NortonH

I will temporarily ignore the fact that you are asking me to answer your questions despite not having had the common courtesy to answer mine. Until you understand the concept of a conserved quantity I am probably wasting my time but under the definition I have chosen (for use on this thread only and in the context I defined earlier) a financial subsidy is what wind farms get, it is the equivalent of a negative tax (ie it is a net flow of money IN to the wind farm). By now I would have made the case I was leading up to to show that a financial subsidy (under the definition which I have kindly been allowed to define for use in this thread only) is equivalent in every relevant way to an energy subsidy. This is of course the corollary I noted in the OP. Unfortunately I have been obstructed by trolls but since I am no longer indulging them I will be able to make the case in a moment.

An interesting report on JoNova today has kind of distracted what I was working on because it sort of relates to the subject of this thread in a tangential but relevant way. Rather than the other stuff I was preparing I thought I may as well mention this because it is currently topical, and say how it fits in. http://joannenova.com.au/2018/02/puerto-rico-hurricane-destroyed-wind-solar-plus-five-months-on-15-still-blacked-out/ So the story is about the wind farm in PR that got wiped out by the hurricane. I will say that that is part of the cost of renewables and I am sure that I will be screeched at but I can make a case. When people think about the cost of energy they usually think of the immediate cost of the fuel being consumed that day. eg if the price of diesel goes up then it costs more to run a generator on a farm pump or to run a hospital in Adelaide etc. Few people outside of accountants ever bother to factor in the capital cost needed to get the whole thing created or the ongoing running costs other than fuel consumption. I suggest that even fewer people ever factor in the near invisible cost of risk. And yet it is as real as any of the other costs. So although this is a one-off cost that has affected a single wind farm it is actually a small increment to the many invisible costs which drive up the cost of renewables. Hopefully I will be able to return to what I was planning to say soon. Which question? In any case swannie, I will make a couple of points. 1. The $10 question was designed to allow people to think a bit more clearly about the definition of subsidy that I was told I had to use because it is in the dictionary. If you ever get around to answering those three simple questions you will notice that the NET flow of money in Case 1 and Case 3 and so the cases are identical and any claim that any kind of subsidy exists is ridiculous. If you think that there is a subsidy in existence in Case 3 then that is because you fail to understand the concept of netting. You can therefore use any number you like as the 'subsidy'. Since it is arbitrary and not conserved it is utterly useless the purpose of this discussion. But apparently since it is the one in the dictionary and my concept of a net subsidy is not in the dictionary I was told I had to use it. Since then Iodine has very kindly allowed me, on this thread only, to introduce the concept of a net subsidy. That means that in the cases I give there is simply no subsidy (under my definition) because it does NOT exceed the tax paid and nets off to resultant positive tax paid. ie no subsidy (under my defintion). Under the dictionary definition Case 3 would be deemed a subsidy and that is why failure to take netting into account renders the whole concept pointless. 2. Since I have stated clearly above that I am no longer prepared to indulge deliberate attempts to disrupt the thread by people pretending to not understand simple concepts I will not be responding to any more comments which appear to be made in bad faith. In short, trolling ended when this thread was remerged.

I have never dictated how people should respond other than to expect them to abide by board rules. I have only explained how I will respond or not respond to peoples comments. I will now continue.

Sorry is that meant to be some kind of gag? Good one. I think I made it pretty clear at the very beginning of the thread and all the way through the trolling phase what my definition was. I will not allow this thread to be trolled to death a second time and so this is what I am going to do. I am going use the definition I gave earlier where the subsidy I define is a netted off quantity which is identical to a negative tax. I have explained clearly and unambiguously what it is and I have already explained why I have to define it that way. I have explained that my definition is for use on this thread only and has no reference to any other context outside this thread. I am going to discuss my ideas with any sincere respondent. Anyone who cannot handle the fact that I am using a definition of word that is not what they want me to use (on my thread!) is free to leave. Nobody is obliged to be here. I do not believe that I am contravening any rules in doing this because i have been clear and upfront about the definition I am using and why I am using it. I will also point out that it is not an uncommon interpretation of the word in the real world but that is of no consequence here. As I said the definition I give is for this thread only and no other context is implied or implicit. So now the decision the mods have to make is this - Will I be allowed to continue my discussion with Outrider ( and anyone else who chooses to engage in sincere debate) or is my thread going to be trolled/closed/locked? Please take your time to decide because I am off to dinner. If the thread is still open when I get back I will continue. If not then fine.

Thanks for your response Outrider. At first glance what you say seems to true but if you analyse a bit further it is not so clear. The coal process involves mining, transporting, burning, boiling, generating whereas a windmills just turns with the wind. However there are other less obvious factors in play. First of all a windmill requires a large start up cost and there is also an ongoing maintenance cost. The other problem is that wind has a very low energy density and a lot of variability. Coal on the other hand has a high energy density and very good consistency of supply. The fact is that coal produces cheaper power and pays net tax whereas wind and solar recieves net subsidy ie negative tax. Now at this stage I am probably going to have my thread closed down or heresy but I will take the chance since you are interested. I contend that this represents a net flow of energy from fossil to renewables, but more on that later. 'Common sense' is not always a reliable guide if you do not have all the facts available. So I prefer to use another method to assess these sorts of questions. I contend that the free market is a huge mechanism designed to maximise efficiency and produce products for the best price. If my assumption is correct then the market is an excellent way of assessing the price and hence the energy cost of something. If coal produces cheaper energy then it probably consumes less energy in its production. If renewables become more efficient they should become cheaper. Is it not odd that the free energy from wind is still more expensive than the energy from coal? I am not familiar with that item. Why is it so expensive if it costs 5K to make? Why do people sell them for 6K for example? If you are talking about prestige or boutique items like Elvis's Shoes or Mick Jaggers wedding ring or something then that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about manufactured items and commodities etc. is something regularly used in society. The price of a commodity or item like a production car or yacht or aeroplane is a very good measure of the energy that went into producing it. Just to clarify - I notice that the article you gave is nearly three years old. Does that count as 'all recent'? And i am still not clear what I am allowed to call a subsidy. Perhaps you could quickly prescribe one that allows me to discuss the concepts I want to discuss. (I have to admit that I think it is ridiculous that I have to have other people policing the concepts, definitions and ideas I want to use on my own thread but you are a mod and i am not.) Feel free to post links. I am open to any sincere debate. It is really just trolls that I am fed up with. I expect discussion however, I do not accept argument from authority any claim has to be backed up with a convincing case. How do we measure the energy that has gone into all these processes do you think?

Sorry. My definition of what? Subsidy? I am reading the Conversation article but I do not believe that it is 'all recent evidence'. I am getting together some info which I believe shows that there are some major problems with renewables.

Sorry. I was waiting for 'all recent evidence'. Was that the link? The case I intended to make depends entirely on me using the concept of a conserved quantity. I am unable to do this and so I am unable to present a case to those who refuse to accept a defintion of the quantity I want to use. So I am rather stuck. If you have any suggestions how I might describe what I have defined above then please let me know. I was not intending to present 'evidence' in the form of a link to some authority, I was planning to use logic and commonly known facts.

I checked the rules and trolling is specifically discouraged. I felt that since that was all that was happening the thread was destroyed. I have given a working definition of the concept I want to use, I have explained why i chose the definition i chose, the definition does not need or have any relevance outside this thread. I will not be lured into being baited again by people pretending not to understand plainly obvious questions simply so that they can elicit further responses. I never claimed to do that, I simply explained how I would react to people who I feel are trolling. I hope that clarifies things.

Thankyou for your answer. You pretty much prove my case.

I explained quite clearly why I started a new topic. Hi Outrider. Thank you for your response. The energy needed to create and maintain the wind mills as well as the infrastructure needed to transmit the power they produce is not insignificant and I will argue that the combination of start-up cost (energy) and maintenance outweighs the energy they produce in their lifetime. The maintenance cost IS something that we have to pay for. I disagree. Can you give me an example and I will explain why I disagree. My guess is that you are talking about a gold watch encrusted with diamonds. That raises the question of why gold and diamonds are so expensive and that once again goes back to my original point - the cost of something is a measure of the energy that goes into producing it. I agree that creation and running are two different things but they both require energy. Once is a start-up one-off lump and the other is an ongoing consumption. You assume that as technology improves wind farms will become more efficient and so in the meantime we have to help them with a subsidy. I disagree with this for two reasons. The initial investment should be considered a lump sum that we are prepared to risk rather than an open ended blank check. (as any business start up should be) and secondly you are assuming that they will actually eventually become self sustaining. I have some reason to doubt this which I will explain in a moment once I get some more details together. Hi JC. Thankyou for your question. I would say that this kind of question is exactly why need to be very precise about what we mean by 'subsidy'. The problem we had earlier was that a bunch of people thought it was a good jape to quibble this concept endlessly. I will define a subsidy as a NET flow (of energy or money) into a system from an external system and I will say it is exactly the same as a negative tax. This is the definition I use because it is a conserved quantity. If people want to play their silly games they will be ignored. So basically I am using it as a way of tracking energy consumption. Energy is a conserved quantity and if we use a definition of subsidy and tax which are conserved quantities which represent movement of resources in and out of systems then these become good measures. eg if your energy business is needing a subsidy from somewhere then that is a good indication that you are absorbing more energy than you are producing. I am happy to clarify anything if it is unclear at this early stage.

I tried to discuss this earlier but the thread was hijacked by trolls and allowed to be hijacked by trolls. By an amazing coincidence they were the same people who had been rubbed up the wrong way on another thread earlier. (What are the chances eh!?) I have started new thread to discuss in a scientific way a topic which I find relevant. If you are not prepared to discuss then please do not conribute. I will indulge once or twice but no more, I have learned my lesson. You are not obliged to be on this or any other thread. The following people will be ignored unless they make a sincere effort. CharonY, Strange, hypervalent_iodine, John Cuthber When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them. Currently we have a lot of wind farms being subsidized. I am of the opinion that this is pure theatre and self delusion. If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes. This discussion often gets bogged down when people try to redefine the word 'subsidy' and include things like tax rebates in the definition. So I will use a definition here - a subsidy is a net flow of energy or money or some conserved quantity into a system from outside. eg If a windfarm gets more paid to it than it pays out in tax then it is subsidised ie there is a NET flow in. If you pay tax but get some kind of rebate for something then, as long as the rebate does not exceed what you pay in tax you are a NET taxpayer and not recieving a subsidy. It is important to define this word properly because people bandy about but, when pressed, are unable to actually understand the consequences of their ambiguous lax defintion. I will also add that as a corollary to this the Cost of something is a very good measure of the Energy that went into creating and running it. If wind farms cost more to build and maintain than they produce in a free market then they are not net producers or energy, they are absorbers. Sincere commentary welcome, trolling will be ignored and probably reported.

I did not make a statement, I asked a question about whether YOU think it is a subsidy. You refuse to answer because you would like to tell us that there is a subsidy in case three even though case 3 and case 1 are exactly the same. Hence a subsidy only means something if it is netted off and treated as a conserved quantity as I originally defined it. It is clear that you have just been jerking me around, (fine if it floats your boat), but you have kind of screwed up the thread for anyone else who may have wanted a sincere discussion. As far as I am concerned this thread is closed. I will not be responding any further. I suggest that a responsible mod lock the thread but i do not care either way. I will start new topic in a moment and ignore trolls. Have a great day.

Where did I say that everyone else was being taxed $5?? Where? I said no such thing. I stated above that the scenario applies to everyone. Why do you introduce stuff I never said? That is strawman behaviour, is it not? Last chance for simple straight Yes/No answers: Here is a test:You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?

Thank you for your response. For the last time - I have asked three very simple questions. Each is a separate scenario. I am asking people to use their own definition of subsidy to give me three simple Yes/No answers. When you have given these answers I will understand more about your use of the word. Do not complain about lack of progress of the thread when you are the ones obstructing. You are not obliged to be on this thread and if you have nothing to contribute then please stop clogging it up.

Since I have asked you (and everyone else) to use YOUR definition of 'subsidy' I cannot answer the questions. The point of them is to allow me to understand your definition of the word subsidy. I stated clearly above that there are three simple scenarios which apply to everyone. All you have to do is give a simple straight answer. It is not credible that you cannot give three Yes/No answers. I remind you that you are not obliged to be on this thread. Up until a couple of hours ago it did not exist and you were OK. So I suspect that you would be OK if you left it and let others who are willing to discuss it in good faith to get on and do so. I do not know what the ethics are of a mod trolling a thread or a troll modding a thread but I suggest you discuss it in the mod forum. I would have thought that you were obliged to maintain higher standards rather than abuse your privileges. I have asked you to answer three very simple questions using YOUR definition of a word so that I can resolve an ambiguity. You have refused. Thank you for your time. Have a great day. It is quite clear that I am giving three different scenarios and asking whether there is a subsidy involved. The question is quite clear. Please give an answer so that i can get an understanding of your definition of 'subsidy'.

I think that the best way to debunk wrong assumptions about aliens would be to produce one for scrutiny. I think you are onto a good subject, however. Don't let anyone shout you down.

Great. So now can you USE your working definition to answer the questions I asked so that I can understand your working definition a bit better and see whether the working definition you give provides a working definition for something which will allow us to discuss a conserved quantity? A simple yes or no. I won't bother indulging any further. The baseline rates are the same for everyone and the three scenarios apply to everyone. Please indicate whether there is a subsidy applying in each case.

So on a completely unrelated matter, there is a thread i posted about energy and subsidies. I posed three little questions. For some reason nobody is able to give a simple straight answer. I suggest you take a look because it actually ties in with what I have written here. You will be amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid answering a simple question. Have a look sometime. It is hilarious.

Since I have asked you (and everyone else) to use YOUR definition of 'subsidy' I cannot answer the questions. The point of them is to allow me to understand your definition of the word subsidy. (By the way that is about the third time you have posted a blank response. You want to be careful because that can be interpreted as Disruptive and Abusive. Not by me, I might stress, I don't care, but the mods.)

OK. Thanks for that advice.

Interesting article.

Read it. This bit is apt. having been kept alive by famine relief Still as long as YOU feel good doing the aid thing and 'saving' Africa...

Thankyou for your answer. You pretty much prove my case.

Really? Is this the thread for people who put preconceived ideas ahead of logic and evidence? OK. Thanks for the tip.

is that another empty quote or are you still editing?