Not to argue with either you or tebailey about semantics, rinselberg, but, like olejoedad, I want to see a list of fossil fuel specific subsidies. I see and hear the term flung about constantly but I never can find an industry specific subsidy list. maryjane, I believe, has pointed out that individual members of the fossil fuel industry are subject to the same tax laws as another citizen, corporate or private, in the United States, and are able to avail themselves of every legal avenue under the US tax code to minimize income taxes. That is not the same thing as specific subsidies given to the industry simply because it is the fossil fuel industry. The renewable fuels/ green energy industries do get specific subsidies.
Since we can now understand each other, would you or tebailey, at your convenience, please give us, or at least link to, a list of fossil fuel ( oil and gas ) specific subsidies such as enjoyed by the renewable fuels / green energy industries?
I can give you one. The ethanol subsidy. Most people assume the ethanol subsidy went directly to the farmers and ethanol producers, but that asn't exactly true. A very large part of it went to the fossil fuel industry--a very high percent to the oil refiners. Exxon-Chevron etc--in the form of tax breaks. That's not saying the farmers and ethanol distillers didn't get subsidized tho--they certainly did, but it's a very complex formula and it varies year to year because of something called increased vs decreased product availability--elasticity.
Originally, when the ethanol mandate began, it was going to cost the gasoline refiners a big chunk of $$ to blend the ethanol to the raw gaoline product. They were subsidized to get set up to do this blend, and further subsized to continue to blend an ag product into an already consumer ready retail product. The corn producers get/got a subsidy to both offset their production cost and losses. Many years, there is a smaller corn harvest, driving corn prices up because demand either went up or stayed the same, but the mandated % of ethanol content in gasohol remained fixed. If prices for corn were above a set benchmark already, the farmer got little or no subsidy. If the price of corn was down, the farmer lost a % of his profit when he sold the corn to the ethanol distiller, because the distiller only used "part of the ear" for his product, whereas if the farmer sold the ear of corn to the livestock feed industry, they used the whole thing to make their finished products.
If the projected acerage for corn was too low, DOE would pay the farmers to raise additional corn to meet the demand of the ethanol industry. That, is the elasticity in the corn producing industry.
For the oil company, there is also elasticity. If prices for refined "real" gasoline was already at a certain benchmark price set by DOE, the oil company got no subsidy, but if the prices were low, then the oil company and farmer/ethanol producer split the subsidy according to a very complex formula. Bottom line of all this, is that fossil fuel/Big Oil got subsidized for adding ethanol to gasoline. Oil companies also get subsidies for mandated air/water pollution measurements, air monitoring, infrastructure expansions required to meet national security (military) related demands, and all sorts of other things. Do I have a dollar figure? No--but it is/was in the $Billions industry wide.
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Just curious, where did you get this info from?
Please allow me to indulge myself. Let me find some lame stream media sources. Nope. None. Nada. Thanks for asking. I included no source links expecting to be called on my allegation. I feel so ... trusted. I heard about it, from someone who heard about it from ... so I did a little digging.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: [QUOTE cliffw) The solar plant is having to burn three times the natural gas needed for operations. The natural gas it was supposed to replace. In March, the owners sought permission to use 60 percent more natural gas in auxiliary boilers than was allowed under the plant’s certification, a request that was approved in August.[/ END QUOTE cliffw] So how much natural gas is the plant burning?
Originally posted by masospaghetti: From Brightsource: BrightSource dismissed the notion that natural gas itself was being relied on as a meaningful source of energy production at Ivanpah, saying that “the facilities’ total generation for solar will be 40 to 50 times the generation associated with natural gas.”
Heh it seems that Brightsource might be a little biased being that they are a solar energy producing company. I didn't see their PDF link of documentation backing up their claim. Your quote of Brightsource dismissing the notion seems to come from my source, as it is word for word. Except perhaps what you left out (if it was the same source). My reference also mentions that a more major partner (NRG Energy) would not comment to questions about this, as well as some other not so flattering revelations. I wood have gotten deeper in the weeds if I were an investor (even prospective) or my ego was on the line from touting green energy as the next best thing to sliced bread, but, the facts would remain the same. They are looking for a grant (free money) from the taxpayer to pay off their taxpayer sweetheart loan because the operation is not meeting their assertions when they asked for the loan giving their assertions as deserved qualifying results.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: The solar plant is estimated to kill 28,000 birds a year. In a brutal manner. If not cooking them in flight, leaving them injured on the ground unable to fly, becoming prey for predators. More and bigger solar plants are planned. How many animals die from health complications related to coal emissions and coal ash?
I don't know. The latest autopsy data is not in. Let me guess. Not enough ? You really asked me that, , ? Are we talking about health complications, or instant death from say an oil spill ? It seems that a solar plant is akin to an ever present oil spill. I only bring up the bird deaths as that is a standard used by the greenies to demonize fossil fuels.
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop: ... just because they subsidize solar doesn't mean it can stand on its own. Have you priced solar panels and what it would cost to install them yourself? To qualify for some tax credits the equipment must be new and installed by a certified installer. When I researched it about a year ago it would have been 20k to do it myself. To have it installed, about 40k. At 20k I would probably get no tax credit but still save money. Over 5 years 20k it's about what I'll spend in electricity.
That's an interesting viewpoint. I have much respect for dratts solar views and admiration for his goals of going green. (Same with Ryan Hess and any others.) More so with dratts' though because he believes the green cause so much that he is committing to live that way. I have been thinking about your post. Guesstimating my energy usage. Thinking that, with your beliefs, in five years I wouldn't have to include the costs of the solar system into the sale price of my home (should I sell of course). Adding 20K to my property value would price me out of the local market. Then again, it might be a selling point worthy of the cost, even after it has paid for itself. Meaning I could theoreticaly add some of the cost for a paid off system in essence still recouping some of of the investment. Then their is the whole shelf life issue of such a system. How long will it be functional, will repair parts be available in later years, will service techs be available for those later owners who are not do it yourself guys (along with what will they cost).
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 11-09-2014).]
That's an interesting viewpoint. I have much respect for dratts solar views and admiration for his goals of going green. (Same with Ryan Hess and any others.) More so with dratts' though because he believes the green cause so much that he is committing to live that way. I have been thinking about your post. Guesstimating my energy usage. Thinking that, with your beliefs, in five years I wouldn't have to include the costs of the solar system into the sale price of my home (should I sell of course). Adding 20K to my property value would price me out of the local market. Then again, it might be a selling point worthy of the cost, even after it has paid for itself. Meaning I could theoreticaly add some of the cost for a paid off system in essence still recouping some of of the investment. Then their is the whole shelf life issue of such a system. How long will it be functional, will repair parts be available in later years, will service techs be available for those later owners who are not do it yourself guys (along with what will they cost).
I could care less about being green, solar panels make sense for me because over my lifetime they could save me a lot of money which is what technology should be doing for us but for some reason seems to be going the other way. Currently what I've been told about that panels add to the value of your home is the about of energy it saves you over 10 years but is not added to your property tax. I don't know if that's true or not but in my neighborhood that where on the same street we have 100k houses and 2m houses it wouldn't be a problem. They say the panels themselves should last around 30 years or more.
I could care less about being green, solar panels make sense for me because over my lifetime they could save me a lot of money which is what technology should be doing for us but for some reason seems to be going the other way. Currently what I've been told about that panels add to the value of your home is the about of energy it saves you over 10 years but is not added to your property tax. I don't know if that's true or not but in my neighborhood that where on the same street we have 100k houses and 2m houses it wouldn't be a problem. They say the panels themselves should last around 30 years or more.
Just saying - although they are working on methods to increase this.
That's no big problem--when the panels' efficiency declines, just apply for a grant to buy a home generator that will run on nat gas --you will have to run it just enough to make up the difference between need and what your panels still produce. .
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-09-2014).]
People seem to be Confused about why this is bad news and good news. The bad news is for the electric companies, solar is the end of a monopoly for them, it's cheap enough that it pays for itself without government subsidizing but it's not to the point they can make money off generating solar energy from their central pants.
The good news is that as a homeowner if you where to buy solar panels, put them up yourself and tie into the grid it should take about 5 years for them to be profitable. Power companies will have too generate Less energy, charge more and maintain the grid. Jobs will be created as there will be pleny of systems that need to be cleaned, repaired, replaced and serviced
I know there are some municipalities that don't allow for storage (batteries.) You can use what you generate and get paid for the excess but you can't store the excess. This is tricky. While power companies can buy the excess they can't depend on it and they can't replace the generation quickly if a bunch of home systems fail. While the number of home sources is tiny now compared to the companies generators it could become significant in the future. On the other hand, not allowing for storage (say for evening use) forces homeowners to buy from the power companies. But considering we tend to use less at night maybe the excess they sold covers it. I sort of doubt it though. Daytime usage would be high with some excess.
But the thread title makes it sound like the issue is with generation but it's really about the subsidies.
It's about the subsidies being requested because the solar generation has not lived up to the plant's 377 MW (net nameplate capacity) constant power generation of 377 MW * 2751 hours/year or 1.04 TW·h/year. JP Morgan (now known as Morgan Stanley) is not an owner or shareholder--Morgan Stanley helped put the loan together, along with lenders: Vantage Capital Partners Black River Double Bottom Line Venture Capital StatOil Hydro Venture Capital-and a few other financial institutions.
Originally, BrightSource was going to issue an IPO Google, and NRG are the reported majority shareholders, with Bright Source retaining a stake in the Special Purpose Company that was set up to manage the facility. NRG alone owns 50%. This means, that each of those individual companies is protected from loss or liability. The 3 companies are not the recipient of the loan--the SPC is. It's the SPC that is requesting the grant to repay the loan--the govt guaranteed loan that came from the financial institutions.
But, this loan is not the only $$$ that goes into or went into Ivanpah. The NRG, Google, BrightSource investors also have over $1 billion of their own real $ tied up in the plant, and a good part of that "investment" is in the form of NON-GOVT GUARANTEED loans---actually, it's those 3 company's own investor's money they have tied up in the SPC, and this $ is expected to be returned to the stockholders of Google, NRG, and BrightSource. So, why does the SPC need to request a govt grant to make the payment on the guaranteed loan?
Simple--they are at the end of the line when it comes to getting their $$ back. According to Congressional testimony by NRG's President and CEO David Crane in July 2012: "You see, these 3 projects (Ivanpah CVSR and Agua Caliente) are being financed not just with DOE guarantees and Federal Financing Bank loans, but with a considerably amount of equity capital provided by NRG and our partners in the 3 solar projects. In total NRG committed over $1 billion in shareholder capital, a considerable sum which represents 30% of NRG's market capitalization. Since our capital is in the form of equity, it is lower in priority of repayment than the govt guaranteed loans. In blunt terms, we don't get repaid unless the govt guaranteed loans get repaid
Now, inasmuch as the plant's generation is not putting out what nameplate says on solar alone, the investors are seeing a lower revenue stream than what they expected to see because of increased costs using the NG generator--but, that 1st loan installment outlay has to come from "somewhere" and the revenues alone won't cover it, so they want a grant under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--otherwise known as Stimulus. So, we have 3 multi-billion dollar, globally recognized mega companies, their stockholders individually protected from full loss by the Special Purpose Company thing, and the SPC wants to get a grant (free money that never has to be paid back) so they can pay the Govt backed loan installment (or maybe in full) so the SPC itself can start getting it's money back.
"So, we have 3 multi-billion dollar, globally recognized mega companies, their stockholders individually protected from full loss by the Special Purpose Company thing, and the SPC wants to get a grant (free money that never has to be paid back) so they can pay the Govt backed loan installment (or maybe in full) so the SPC itself can start getting it's money back. "
This stinks to the high heavens. Maybe it is normal for special deals like this to be made, but I don't like it. Basically a private company puts up some money, but is isolated from loss by the structure of the company. Government money gets it started. This new company under performs and can't make a profit. Since they don't make a profit they can't pay one of the loans back. So just ask the good ole government to pay the loan free gratius. If the government does this then the underlying companies will be making money. What a deal for the companies, but a huge loss for the government (ie. the tax payers). Screw them. Quit giving money away to connected people.
Just saying - although they are working on methods to increase this.
Saying that they can last 30 years is a bit misleading. The standard warranty is 80% efficiency after 25 years. I doubt very much if they drop to 0% in another 5 years
Green investment while necessary should always be vetted as much as possible. Just because it is green doesn't mean that it's the best green investment and as taxpayers we deserve the best return on our dollars spent.
Does any one else see the similarities between todays oil companies and the railroads in the 1880's? Back yjen the railroads controlled transportation and the government. Today it's the oil companies. If the railroads wanted to expand, the government let them steal all the land they needed, for a few shares of stock to some key senators. If they had to cross Indian land a war would break out. History does repeat itself, only the names change. Back then highways and trucks killed the greedy railroads, today it will be renewables. Unless the oil companies themselves start to invest in and develope renewables instead of trying to kill them they will end up the same as the railroads.
Does any one else see the similarities between todays oil companies and the railroads in the 1880's? Back yjen the railroads controlled transportation and the government. Today it's the oil companies. If the railroads wanted to expand, the government let them steal all the land they needed, for a few shares of stock to some key senators. If they had to cross Indian land a war would break out. History does repeat itself, only the names change. Back then highways and trucks killed the greedy railroads, today it will be renewables. Unless the oil companies themselves start to invest in and develope renewables instead of trying to kill them they will end up the same as the railroads.
No. If any group owns the politicians it is the Banking and investment groups. They got the bailouts. They are deemed to big to fail. So they can take big gambles with their money and not lose even though they make bad decisions. All because of their connections and ties with politicians.
The same thing has happened with the green industry. It is a politically correct version of graft and abuse of power.
"So, we have 3 multi-billion dollar, globally recognized mega companies, their stockholders individually protected from full loss by the Special Purpose Company thing, and the SPC wants to get a grant (free money that never has to be paid back) so they can pay the Govt backed loan installment (or maybe in full) so the SPC itself can start getting it's money back. "
This stinks to the high heavens. Maybe it is normal for special deals like this to be made, but I don't like it. Basically a private company puts up some money, but is isolated from loss by the structure of the company. Government money gets it started. This new company under performs and can't make a profit. Since they don't make a profit they can't pay one of the loans back. So just ask the good ole government to pay the loan free gratius. If the government does this then the underlying companies will be making money. What a deal for the companies, but a huge loss for the government (ie. the tax payers). Screw them. Quit giving money away to connected people.
This sounds like the deal the health insurance companies got with Obamacare. Privatizing profits and socializing losses. Sweet!
Does any one else see the similarities between todays oil companies and the railroads in the 1880's? Back yjen the railroads controlled transportation and the government. Today it's the oil companies. If the railroads wanted to expand, the government let them steal all the land they needed, for a few shares of stock to some key senators. If they had to cross Indian land a war would break out. History does repeat itself, only the names change. Back then highways and trucks killed the greedy railroads, today it will be renewables. Unless the oil companies themselves start to invest in and develope renewables instead of trying to kill them they will end up the same as the railroads.
Chevron, in some form or fashion is an investor or partner with Ivanpah. They may just be the provider of the NG for the gas turbines or they may be involved in some other way.. http://www.brightsourceener...vestors#.VGACofnF8j5
Originally posted by jmbishop: ... which is what technology should be doing for us ...
I don't remember government making flight possible, inventing the telephone or bringing it to market, for inventing the automobile, for bringing about the video recorder, nor remember them making it affordable for me. Gooberment didn't find oil nor the uses for it.
quote
Originally posted by TK: But the thread title makes it sound like the issue is with generation but it's really about the subsidies.
If you say so, but you would be wrong. Sub par production, grants to pay off loans because the sun is not shining enough, the rich not wanting to pay their debts, yet another failed green energy boondoggle, and the genocide of birds. Oh yeah, I forgot. Also that over dependence on Earth killing fossil fuels.
This sounds like the deal the health insurance companies got with Obamacare. Privatizing profits and socializing losses. Sweet!
Greed knows no bounds. Politicians of every stripe seem to want to protect their positions of power and at the same time they seem to get richer every year. Even after they leave office. Those with wealth and power in industry whether it be industrial, mining or finance seem to want more and more and push for regulations that restrict their competitors and give them opportunities from government.
The system is broken right now, because of corruption and influence. Can it be fixed? Maybe. We need regulations, but it needs to be done in a manner that is fair to all and does not hinder one group over another. Right now we have a patronage system where the powerful and wealthy can buy what they want from politician who then make laws to benefit their patrons. The politicians also use public funds to buy votes by providing long term food, clothing and housing for those who do not want to work. Certainly there are those who cannot provide for themselves and need some help, but we are at the point in this country where we are giving negative incentives for people to work. That just breeds more dependency and these people become serfs of the system. It is the new serfdom.
Greed knows no bounds. Politicians of every stripe seem to want to protect their positions of power and at the same time they seem to get richer every year. Even after they leave office. Those with wealth and power in industry whether it be industrial, mining or finance seem to want more and more and push for regulations that restrict their competitors and give them opportunities from government.
The system is broken right now, because of corruption and influence. Can it be fixed? Maybe. We need regulations, but it needs to be done in a manner that is fair to all and does not hinder one group over another. Right now we have a patronage system where the powerful and wealthy can buy what they want from politician who then make laws to benefit their patrons. The politicians also use public funds to buy votes by providing long term food, clothing and housing for those who do not want to work. Certainly there are those who cannot provide for themselves and need some help, but we are at the point in this country where we are giving negative incentives for people to work. That just breeds more dependency and these people become serfs of the system. It is the new serfdom.
Makes sense to me. I almost gave you a plus but I have some previous disagreements with you so you stay neutral for now. Thanks for a very good post. Edited: Oh what the hell, when I read over your post I have to give you that +. Thanks for your post.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-10-2014).]
I consider the term "green energy" to be an oxymoron, because it implies "free energy". There is no such thing. The Third Law Of Thermodynamics is what it is. That is where the debate should start.
I have no problems with solar and other supplemental forms of energy, but remember two things..first, they will NEVER replace so-called fossil fuels. Second, if a form of energy is not profitable, there is a reason.
if a form of energy is not profitable, there is a reason.
That, will get a lot of people's juices flowing-they have always thought energy should be free. Not because it's raw material belongs to someone else but simply because it exists.
I consider the term "green energy" to be an oxymoron, because it implies "free energy". There is no such thing. The Third Law Of Thermodynamics is what it is. That is where the debate should start.
I have no problems with solar and other supplemental forms of energy, but remember two things..first, they will NEVER replace so-called fossil fuels. Second, if a form of energy is not profitable, there is a reason.
I don't consider green energy to be free energy. Solar energy might be delivered right to your site for free but you will have to invest in hardware in order to harvest it. They WILL INEVITABLY replace so-called fossil fuels unless we destroy the planet before they run out. Profitable energy isn't always the right energy. Just because their is a profit that can be made doesn't guarantee the rightness of any act.
Just got an offer of $.18/watt 20% efficiency panels from sun electronics. I'm inquiring as to what quantity I have to buy and what is the shipping cost. I don't see how they can go much lower. Gotta commit by 11/14.
I don't remember government making flight possible, inventing the telephone or bringing it to market, for inventing the automobile, for bringing about the video recorder, nor remember them making it affordable for me. Gooberment didn't find oil nor the uses for it.
I was referring to technology, not the government.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 11-11-2014).]
Yet gooberment is basically funding this boondoggle. It would not survive without the gooberment promotion and funding, not to mention the propaganda to create a desire. It brings truth to the phrase "you didn't build that".
I consider the term "green energy" to be an oxymoron, because it implies "free energy". There is no such thing. The Third Law Of Thermodynamics is what it is. That is where the debate should start.
Here is something we can all agree on, I think. All sources of energy have their problems, including solar and wind. It's determining which ones do the least damage.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Your quote of Brightsource dismissing the notion seems to come from my source, as it is word for word. Except perhaps what you left out (if it was the same source). My reference also mentions that a more major partner (NRG Energy) would not comment to questions about this, as well as some other not so flattering revelations.
It probably was the same source. My point was that "60% greater natural gas consumption" by itself doesn't mean much, especially if the plant still puts out 40-50x as much solar energy as it consumes in gas.
quote
I only bring up the bird deaths as that is a standard used by the greenies to demonize fossil fuels.
I think we both understand that no energy is "free" and they all have their problems.
My point is that 28,000 birds may seem like a lot (and it seems like there would be piles of carcasses all over the place) but if Ivanpah was a coal station instead, how much wildlife would die in other ways? Without that information, its meaningless to talk about it.
Originally posted by kwagner: Heard a blurb on this this mornig on my commute, thought it was interesting given this discussion.
Many see NPR as a propaganda arm of gooberment. From your link, "After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit" ...
quote
Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.
So, we lent 34.2 billion and so far we have collected back 30 million. The program is in the black, ? Your link also goes to say ...
quote
"It literally kick-started the whole utility-scale photovoltaic industry," Moniz says. The program funded the first of five huge solar projects in the West. Moniz says before that, developers couldn't get money from private lenders. But now, with proven business models, they can.
This is the plant that wants a grant to pay back it's loan because the sun is not shining enough. The topic for this thread.
The story's featured idea is interesting. I have not heard of it before ?
quote
Beacon Powersits on 4 acres in an industrial park. Underground are 200 black flywheels that each measure 7 feet tall and 3 feet around, and weigh 2,000 pounds. They spin faster when storing energy and slow down when releasing it. "We're recycling excess energy that's on the power grid and then putting it back into the grid when it's needed," explains President and CEO Barry Brits. He says the flywheels are essentially mechanical batteries.
Mechanical "battery" in the sense that it stores energy kinetic pay rather than chemically for later use. The KERS used in F1 is an example of a mechanical battery and operates in a similar manner on a smaller scale.
In what appears to be the first of its kind ruling in the United States, the Board of Health in Brown County, Wisconsin, where Green Bay is located, has declared a local industrial wind plant to be a human health hazard. The specific facility consists of eight 500-foot high, 2.5 megawatt industrial wind turbines.
This is just eight towers/windmills. Granted they are planted close to dwellings.
Despite a Massachusetts Superior Court injunction against operating the Falmouth wind turbines the Town of Falmouth was caught operating the wind turbines early this morning causing more problems.
The Town blamed the operation on Day Light Savings time. This isn’t the first time it’s happened and appears the town still does not take the court ordered mandate seriously.
Consumers energy has just built it's second wind farm up here after a lot of success with the first one. The farmers love them since the land is leased from them and the have a small foot print so they can still farm around them. There are good and bad things with any energy source, but the wind and the sun will not run out for a few billion years, and if they did we wouldn't be here any way. Solar still has a way to go, but it won't go anywhere unless plants are built to be able to develope better ways to use it.
Consumers energy has just built it's second wind farm up here after a lot of success with the first one. The farmers love them since the land is leased from them and the have a small foot print so they can still farm around them. There are good and bad things with any energy source, but the wind and the sun will not run out for a few billion years, and if they did we wouldn't be here any way. Solar still has a way to go, but it won't go anywhere unless plants are built to be able to develope better ways to use it.
The sun and wind may not die out, but recent history of Wind Farms is that the gearboxes don't last. Hopefully this next generation of Windmills have better luck.
, 
? Are we talking about health complications, or instant death from say an oil spill ? It seems that a solar plant is akin to an ever present oil spill.
.
but you would be wrong. Sub par production, grants to pay off loans because the sun is not shining enough, the rich not wanting to pay their debts, yet another failed green energy boondoggle, and the genocide of birds.
?
