Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times Renewable Subsidies

[Tyrannical]

I'll tell you what's wrong with solar power.

A company named Solyndra couldn't make a profit selling solar roof panels to warehouses located in the desert.

[mistermack]

I'll tell you what's wrong with solar power.

A company named Solyndra couldn't make a profit selling solar roof panels to warehouses located in the desert.

Which is odd, because I see many roof panels around Britain, not exactly a desert.
Someone's making money selling them over here. That's because they get a subsidy, and people get sucked in by salesmen.

There are other considerations than pure cost when it comes to sourcing power.
If you over-rely on imports, you're at the mercy of the international markets and politics.
It makes sense to have some wind, solar and geothermal etc. so that you keep your finger on the technology pulse, and can keep the essentials going, if the foreign supply dries up.

[Seth]

I'll tell you what's wrong with solar power.

A company named Solyndra couldn't make a profit selling solar roof panels to warehouses located in the desert.

Which is odd, because I see many roof panels around Britain, not exactly a desert.
Someone's making money selling them over here. That's because they get a subsidy, and people get sucked in by salesmen.

Subsidy. If I were a less ethical person, I'd take a subsidy and put solar panels on my roof. I had the house modified while under construction specifically to permit me to do so. But for me to do so I have to raise the rates on everyone else, and I won't do that because that is genuinely unfair and selfish. And what happened when the subsidies were first offered? People jumped on it, and the power company very quickly cut the subsidy in half as the number of people installing systems jumped, because the power company quickly realized that they can't sell as much power to homes with solar panels on them. The ONLY reason they have a subsidy at all (and several local companies have dumped subsidies or never offered them, is because of a Colorado law requiring that the biggest power company in Colorado, Xcel Energy, must produce 10 percent of its power from renewables. But you can bet your ass that when they reach that 10 percent, they will quit adding new renewable capacity because it's so incredibly expensive to install and maintain, much more expensive than a gas or coal generation plant, which is mature technology with highly predictable maintenance costs. Go to most of their wind farms and at any given time, it seems like half their turbines are shut down for maintenance or repair.

There are other considerations than pure cost when it comes to sourcing power.
If you over-rely on imports, you're at the mercy of the international markets and politics.
It makes sense to have some wind, solar and geothermal etc. so that you keep your finger on the technology pulse, and can keep the essentials going, if the foreign supply dries up.

True enough insofar as keeping up with technology, but wrong insofar as foreign oil drying up. To defend against that we must drill, baby, drill, because renewables, which currently comprise about 2 percent of our generating capacity, and have NOTHING to do with our need for oil for our transportation fleet and manufacturing, aren't a replacement for oil, and likely never will be.

[mistermack]

True enough insofar as keeping up with technology, but wrong insofar as foreign oil drying up. To defend against that we must drill, baby, drill, because renewables, which currently comprise about 2 percent of our generating capacity, and have NOTHING to do with our need for oil for our transportation fleet and manufacturing, aren't a replacement for oil, and likely never will be.

Of course you should. Man-made global warming is bollocks anyway.
But it is a fact that the huge solar plants and wind are getting much closer to coal and gas in the raw cost stakes, as the technology develops, and as fuel prices rise on the markets.
There could well soon come a point where they are actually cheaper, and it would pay to be in front with your own technology.
Also, electricity from renewables CAN replace some oil, with electric cars and trucks and trams and buses. So it's not as black and white as you would paint it.

[Santa_Claus]

To keep warm in winter I light farts. I store 'em in a jar during the summer.

[Seth]

True enough insofar as keeping up with technology, but wrong insofar as foreign oil drying up. To defend against that we must drill, baby, drill, because renewables, which currently comprise about 2 percent of our generating capacity, and have NOTHING to do with our need for oil for our transportation fleet and manufacturing, aren't a replacement for oil, and likely never will be.

Of course you should. Man-made global warming is bollocks anyway.
But it is a fact that the huge solar plants and wind are getting much closer to coal and gas in the raw cost stakes, as the technology develops, and as fuel prices rise on the markets.
There could well soon come a point where they are actually cheaper, and it would pay to be in front with your own technology.
Also, electricity from renewables CAN replace some oil, with electric cars and trucks and trams and buses. So it's not as black and white as you would paint it.

The key word in your statement, "some," is actually defined as "not enough to make it worth the investment" except in the most limited of circumstances. And then there's the problem of generating capacity (fueled by gas and coal) and grid capacity to recharge the vast fleets of electric cars, trucks, trams and buses you envision.

No, it's not black and white, but obstructing fossil fuel discovery, development and improvement in favor of renewable energy projects that have no hope whatever of actually meeting our needs any time in the next century is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Take the Canada oil-sands pipeline project as a prime example of the mendacity and ignorant ideology of the eco-left. Obstructing this pipeline has nothing whatever to do with safety or preserving the Sand Hills or the Ogalalla Aquifer, that's just a stalking horse. The real objective of those who are fighting the pipeline is that they don't want the US to expand its domestic oil resources, they want to DESTROY our ability to produce oil domestically...and coal...and natural gas, in a bald-faced attempt to FORCE us all back into 17th century agrarian existence because they are all nothing more than Neo-Luddites.

They can't even use "global warming" as an excuse because if Canada can't pipe its oil to US refineries in Texas and Louisana, where the products can be purchased by Americans, they will build a pipeline to either the west or east coast of Canada (most likely the west) and they will sell the oil to China, and the carbon-burden will be much greater because China doesn't have nearly the environmental protection regulations for their vehicle fleet that the US does.

This is simply a battle between Neo-Luddites who want the carbon-based fossil fuel "dependence" cut off cold-turkey, no matter what it does to the economy or how many people have to starve and die because our vehicle fleet, which manufactures and transports food, cannot deliver it, and rational people who understand that renewable energy sources, while valuable, are simply not capable of replacing fossil fuels within the next century, possibly two centuries, and therefore oil, gas and coal exploration and exploitation are absolutely necessary and unavoidable for the foreseeable future. What resources we have to expend on environmental protection MUST be spent funding research into allowing fossil fuels to be used with less impact on the planet, like the scrubbers I mentioned in Colorado Springs, not frittered away on technologies that will not provide a substantial portion of our power budget for a long, long time.

[mistermack]

I like how you call Canadian Oil "domestic".
They still have the English Queen as the head of state, and are in no way domestic.

Oil sands are much more expensive to extract, and you are getting REALLY close to renewables in price. And you have to add the cost of reinstating the landscape, unless you intend to leave it full of shit because it's not actually domestic.

I'm just saying that as time goes on, wind and solar will at some point be cheaper than oil and gas, and if you haven't got the technology, you will pay through the nose for it.
The Germans have seen that, and are making a fortune NOW, because they invested in wind and solar tech and are exporting it round the world.
A lot of the tech in the current US solar plants is German, and the Chinese are getting in on wind and solar. That will only increase.

People are still looking at Wind and Solar with the attitude of fuel prices from two years ago.
That's not likely to come back.

[Jason]

To keep warm in winter I light farts. I store 'em in a jar during the summer.

Sealed and sustained exothermic reaction?? You'll win a Nobel for that!

In your face thermodynamics.

[Jason]

Take the Canada oil-sands

Just cross the border and try.

Although from my time spent in Alberta I wouldn't mind too much if it was nuked off the face of the earth.

Give BrettA enough warning to get on the other side of the Rockies.

[Tyrannical]

What's wrong with oil pipelines?
They are environmentally safe as long as idiots don't shoot them, and the wildlife don't mind them.

[Seth]

What's wrong with oil pipelines?
They are environmentally safe as long as idiots don't shoot them, and the wildlife don't mind them.

Pretty much at all, if the Alaska pipeline is any indicator. And there's already more than 25,000 miles of pipelines in the US anyway. One more isn't going to bother anyone, particularly not once it's buried.

[Schneibster]

What's wrong with oil pipelines?
They are environmentally safe as long as idiots don't shoot them, and the wildlife don't mind them.

Except when they leak and greedy bastard oil companies don't wanna pay to fix 'em.

Like in Alaska. And Louisiana. And the North Sea. And the Gulf of Mexico. And Alberta. And Michigan. And San Francisco. And the Yellowstone River. And Basra. And...

[Jason]

What's wrong with oil pipelines?

Besides everything else, they seem to run from Canada to the United States. That's enough of a 'wrong' for me. It's time Canada cut ties with the sinking USS U.S.A. Economy and started exporting somewheres else.

[Seth]

What's wrong with oil pipelines?
They are environmentally safe as long as idiots don't shoot them, and the wildlife don't mind them.

Except when they leak and greedy bastard oil companies don't wanna pay to fix 'em.

Like in Alaska. And Louisiana. And the North Sea. And the Gulf of Mexico. And Alberta. And Michigan. And San Francisco. And the Yellowstone River. And Basra. And...

And yet they DO pay to fix them, all of them.

There has never been a pipeline leak in the United States that the owner of the pipeline has not been required to fix, clean up and remediate.

Besides, fuck with our oil and we'll just annex Canada to the United States.

[Seth]

What's wrong with oil pipelines?

Besides everything else, they seem to run from Canada to the United States. That's enough of a 'wrong' for me. It's time Canada cut ties with the sinking USS U.S.A. Economy and started exporting somewheres else.

We pay more and it's cheaper to export it here. Saves on cost of goods sold and increases profits.