Do you trumpers know that coal and oil have been receiving billions of dollars of subsidies each year for over 80 years. Tonight Biden had the balls to say he will eliminate subsidies for coal and oil. This isn’t a green new deal. This is economics. Coal and oil can’t compete anymore. If you don’t understand the benefits of such a move to eliminate these subsidies that’s fine, stay in your cave.
Uh...my attention was drawn to a few prefacing statements:
There’s no evidence that Joe Biden used his power inappropriately or took action to benefit his relatives with respect to these ventures.
...and...
None of the ventures appear to have been runaway successes, and Biden’s relatives have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing in their dealings.
So...let's stop with the false equivalency right there. The stuff Trump is accused of - or linked to - are myriad, which include tax fraud - both in regards to himself and in regards to his daughter, who he may have paid "consulting fees" to and then claimed it as a deduction on his taxes, would could potentially get both of them in hot water right there - insurance fraud, bank fraud, and, oh, yeah, that thing you keep sneering about but is nonetheless lumbering his way down the tracks like a brakeless train slowly gaining momentum: money laundering.
That said, while Trump is looting the country to the walls like a third-world dictator (which you seem to not want to acknowledge) and that is indeed orders of magnitude worse than what this article implies, let's actually pivot back to the article and put the focus back on Biden for a second. So let me state this categorically:
I completely disagree with the glaring conflicts of interest presented in this article.
I like no part of anything this article showed (actually, I'd read that article before and didn't like it then either!) and while I am voting for Biden - with extreme reluctance - I regard him exactly as the sort of politician who so poisoned the confidence that Americans have in their government that it ended up giving us Donald Trump. Biden himself is not a solution. (The only real solution, IMHO, is empowered voters, and you get to that with ranked choice voting and more options on the menu, not trying to pick between Bad and Worse.)
That old refrain aside, Trump is full-blown cancer, but the the thing that opened the door for that cancer to get inside the American body politic was precisely the same kind of entitled insider self-dealing (or in this case, insider dealing to family members) this article so elegantly spells out. It's shady, it's dishonest, it undermines the confidence in our elected officials and in the system, and it absolutely should not be permitted. Because it's penny-ante, in some ways, but it also allows guys like Trump to come in spouting that "everybody's bent so why fight it" nihilism the Party of Trump so spews...and truly get away with shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue, while also robbing it blind.
My hope is that if American does elect Biden as a restorationist and reformist (which he frankly has never been before), the old path-of-least-resistance Joe Biden is forced to cave to some progressive election and voting reforms that lead to a future of elected officials better than him. Mind, I'm dubious. Because 47 years of history tells us Joe Biden will try to flash that winning smile, mouth some empty platitudes about "restoring America's faith in its government"...and then try to go right back to business as usual. So I don't trust Biden further than I can throw him on that, and my focus the second he takes office is going to be completely on: let's mend this broken system before it gives us something worse than Trump next time.
I did have one thought on that score, BTW. Something Joe Biden probably hasn't wrapped his wizened old cranium around just yet: the problem with riding this sudden wave of political awareness back into office is, the American voters are awake in a way we haven't seen since the '60's. So it could end up that Joe Biden is actually going to be forced to grudgingly clean up Washington to some extent whether he really wants to or not. That's my hope, anyhow. But as ever it's on We The People to ensure that happens...and not let Joe Biden off the hook. Because as your article so clearly demonstrates, Joe certainly isn't going to do the right thing all on his own.
did he have the added self-inflicted disadvantages that Hunter put on himself?
But what was Hunter's qualifications to be paid millions from these foreign companies and leaders? Is there a huge market for for drug addicts overseas corporations?
The EU subsidizes fossil fuels at nearly 3x times the amount
Oct 15, 2020, 10:45 PM
the US does.
Oil can't compete? I'm sure you recognize the irony of this statement as you pound your hands on an oil based keyboard, transmitted by signals through lines with oil based coatings and so on...
Sounds like you're the one that doesn't fully understand the economics and benefits.
Re: The EU subsidizes fossil fuels at nearly 3x times the amount
Oct 16, 2020, 11:13 AM
ZJ,
The question is could oil and coal compete with other, cleaner forms of energy if it was not for these massive subsidies (social welfare).
We are always hearing that solar and wind cannot be competitive in the marketplace, but maybe they could if oil and coal conglomerates weren't constantly lobbying for subsidies and other advantages.
KeoweeIndians, You wanna talk economics of coal & gas subsidies? You wanna talk economics of renewables? You wanna talk economics of fossil fuels? If so, please see my questions for ClemsonZJ below. You wanna talk about trumps failed socilaist policies? Can you even identify trumps socialist policies? You wanna talk about trumps failed trade policies? You wanna talk about Trump's constant attempt to weaken the dollar? Do you even undertand some of these issues or are you one of the blind sheep randomly barking while aimlessly following trump?
ClemsonZJ: You got that right trumper, the EU has lots of subsidies, and the EU has nothing to do with Joe Biden's committment to eliminate the BILLIONS of dollars in annual US federal subsidies oil and coal have received since the early 1900s. Trump will leave these subsidies in place and continue to subsidize dying industries.
That’s right, I use lots of oil based plastic and I drive gas powered cars. I bet you wish you had 1972 gas guzzling convertible. I'll use a mix of mostly coal/nat gas/nuclear to watch Clemson pummel the electrical engineers at GA Tech on Saturday. All of that also has nothing to do with Joe Biden's commitment to eliminate coal & oil subsidies. All of us will continue to use fossil fuels, in a constantly diminishing manner, for decades until we fully discontinue their use. It will take time, but market forces are driving this, not subsidies and not any green new deal.
You mentioned nothing related to US subsidies or US economics and then stated that I don’t fully understand the economics and benefits. Do you know how much coal costs per MWh? Solar per MWh? Nat gas cost competitiveness? How about wind per MWh? O&M for solar? Price stability for solar? Coal ash costs? Hydrogen per kilo? Typical capacity utilization at coal facilities? Do you know how the coal cos spend the subsidy dollars? Do you know how many coal companies are currently in various stages of bankruptcy? Do you know how many coal plants have closed in recent years and are scheduled to close? Do you know who made these decisions to close so many coal plants? (republican corporate leaders) Do you want to continue spending BILLIONS of tax dollars on dead dying industries? Do you know who lied to coal miners and made a socialist promise to bring their jobs back? Do you know who believed those lies? Can you answer yes to one of these questions?
but mostly b/c you threw some shade at us GT engineers who are actually figuring out solutions out here in, what I like to call, the real world (I'm personally not a EE or Nuclear E, but have friends from college who are). I posted a thread on this topic recently, and wished you would've chimed in given your in-depth knowledge of our energy sector and what would be the best path forward.
At any rate, here's a nice chart that was published by Advanced Energy Economy that breaks down the $ / MWh for various energy sources:
As you can see, and elaborately articulated above, the cost / MWh of solar and wind has in fact reached competitive levels to traditional energy production, compared specifically with fossil fuels. However, a big piece of the economic conversation that you and many others are missing is somewhat 2 fold. The first, such a conversion to solar and wind does not produce a satisfactory economic impact to the labor force as it does with oil / coal / nat gas. Second, the sheer amount of production isn't there for us to be completely reliant on solar / wind. So I hate to break it to you, but once again, both sides are wrong. The answer for our energy strategy over the next 3 to 4 decades is to have the grid supplied primarily by nuclear power with solar / wind energy production augmenting the grid where economically feasible.
There are undoubtedly scenarios where solar can be cheaper than nuclear, but the net economic impact (labor, jobs, etc.) coupled with the risk of power production from the hot topic renewables, makes nuclear a superior choice from a strategic perspective.
Additionally, there are some side projects a few other of us loser ### GT nerds are working on that incorporates IoT in residential applications that ultimately creates a smarter grid. That's another big piece of the puzzle that a lot of you blow hards seem to overlook.
Re: In my opinion, people use the term "subsidy" ...
Oct 16, 2020, 9:14 AM
Google is your friend. Seriously, if you aren't aware of the billions in subsidies that have been in place going to oil and coal since the first half of the last century, you are thoroughly misinformed. This is common knowledge. I'll let you become intellectually curious.
Thanks...just to be clear, I'm aware of the claims...
Oct 16, 2020, 2:53 PM
I appreciate you posting this. I'm wondering, do you understand any of them or are you just copying something you found? Honest question.
These ones listed are many of the typical ones passed around. Let's take the first one/largest one shown, which is intangible drilling cost deduction.
First, the "intangible" part of the name is misleading. The definition of Intangible Drilling Cost Deductions is:
Intangible costs are the remainder of the costs incurred to drill and complete a well. Such costs include, but are not limited to: labor, chemicals, grease, fuel, supplies, and other necessary costs for drilling a well and preparing it for production.
To understand this, you first have to understand that business pay taxes on profits, which, in its simplest for is revenue (sales) minus costs = profits. Due to the nature of their business, oil companies account for their costs differently than most businesses. All this rule does is let an oil company include the cost of drilling for oil as part of their costs, meaning that they are deducted, at some point, from their revenue.
I do not call that a subsidy. I call that letting oil companies account for their costs of production just like other companies do.
I have nothing but respect for GA Tech; in the classroom, in the board room and on the field. Good folks.
You state “such a conversion to solar and wind does not produce a satisfactory economic impact to the labor force as it does with oil / coal / nat gas”. So, we should remain with oil/coal/gas to maintain certain level of employment? This is socialist job creation / maintenance. Be gone with those thoughts.
You state “the sheer amount of production isn't there for us to be completely reliant on solar / wind”. If you’re talking about today, you’re right, its not even close, nowhere near enough renewable energy to fuel the planet. If you look to the future its likely that we (the world) can only build enough renewable energy projects to satisfy approximately 45%-50% of the entire planets energy demand, and this assumes decades of new projects and maximum electrification efforts. So, molecule based fuels will continue to fill that remaining need. But ….. stay tuned for the dense green carbon free molecule fuel. Any guess what that is? Trump does not. He’s still focused on coal.
No doubt nuclear will play a role (see Plant Vogtle) but I do not think you want to begin discussing the costs involved in the SC and the GA nuclear fiascos. That discussion will involve bankrupt suppliers (Westinghouse), tens of millions in lawsuits, tens of billions in cost over runs, very unhappy rate payers in SC and clueless ratepayers in GA. Nuclear will play a role, but it will not be the primary baseload source.
Would love to hear you detail the “risk of power production from the hot topic renewables”. Was that a copy and paste?
agreement on a long term strategy of nuclear power with renewable augmentation. My only concern is why no one is talking about it. I have first hand knowledge that our boys in NM are crippled by out dated regulations that neither side of the aisle has addressed. The bigger picture should be addressed instead of hot topics that satisfy the split country's base.
Agree with first socialist point. I disagree w/ subsidies, but those type of economic factors play into the decisions. Our entire economy is subsidized by the Fed in some form or fashion. Weening off of fossils as core energy production is my preferred strategy, only if replaced by nuclear.
We're in agreement on the energy side. Neither party has done anything for the nuclear industry in decades, so idc who is president, who the party is, they're all/both wrong. Trump's (and any politician, for that matter is) buying votes, obviously. We have the answer. It's nuclear. We need to invest time in modernizing our regulations that will in turn streamline the implementation of nuclear projects and in turn reduce costs. It's like any implementation of a complex system. The first one will suck, badly, but with continued practice and investment we'll get better.
A lot of the costs and fiascos you mention are based on us having to adhere to outdated regulations and a supply chain that has been crippled by lack of demand due to said regulations. The technology is there and its proven, but like I said earlier, our boys in NM are too regulated with old ####. We're sitting ducks.
Should have read: "risk of power production shortages from the hot topic renewables". Solar and wind have obvious variables that can cause problems with steady state energy production, was my point.
I like the idea of renewable energy augmentation with renewables and will probably pursue once there's a payback or justification, but like everything else in this #### country, the argument gets into a this or that scenario and we lose sight of the big picture / actual problem.
electricity generation much past current mix is cost-effective and scalable storage.
We are just about at the limits in many areas, mainly areas where solar is viable, of renewable generation and we're starting to see system instability as a result.
We need a mix of nuclear/natural gas/clean coal base-load generation and solar/wind renewable paired with mass energy storage. The problem with nuclear construction isn't current technology or contractors, in general, it's outdated federal oversight and regulations. This is one area (and maybe the only one other than bread and cheese) where we could take a lesson from France.
Re: The largest impediment to expanding renewable....
Oct 22, 2020, 8:09 AM
Storage will not be a hold up. It is now cost effective and it's being built for scale. At the moment, we see 10/20/30 MW batteries. In the next 12 months you will see 100 MW batteries. Naturally these will be located at current generation sites or substations. Stay tuned. You won't notice a difference when you hit the light switch, but how the energy is generated (and sometimes stored) is changing big time. Stability will continue to be a non-issue. The utility companies are structured in such a way that they apply 27 layers of belts and suspenders to each component of the grid. Not to worry, they are thrilled to spend extraordinary amounts of money since most of the utilities are guaranteed a specified rate of return on assets. Easy socialist math for them.
an administration that is pro nuclear to jolt the NRC further.
Trump just completely hosed my dad's project because he's a petulant child, so now Canada will be getting the leg up on advanced small modular reactors thanks to the DoE's funding selection. And before a Trump cocksucker hops in, Trump has said he interfered so TVA would not be selected because he is mad at them for outsourcing some low level tech work to India.
Re: Fortunately we are taking lessons, but we really need
Oct 27, 2020, 9:48 PM
I agree nuclear can play a substantial role, but the "progress" of the GA nuclear project and the failure of the SC project has substantially hurt the nuclear industry's prospects. These projects certainly delayed the industry at a minimum. But I keep hearing about small / micro nuclear. I don't know much about it, but I hope it can be a viable scenario.
50
