have a business built on a finite commodity, and they are simply charting a course that maximizes the profit they can make off of that finite commodity. That they do not use some of their vast cash reserves to develop an alternative business that not only makes them money, but serves society in a better way is a mystery to me, but I have not walked a mile in their shoes.

Perhaps it is time to put this thread to rest?

Flame on:-)

Disclaimer: No fossil fuels were used generating this picture. ...well only a tiny bit.

Source
Artist: Flame Painter - Peter Blaskovic

One solar flare equals the entire annual energy consumption of all humans on planet earth - for about 100,000 years.
Taken with an Apple iPhone 5s

Steve,

Big Oil rants...where? These are facts. They are available on Yahoo Finance...or any financial engine. I currently have no skin in the game with XOM or CVX, the two companies I have cited. The facts are these companies make good rate of return but XOM under preformed the market this past year...gaining only 4 to 5%...S&P 500 gained 26.5%. The rant is Sierra Nevada's, who wants to extraordinary measures against these companies. He has stated they make too much money and he uses a stupid metric...a raw number, I hope his day job isn't money management. His rant continues with the $4 bln tax breaks for the oil companies...I asked numerous times what are these breaks and how do the differ from what other companies get. He refuses to back up rhetoric with anything factual. What exactly are pictures with kids extolling solar? Rant? I think so...but that's me.

I will state it again, I am not against solar...I am against subsidizing it. This is an inefficient us of capital and will lead to an exodus of jobs...not buggy whip jobs, to places that produce cheap power. We do not live in a vacuum...for every action there is a reaction.

Actually Steve, energy is a commodity, try putting strictly renewables into your home, or domestic gasoline into your car. Inexpensive energy does benefit the least fortunate among us. How does this subsidize thingy work...just see how it benefits Elon Musk and Tesla and the buyers or these vehicles. See this WSJ piece http://tinyurl.com/msevm7g It ain't the Joe Two and half buck chuck who is get rich off these subsidies. Road blocks to economic activity general reduced business...see jobs and business start ups. See Hollywood going elsewhere to produce films. Increase cost of power is a road block.

As for your last paragraph, why don'cha go down to your local Toyota dealer and demand you pay full MSRP for a Cambry with all the bells and whistle then demand to accept delivery on a stripped down Carolla. That is what you are asking of the public to do with your not ready for prime time energy source.

Really John? And you ask why people can't get along. You've just said that half of voting population have no moral conscience but you understand the value of unity and sacrifice.

Paleeeezzzzeee indeed. It may be time to step off the pedestal and take a look in the mirror.

WBT, we've spent enough time debating the hypocracy that oil companies need to keep their subsidies because they don't really make much profit, but somehow we can't afford subsidies to help jump start renewable energy. We all know you'll never stop, but I'll play along a little further when I have a few minutes, like right now on my lunch break.

First off, net profit is a standard metric. It's used as the primary measure of the size and profitability of any large company. From there you can look deeper into other details if you want, but net profit is first and foremost. If you choose to look exclusively at profit percentage, then the pawn shop down the street outperforms every Fortune 500 company, but only cleared maybe $100K profit. A street corner drug dealer would be astronomically profitable by that definition.

As for energy subsidies, the following data is from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts who did an elaborate study on energy subsidies back in 2006.

You claim that Apple and everybody else gets these $3.5 billion subsidies. WRONG. The follow list shows SPECIFIC subsidies only for the oil and gas industry. Forgive the format. Here's the link to the data.

Estimated Federal Oil and Gas Subsidies in 2006
Federal Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies

   Subsidy                                              Type       Amount
Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs Credit 	taxes  $1,100,000,000
Percentage Depletion Allowance                          taxes  $1,000,000,000
Alternative Fuel Production Credit                      taxes    $890,000,000
Exemption from Passive Loss Limitation for Working
     Interests in Oil and Gas Properties                taxes     $30,000,000
Natural Gas Distribution Pipelines Treated
     as 15-Year Property                                taxes     $20,000,000
Temporary 50 percent Expensing for Equipment
     Used in the Refining of Liquid Fuels               taxes     $10,000,000
Amortize all geological and geophysical expenditures
     over two years                                     taxes     $10,000,000
Subtotal                                                       $3,060,000,000

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Subsidies

U.S. Department of Interior, Oil and Gas Royalty     access to
  Losses on 1998 and 1999 Gulf Oil and Gas Leases  nat. resrces  $142,857,143

Federal Oil and Gas Research and Development

U.S. Department of Energy, Oil and Gas Research       direct
   and Development                                    spending    $64,350,000
U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management      direct 
   Service Oil Spill Research                         spending     $6,900,000
Subtotal                                                          $71,250,000

Federal Oil and Gas Petroleum Reserve Subsidies

U.S. Department of Energy, Strategic Petroleum         direct 
   Reserve                                            spending   $207,340,000
U.S. Department of Energy, Naval Petroleum and Oil     direct 
   Shale Reserves                                     spending    $21,285,000
Subtotal                                                         $228,625,000
                                              ---------------------------------
Total                                                          $3,502,732,143

Nearly a third of this is the depletion allowance, the only case I know of for treatment of something that has not yet been produced and may not even exist as a depreciable asset. Can I get the same allowance starting right now on everything I expect to get out of my 124 acres for the next 20 years or so?

SN,

Now, depletion allowance is special? This is depreciation, just like any other business get, as is all this stuff.

Thanks for proving this is nothing different than any other company gets. What do you think IBM does with its equipment vis a vis taxes? Amortize it, depreciate it. Have you ever heard the term EBITA? Obviously, you don't know a damn thing about business or you would be embarrassed by your last post.

Net profit...no, it's but one measurement. Growth is another. P/E, expense ratios, it's endless. We are not talking about drug dealers or pawn shops...to mention it shows how desperate you have become for Animal Farm visions of some animals being more equal than others.

$3.5 bln...heck, XOM paid $84 bln. in income taxes three last years.

This is laughable.

I know I am only suppose to put a positive spin on solar and not point out the realities of it...

From Walter Russell Meade's blog,

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported this morning that one in three workers in Germany’s solar industry lost their job last year. By November, there were a mere 4,800 employees left in the sector, the first time in four years that number has fallen below the 5,000-mark. That’s less than half 2012&#8242;s levels, when there were still 10,200 solar jobs. These revelations come hard on the heels of news that the $30 billion German taxpayers shuffled into green subsidies last year didn’t actually make the country any cleaner, and that more brown coal was burned there in 2013 than in any year since 1990.
---

In a LA Times editorial yesterday, the anonymous editorial staff bemoaned the fact that United States was awash in NG because it increase the price spreads between renewables and NG. They were did not like what was happening in the EU, you know, burning lignite and softening targets because their collective economies are in the doldrums.

If you don't do what is in your economic best interest as a society you will be poorer for it.

How do we have 6 pages worth of discussion regarding solar energy and the appropriateness of government subsidies without the topic of Solyndra coming up?

Chicagocwright,

No, I did not mention Solyndra, or the other failures, and global warming on purpose. This is about electrical power generation and the best way to do it at this time. The solar energy proponents here think if you build it, they will come, where just the opposite occurs. They do not want to talk about the neither the enrichment of venture capitalists nor shareholders at the expense of the rate and taxpayers...let alone the jobs that will be lost to those locations with inexpensive power. They would rather talk about the evil oil companies being not being able to depreciate assets like every other company.

I've used the EU, most specifically Germany, because we heading down the same demographic road. The concept of vibrant welfare state needing growing populations causes cognitive disodence in their ranks. We want zero population growth and burgeoning state but that cannot happen when your beneficiary/worker ratio is 1:1, which is heading to EU.

WBT, you sure have an issue acknowledging Exxon Mobil's record $46.5 billion profit and the concept that NET PROFIT is THE BOTTOM LINE. I run a side business and my wife is fully self employed. We're not business experts but first and foremost we want to know how much we make each year. That's NET PROFIT, you know, THE BOTTOM LINE.

I wonder what will happen if I put 63% profit on my Tax forms. I'll tell the IRS WBT says net profit isn't really important. He's an expert and he says the percentage profit is all that's needed.

Your insults and name calling is getting too juvenile to even dignify with replies any more.

WBT wrote:
> Obviously, you don't know a damn thing about...
> ...how desperate you have become for Animal Farm visions...
> This is laughable.

WBT, your insults have made any dialogue here feel like mud wrestling in the gutter. I'd like to respond to some of your one-sided views, but this is getting ridiculous.

Thread. Must. Die. Please.

You just started a Page 7 with your plea.

Steve,

You don't have a problem him calling me a liar or implying I am parroting those on talk radio. Why is that, Steve? You have not chastise him...only me.

I though it was obvious that anyone using NET PROFIT only, and repeats it over, over and over as a a reason for punitive measures is laughable. The component SN doesn't mention is revenue. There is a reason for those profits being large that is sales. No comment on his drug deal and pawn shop thingy? I take it you consider that germane to this discussion. 9.5% Net is windfall to be punished extraordinarily?

When someone puts up a canned talking point as gospel rather than giving it some creditable examination...it is what exactly?

What exactly are your views but one-sided? Solar because it is an unlimited source of energy...I get it. There is more to this than than...and I have stated it over and over but you ignore what is going on in Europe. Why should expensive energy not act as impediment to economic activity like higher taxes and regulation? I have been holistic in my approach here.

You have asked why am I sticking up for the oil companies? I am not sticking up them, I am sticking up for the rule of law. I could not care less about the oil companies. If IBM and AAPL get depreciation allowance, why shouldn't XOM, BP, COP or CVX? Just because?

SN,

Without a basis, all this rates as a very big so what. Revenue-COGS=GP-EXP=NP...mix in that equation. There is a reason XOM makes the most money...it has big revenues. All you want to do is punish a successful company...I get it. Along with the tax and rate payers...I get that, too. I also know decisions will be made on where plants are to be built and business expanded because of the cost of power. This is something you and everyone else here has ran away because you want solar...I get that, too.

It has nothing to do about winning. It has to do with getting out ideas many haven't heard.

For the record, WBT, I never wrote that you are a liar. You get facts wrong and twist things, but everybody does that to some degree by accident due to their unique perspective on things. Sometimes people do it deliberately, and that's different. I'm not accusing you of that. When a thread on solar energy drifts into WWII, Hollywood, Europe, Obama, population growth, and endless repetition about subsidies, etc etc it's just a shotgun blast of conservative BS, in my opinion, which I'm entitled to.

"I listen to FM radio, sorry" is all I wrote. I apologize if that offended you. It would be nice if you could reciprocate with an apology for your insults toward me - good way to wrap it up amicably. Let's agree to disagree respectfully and cut this thread. There's plenty of info and links for anyone who wants to know more about solar energy. Your opinion is well documented, as is mine, and several others.

Edited to be more conciliatory and add an olive branch.

Hint: You can skip it

Can skip it or . . . keep reading with optimism that things might turn around.

Things are turning around. Even the Tea Party and Ultra Conservatives are Pro Solar

Tea Party Fights for Solar in Red States

Here's a plug for solar energy from arch conservative Barry Goldwater Jr. Conservatives might find his message compelling.
Don't Kill Solar.com

SN,

What exactly does BS mean these days? That means lies, and in this case a series of lies but that's OK. Rather than refute you belittle.

Why mention FM radio at all, if it wasn't meant as a slight against sources. Just because? Seriously.

Why did it drift into WW II? Could it be I found an analogy false and said so...if you had not noticed. Ken did not appreciate it and the topic veered off course for a while. However, WW II was instructive as to weather in NW Europe and the folly of putting solar panels in an area that does not see sun a big part of the year...historic weather is mentioned in many of the books about the air war; therefore, it was on topic.

Europe itself is instructive because they are ahead of us and renewables are starting to fail under their own weight because the governments cannot support the current level of subsidy, they can't meet hard emission goals without damaging their economies and the long term of the welfare state is jeopardy because the Europe is dying...if I'm not mistaken renewables dependent on the largess of governments for their very survival because they are unprofitable. But none of this is relevant because solar is good.

You use the term shotgun blast because you do not like my approach on this, period. It is a derisive term. You don't want to discuss any of this because your damn the torpedoes attitude about solar development.

Make it competitive and I will support it, period.

So you ignore a simple apology and olive branch. Instead you continue with yet more insults and accusations.
If "BS" is too confusing, try shotgun blast of "Baloney," "Malarkey," or "Nonsense." That's my observation of your behavior and my opinion of it. Your style of discourse is echoed on AM right wing radio every day, it goes like this:

1. Make a series of bold black and white proclamations that sound right. Example, "The US is just like Europe" "Europe is doomed." Therefore, "The US is doomed." (never mind we don't even speak the same languages, or have the same energy policies, party systems, or tax systems)

2. Simplify the issue even more and blame it on liberals, especially Obama. Use buzz words like "socialist" "nanny state" "welfare state" etc. Example: "The welfare state needs continuous population growth to survive" Repeat 1-2 on several different topics in one post.

3. Explain what liberals think. Summarize their position in black and white terms that look really stupid. Example, "All you want to do is punish a successful company." Not my position at all. I'm just more concerned with our federal deficit, Exxon doesn't need financial assistance, and their product needs to be phased out eventually. Ironically, AM radio screens liberals off their shows quite effectively, but somehow they know exactly what all liberals think.

4. Claim that people are not addressing one of these points you stated, preferably a point that's buried in a link somewhere. Imply they are afraid or they can't think of a rebuttal to that one point, therefore you must be right. This also conveniently redirects the discussion off the main topic.

5. Repeat 1-4 on as many topics as fast as possible. WWII, Europe, Subsidies, Hollywood, Subsidies, Poor Oil Companies, Obama, subsides, etc. Bury everyone in piles and piles of BS and wear them down. It's simple bullying. One by one everyone gives up exhausted. I will too, so you will "win" by attrition. Congratulations, your certificate is in the mail.

There's one thing that they do on the radio that you can't do on an internet forum. When an intelligent opposing voice gets through the call screener somehow, they cut off the mic. Then the host rambles on until you forget what the person said, then cut to commercial. When they return, conservative caller after caller comments on how stupid that person was. Well, you can wear everyone down with steps 1-5 and declare some type of victory, but you can't cut the mic and you can't delete our posts. People can see what's going on, but very few people care to read 7 pages of shotgun blast BS. In between this nonsense, I'm trying to add some cool stuff about solar energy, the topic of the thread. This is cutting edge technology and it will change the world. Even George W. Bush and Barry Goldwater Jr. are on board. It's okay, let go, we'll survive and prosper.

The hypocrisy of being so deathly afraid of subsidies for solar energy is glaring against your support for subsidizing Exxon Mobil. Debating about net profit to claim Exxon is not making record profits, claiming every company gets oil and gas subsidies, and crying that taxpayers are "punishing" oil and gas companies for not wanting to give them $4 billion in tax breaks every year? The contradiction is obvious.

Well stated, SN. About the only thing I'd add to the characterization of style is hubristic - "extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power"

And not one word about the Tea Party or Barry Goldwater Jr. supporting solar. Skipped right over that too. I kinda like that video, maybe Oscar material, Emmy Award easy. Barry would do well in Hollywood.

Well, now that you mention the video - rather painful to watch, isn't it? I found myself reeling from watching the smaller gorilla getting tossed like a sack of potatoes, and then trying to focus on Junior standing in his (someone's) backyard squinting into the sun. As you point out - rather high production values on that one.

The Gorilla fight was an excellent metaphor wouldn't you say?

It's refreshing when Liberal and Libertarian values coincide.

Energy Storage Market Set To Explode

Energy storage is often heralded as the “holy grail” of the energy market. It seems that a number of researchers and companies have worked hard and long enough that this holy grail is ready to see the light. According to market research firm IHS, the energy storage market is set to “explode” to an annual installation size of 6 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 and over 40 GW by 2022 — from an initial base of only 0.34 GW installed in 2012 and 2013.

The IHS report pits the US as the largest market for grid-connected energy storage installations through 2017. It projects that the US will install 43% of the capacity additions from 2012–2017. Germany and Japan are projected to be other top markets, as any regular reader, long-time of CleanTechnica would surely assume.
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/31/energy-storage-market-set-explode/#tF9hFqfxU84G55gF.99

Our military is playing a lead role on moving toward renewable energy, for a variety of reasons. This list from National Defense Magazine shows Climate Change as #4 of the top 5 threats to national security. Here are a few quotes from the links at the bottom to illustrate how fast they are moving:

- Each of the military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) plans on getting 1 gigawatt of renewable energy installed near its bases by 2025.

- U.S. armed forces have a target that’s similar to Europe’s -- 25 percent renewables -- but is on track to meet it five years sooner.

- The greening of the military wasn’t an Obama project snuck into the piles of stimulus funds during the financial crisis. The toughest renewables targets were passed under George W. Bush, most notably with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006.

- The push for renewables cuts costs, reduces dependence on vulnerable supply lines and helps ensure 24/7 access to electricity. And it’s happening at little or no cost to taxpayers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29...well-armed.html

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/1010_energy/

http://www.armyeitf.com/

Why wouldn't I skip over? Conflating a small subsection of the tea party and a individual to conservatives as a whole and not debate.

The debate is on the viability of solar power and what it mean to economy. You do not want to debate that you would rather post kids saying how wonderful it is.

Oh my, bullying, an over used term if I ever heard one and one that is misapplied here.

So tell me, who do you listen to on AM radio and for how long? It is nice to know I was right about your AM radio comment.

Black and white...seems to me you are the one who is black and white. I solar uber alles. You offer nothing more.

Yes, I did say the welfare state needs a growing vibrant population to succeed and that has stopped in Europe and Japan, and it is coming to a North American country near you. Again, how do you not make various cuts when you have one beneficiary to one worker. You want to avoid this like the plague. The baby boom is going to take us to 2 to 1. If you don't think this isn't going to make for cuts to various welfare programs corporate or individual, I got this bridge in San Pedro that needs selling.

How can it be black and white when I bring up all sort of issues on Solar? See the top of the page.

The main topic is what? I thought it was the best means of power generation. You want us to buy a Yugo but pay for a Toyota and you don't want to discuss the economic impact.

So, want to take $4 bln. in depreciation away from just oil companies, just because they are a set of companies you don't like. They make too much money by your talking point, not in the real world of business. Therefore, why should Digital Realty Trust be able to depreciate their buildings? Or your solar companies depreciated their solar panels? If only for favorites, then there is no equal protection. I do believe we have this thing called a Constitution.

Steve, the groundhog predicts 6 more weeks of Winter. Does this also mean 6 more weeks of Solar Energy posts?

Maybe it has run its course here and those really interested could e mail or PM each other?

I think Bee has the best idea and normally I do ignore & skip, but since today was 2/2 I couldn't resist.

This is yet another great example of exactly the bullying shotgun blast of nonsense I described several posts ago on this page, right out of the AM radio playbook. Can anyone even count the number of topics, subtopics, and accusations I'm suppose to address? The mind reading that claims to know what I think is hilarious.

For anyone who doesn't know, a shotgun shell consists of lots small pellets (topics, subtopics, accusations) that spread out into a wide pattern with distance. That's how Dick Cheney was able to shoot his friend in the face and he still lived, he was far enough away.

I'm going to follow what everyone else has done, step back from the shotgun blast, and let the pellet go by. Clearly it will never end if I don't. CMC2, even the mighty Groundhog could not end this in 6 weeks.

I bee-lieve that as long as the conversation does not contain any vulgarity or direct personal attack, it should be allowed to run its course. Eventually -- as in the case of myself -- people will withdraw from the topic and it will fade away on its own. There is enough data space available, so there is no risk of THAT sort of overload. I do not want to act like a dictator and decide that what other people have to say is irrelevent because I have become bored with the conversation. It is so much more agreeable to walk away when disinterested.

It would be nice to know what people are doing outside these days, but I guess those conversations are reserved for the Facebook crowd?

I just finished watching Jeremiah Johnson for the umpteenth time; I love that movie. Has 41 years really passed that quickly?

Bee, the whole basket of apples is not ruined. People can ignore the nonsense (as I am going forward) and find some good information on solar energy (the title) in these pages. Such as:

- A large solar energy project coming to the Owens Valley
- SoCal Edison's plans for more solar in Owens Valley
- Data on how fast prices are falling for solar energy
- New technology breakthroughs in production and storage
- Reports on the future of solar energy by multiple sources
- How conservatives are teaming with environmental groups to "Tell the Utilities Solar won't be Killed" (TUSK)
- How all branches of the military are implementing solar and renewable energy to save money and improve our defense.
- Report showing Climate Change is #4 national security threat

Someone could Google this stuff, or find some interesting source info on solar energy right here. Just scroll through the loud echo chamber of distraction intended to hijack this topic into a dozen different directions. Ignore the taunting accusations and laugh at the psychic predictions about what others are thinking. If nobody takes anymore of that nasty bait (and it looks like I was the last one to drop out), maybe that part of the thread will end before the Groundhog comes out for spring.

SN,

AM Radio playbook, oh my. What exactly is that? You claim some expertise in this field but then again, you say you don't listen to it, so how can you know the playbook.

What I've gotten so far from you. Solar is good, oil companies are bad and should be treated differently than every other company in the United States. I list multiple reasons why solar and wind for that matter are a bad idea, such as, it inefficient use of capital and flight of jobs...your response is the matter of fact you are wrong everyone knows and you are a lying AM radio listen bully and the rules of supply and demand are different than the accepted normal definition...I get it. You don't want full throated debate you want to call names and post pictures.

Thanks for exposing yourself as stage one thinker incapable of thought beyond solar good, oil bad.

I'm done. You can now continue with silly ad hominems.

Holy Smokes! I think this thread has set a WZ record in a number of categories, not the least of which would be for venom. It rivals the infamous "Guns in National Parks" topic of a few years ago. I was shocked to check in this past weekend after a week's absence, and see this debate still going strong - I fully expected it to have died out quite a while back. Dear God, please don't let it have innumerable lives like the solar toilet subject . . .

Bee's right, though - it should be allowed to run for as long as people see a reason to participate. I'm sure there's a thread-locking line somewhere, but until it reaches that point - well, let's face it: there's just not a lot of Sierra-related material being posted this winter. I do have to admit though, this thread has begun to exhibit a degree of train-wreck fascination - I primarily check in on the topic nowadays to see who's currently getting bloodied up. Sad, I know . . .

While we're on the subject of energy, did'ja know the first new commercial nuclear reactors built domestically in over 30 years will be cranking up here in Georgia relatively soon? Southern Company's Vogtle Power Plant is currently constructing two more reactors and expects them to be operational by 2016. Who needs solar when you've got nuclear (or is it nuke-ya-lur)? Everyone can agree on that, right . . . ?

Bulldog, you tryin' to hijack this thread again??

Hey, the way I see it Steve, we've already survived the Zombie Apocalypse and the Snowpocalypse. What's a little fallout after that?

Bulldog, you missed this link Tea Party Fights for Solar in Red States about the Tea Party joining forces with the Sierra Club to go with solar instead of those new reactors. It got buried in you-know-what, but it's one of those interesting stories. I think it's refreshing when the extremes from both sides can agree on anything anymore.

“Some people have called this an unholy alliance,” said Debbie Dooley, founder of the coalition and a co-founder of the Atlanta Tea Party Patriots. She’s working with the Sierra Club to fight for solar and against nuclear power in Georgia. “We agree on the need to develop clean energy, but not much else.”

If you're serious about discussing nuclear energy, please start a new thread so the solar information in this thread is not buried any deeper. Thanks.

Make no mistake, SN, I have about as much desire to start another politically-charged thread as I would to juggling hand grenades blindfolded. That comment was simply a tongue-in-cheek observation designed to bring a little levity to a thread sorely in need of some light diversion. It was not meant seriously, even though it's obviously a very serious matter.

To your point, we should celebrate every opportunity where red and blue temporarily shuck their allegiances and find common ground for the good of America. There's precious little enough of that in Washington nowadays - or elsewhere in the country. Policy debates turn out much like this thread - ideas are tossed around, dialogue degenerates, positions become entrenched (often along party lines) and the end result is a kind of guerrilla warfare more focused on nuance and nit-picking than substance.

Personally, I just feel a bit despondent when I see this. Here we go again: left versus right and very little accomplished from the messiness.