Energy, Cost and Subsidy in Power Production

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

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?

It is a prestige item but it is also a production item kinda like you can pay 15$ or 50$ for the same ribeye steak some people just prefer to pay more. This is why cost isolated from all other considerations is not a good way to judge what you are getting. But nevermind I withdraw my example and provide another one. 50,000$ Ram 1500 vs 70,000$ Lexus GS 450h F sport.

3 hours ago, NortonH said:

How do we measure the energy that has gone into all these processes do you think?

If we just do it by cost we are going to miss alot. For instance do I get to factor in the fact that if I go to the river and catch a fish and eat that fish I will be ingesting mercury spewed out by Alabama's coal burners?

BTW do you wonder who built and maintains these plants? The state owned corporation know as Alabama Power. The federal corporation know as Tennessee Valley Authority owns our two operating nuclear plants. We a bunch of sneaky socialist down here in the south shh don't tell the liberals. If I have time later I will tell you about the scandal know as Bellefonte the nuclear plant that was never finished. 

So by your definition are all these plants fully subsidized?

Also I wanted to acknowledge that you do understand the main challenge for renewables is low energy density.  Thats the hurdle technology must make. But its nothing new we also have 18 hydroelectric dams also owned by those dagnabit TVA socialists.

One more question the most important one. When I see projections we always run out of gas first and coal last. These projections run from 80 years to 384 years before the coal runs out. (Of course the wars over who gets to keep the lights on will start before then)

What do we do? When we run out of coal?

[DrP]

28 minutes ago, Outrider said:

What do we do? When we run out of coal?

The old gits that only have a few decades left in them probably don't care...  as long as they can still make their money off of coal whilst they are alive who cares what happens after they are gone? They clearly don't. 

 

In the EU we currently produce over 30% of our electricity from renewable sources. This is predicted to be 50% by 2030. This is EU in total!  Some countries don't bother, but will align with the leaders later in the century for sure. Some countries are actually producing more power from renewables than fossil fuels now already.  This is a clear example that it does work and is improving all the time. 

 

https://qz.com/1193603/two-countries-are-the-reason-the-eu-is-hitting-its-ambitious-renewable-energy-targets/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by DrP
typo

[koti]

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

The old gits that only have a few decades left in them probably don't care...  as long as they can still make their money off of coal whilst they are alive who cares what happens after they are gone? They clearly don't. 

 

In the EU we currently produce over 30% of our electricity from renewable sources. This is predicted to be 50% by 2030. This is EU in total!  Some countries don't bother, but will align with the leaders later in the century for sure. Some countries are actually producing more power from renewables than fossil fuels now already.  This is a clear example that it does work and is improving all the time. 

 

https://qz.com/1193603/two-countries-are-the-reason-the-eu-is-hitting-its-ambitious-renewable-energy-targets/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Renewable_energy_statistics

 

There was a time around Christmas last year in Germany when energy prices went negative:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/business/energy-environment/germany-electricity-negative-prices.html?referer=https://www.google.pl/

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, NortonH said:

t is my question. Answer it and we can progress.

 If you and I both make $10 an hour, both use the same govt provided infrastructure, both pay $5 in taxes, yet you are getting a $1 back and I don't my tax money is being used to subsidize the refund you receive. Yes, you are being subsidized. That is the answer to your question. It simply isn't the answer you want or you fail to understand how taxation works. 

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

 If you and I both make $10 an hour, both use the same govt provided infrastructure, both pay $5 in taxes, yet you are getting a $1 back and I don't my tax money is being used to subsidize the refund you receive. Yes, you are being subsidized. That is the answer to your question.

You would think that was the answer, but he insists everyone gets the $1 back. So it doesn't appear to be a subsidy. 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

You would think that was the answer, but he insists everyone gets the $1 back. So it doesn't appear to be a subsidy. 

Right, too bad subsidies are real things and everyone isn't getting a dollar back. In a fantasy world where everyone got the dollar back in total parity to what they paid and infrastructure/ services continued equally than it wouldn't be a subsidies. Sort of like how if I could live forever than I would never die. Add in fictional factors and what's unreal suddenly becomes real. 

[Strange]

Which is why his question makes no sense.

[NortonH]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

You're wrong. You need to read the rules you agreed to follow when you joined.

I just checked those. My point stands.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Many businesses get subsidies from the government. It's not just energy generation.

That does not change the point I made. (Remember set theory. The set of things I am talking about is not necessarily the things you want to talk about even though there may be a non-empty intersection set.) In any case the same logic does actually apply. If companies are recieving subsidy from outside then they are consuming more energy than they produce. If the company is not an energy producer then that is not likely to be a problem.If the company IS an energy producer (or supposed to be) then that is clearly an absurd situation. Yet that is precisely what we have with wind farms and solar plants.

Edited March 1, 2018 by NortonH

[koti]

47 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I just checked those. My point stands.

That does not change the point I made. (Remember set theory. The set of things I am talking about is not necessarily the things you want to talk about even though there may be a non-empty intersection set.) In any case the same logic does actually apply. If companies are recieving subsidy from outside then they are consuming more energy than they produce. If the company is not an energy producer then that is not likely to be a problem.If the company IS an energy producer (or supposed to be) then that is clearly an absurd situation. Yet that is precisely what we have with wind farms and solar plants.

Lets see...in your previous threads your stance was let people from 3rd world countries starve to death because money and imigrants, climate models are not there or cannot be trusted so we should disregard that problem and now you insist on not promoting clean energy because it doesn’t make sense economically. Does that sound about right with regard to your views or did I miss something?

Edited March 1, 2018 by koti

[NortonH]

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

I withdraw my example and provide another one. 50,000$ Ram 1500 vs 70,000$ Lexus GS 450h F sport.

OK. Thanks. I would argue that even prestige cannot be obtained without energy being expended but let's just keep in simple. So the question is - why does the Lexus cost more than the RAM? I would argue that at every step of the process the Lexus has had more spent on its components or fabrication and all of that has eventually come down to energy consumed. I do not know the vehicles in question but I know Lexus is known for quality. That means that every component has been given more care and attention, more man hours, more testing etc.

What does 'higher quality' entail? I compare the metal in my garden spade to the turbine blade of a Rolls Royce jet engine. The two items are about the same size and weight and made of similar materials and so naively you might think that the same energy has bee expended on each one despite the huge difference in price. However on closer examination, if you look at the processing and man hours of attention that has gone into the turbine blade it is clear that it has absorbed more energy in its fabrication. How do we keep track of all this energy? Well I contend that it can be done by treating the free market as a huge analog computer. The cost of the item produced by the market is a good measure of the energy that went into providing it.

[John Cuthber]

I'm trying to work out if this whole thread is just a spectacularly long-winded way to say something like this:

It it takes more energy to make a wind turbine than it will produce during its lifetime then we shouldn't make it.  In particular, public funds should not be spent on making it.

 

[NortonH]

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

BTW do you wonder who built and maintains these plants? The state owned corporation know as Alabama Power.

I believe you. These are known as the creditors in any business start up. They are the ones who benefit from a successful venture.

 

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

So by your definition are all these plants fully subsidized?

No. That is why I specifically defined the word I want to use. Please read the definition I gave. It has nothing to do with government, it is to do with net flow one way or the other. Let me illustrate very briefly by asking you a question - every week my mother pays $100 towards my nephews rent. I claim that she is subsidizing his rent. By the dictionary definition we have been prescribed that is not the case however. So in your opinion, if i said that I thought my mum was subsidizing my nephews rent would you understand what I was trying to say? Would you agree with my claim? 

 

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

Also I wanted to acknowledge that you do understand the main challenge for renewables is low energy density. 

Yes. I do. The fact is of course that this cannot be changed. We cannot adjust the intensity of wind or sunlight. We are stuck with them.

 

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

What do we do? When we run out of coal?

That is the question we have to think seriously about. One thing we need to accept is that when coal is gone then all the subsidies to wind and solar are gone as well. So if we are designing renewable systems that rely on coal to provide the subsidies they need to keep them going then we have a problem.It seems to me that renewables are likely to fail and I would suggest we use our resources to develop thorium instead.

8 hours ago, DrP said:

This is a clear example that it does work and is improving all the time.

If renewables work then why do they need subsidies paid for my fossil fuel?

[Ken Fabian]

Accept the science on climate and you will find that you must accept that the largest "subsidy" of all is the climate costs of excessive fossil fuel use, costs that will emerge and be sustained over time. 

Don't accept the science on climate and that "subsidy" can be made to appear exaggerated or non-existent.

"Appear" is the important word here; global warming doesn't go away by refusing to believe it. But for people holding positions of trust and responsibility the choice to dismiss and ignore the consistent and persistent expert advice is negligence; to do so knowingly can make that criminal negligence. I think that is why 'maverick' climate scientists are so highly prized in this - they are an essential ingredient to running "the experts disagree" defence in the event that these matters ever face serious legal action. 

[NortonH]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 If you and I both make $10 an hour, both use the same govt provided infrastructure, both pay $5 in taxes, yet you are getting a $1 back and I don't my

That is not the scenario I proposed so if that is supposed to be an attempt to answer my very simple questions then that is a fail. 

8 hours ago, Strange said:

You would think that was the answer, but he insists everyone gets the $1 back. So it doesn't appear to be a subsidy. 

You are slowly getting there! I have actually given the answer already.

20 minutes ago, koti said:

Lets see...in your previous threads your stance was let people from 3rd world countries starve to death because money and imigrants, climate models are not there or cannot be trusted so we should disregard that problem

Is this relevant? Is there not some rule about hijacking threads?

20 minutes ago, koti said:

insists on not promoting clean energy because it doesn’t make sense economically.

Yes. You have finally comprehended something. If 'clean energy' does not make sense economically in a free market then it does not make sense in energy terms and is therefore pointless.

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm trying to work out if this whole thread is just a spectacularly long-winded way to say something like this:

It it takes more energy to make a wind turbine than it will produce during its lifetime then we shouldn't make it.  In particular, public funds should not be spent on making it.

 

That is pretty much what I claim. I am actually trying to put more general case but that is certainly one example. It could have been so simple without all the trolling eh!? 

8 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Accept the science on climate and you will find that you must accept that the largest "subsidy" of all is the climate costs of excessive fossil fuel use, costs that will emerge and be sustained over time. 

Please see the definition I used for subsidy and try again.

Alternatively please tell me EXACTLY how you define the word subsidy and I am happy to work with that. 

Either way you like.

[John Cuthber]

11 minutes ago, NortonH said:

25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm trying to work out if this whole thread is just a spectacularly long-winded way to say something like this:

It it takes more energy to make a wind turbine than it will produce during its lifetime then we shouldn't make it.  In particular, public funds should not be spent on making it.

 

That is pretty much what I claim. I am actually trying to put more general case but that is certainly one example. It could have been so simple without all the trolling eh!? 

It would have been better if you had just said what you meant, rather than repeatedly asking an impossible set of questions.

 

Why did you choose the silly option, or is that what you meant by " all the trolling"?

[NortonH]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

It would have been better if you had just said what you meant, rather than repeatedly asking an impossible set of questions.

What I want to say goes a long way beyond that and the questions I asked were very simple and easy to answer if you have in mind a definition of 'subsidy'. The ONLY reason people chose to troll me rather than answer the very simple questions is because the example i gave makes it quite clear to even the dimmest bulb that the only useful definition of subsidy is as a conserved quantity and the 'dictionary definition' is to vague and ambiguous to be of any use in a scientific debate. As soon as I asked those questions my point was clear and the only escape for the trolls was to avoid answering the questions. 

I suggest you answer them right now and you will see what I mean.

 

[tuco]

If you allow me a suggestion, NorthonH, there would perhaps be less or no alleged trolling if the topic started with something more than a claim. For example here: Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience - http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/138233/Economic-impacts-promotion-renewable-energies-German-experience.pdf

Either way, do not mind me and carry on. It's an interesting topic and criticism of subsidies can be valid. 

 

[Ken Fabian]

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Please see the definition I used for subsidy and try again.

I noticed in that other thread that you like to apply a particular, narrow definition to something as a way to justify rejecting information you don't agree with.

Greenhouse gas driven climate change resulting in for example, permanent loss of economically valuable low lying lands are an economic cost to those living or owning low lying land - benefits from burning those fossil fuels are enjoyed by some that put a burden of costs onto others; I call that a form of subsidy irrespective of how you think "subsidy" should be defined.

You may not accept that there is any direct link between enjoying the benefits of burning coal for people now and the harms of land inundation in the future  - but the best advice available says that there is clear evidence of sea level rise along with direct effects of global warming and phenomena like ocean water expansion and ice sheet melt that have affects on sea levels.

[koti]

25 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Yes. You have finally comprehended something. If 'clean energy' does not make sense economically in a free market then it does not make sense in energy terms and is therefore pointless.

According to your logic, it also doesn’t make sense economicaly to have children. Children cost money, lots of it over long periods of time. It would make more sense economicaly to sell your children once you have them to a human trafficker for profit. Would you say that this makes sense?

[NortonH]

7 minutes ago, tuco said:

If you allow me a suggestion, NorthonH, there would perhaps be less or no alleged trolling if the topic started with something more than a claim.

I started with a claim which I was prepared to back up with a logically constructed argument. I was hindered from making the argument by trolling. 

Even now you can see that some people are still whining about a concept I am trying to use simply because they refuse to engage in any serious discussion and are able to get away with trolling. (HINT: If you see mods trolling then you know that trolling is OK!)

5 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I noticed in that other thread that you like to apply a particular, narrow definition to something as a way to justify rejecting information you don't agree with.

Please explain how me using a precise and unambiguous definition of a concept I want to use in an argument in any way 'rejects information'.

 

7 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Greenhouse gas driven climate change resulting in for example, permanent loss of economically valuable low lying lands are an economic cost to those living or owning low lying land - benefits from burning those fossil fuels are enjoyed by some that put a burden of costs onto others; I call that a form of subsidy irrespective of how you think "subsidy" should be defined.

You may not accept that there is any direct link between enjoying the benefits of burning coal for people now and the harms of land inundation in the future  - but the best advice available says that there is clear evidence of sea level rise along with direct effects of global warming and phenomena like ocean water expansion and ice sheet melt that have affects on sea levels.

Is there not some rule against attempting to hijack a thread? Or are you 'soap boxing'? I will wait for a mod to decide. Not my problem. I will exercise my right to ignore you.

7 minutes ago, koti said:

Would you say that this makes sense?

No. I would say you were misrepresenting my argument in an attempt to resurrect your glorious day of trolling.

I will now exercise my right to ignore any irrelevant comments from you.

[koti]

30 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 

No. I would say you were misrepresenting my argument in an attempt to resurrect your glorious day of trolling.

 

What is the difference between engaging against clean energy and selling your children for profit? Both are economically correct according to your "logic", could you explain where the misrepresentation lies?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

I started with a claim which I was prepared to back up with a logically constructed argument. I was hindered from making the argument by trolling. 

Even now you can see that some people are still whining about a concept I am trying to use simply because they refuse to engage in any serious discussion and are able to get away with trolling. (HINT: If you see mods trolling then you know that trolling is OK!)

Wow! Every second post of yours in all your threads seem to indicate that you have somewhat of a chip/log on your shoulder. 

 

Quote

Is there not some rule against attempting to hijack a thread? Or are you 'soap boxing'? I will wait for a mod to decide. Not my problem. I will exercise my right to ignore you.

Well that seems to be par for the course, considering that you also ignore any and all professional relevant authoritive advice on any and all issues you seem to want to argue on.

 

An Interesting project now completed in South Australia thanks to Elon Musk.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-05/yes-sa-battery-is-a-massive-battery-but-it-can-do-more/9227288

"Last Friday, the "world's largest" lithium-ion battery was officially opened in South Australia. Tesla's much-anticipated "mega battery" made the "100 days or it's free" deadline, after a week of testing and commissioning.

Unsurprisingly, the project has attracted a lot of attention, both in Australia and abroad. This is largely courtesy of high-profile Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, not to mention the series of Twitter exchanges that sparked off the project in the first place.

Many are now watching on in anticipation to see what impact the battery has on the SA electricity market, and whether it could be a gamechanger nationally".

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Not sure what subsidies if any are involved, but certainly a great boost to clean efficient energy.

Edited March 2, 2018 by beecee

[NortonH]

1 hour ago, koti said:

selling your children

Not sure what you mean by that. I checked my sons bedroom this morning.

The count was as follows:

Sons Present                                 ONE

Receipts for Sales of children    ZERO

I hope that clarifies things.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Not sure what subsidies if any are involved, but certainly a great boost to clean efficient energy.

A battery is not a source of energy, it is a temporary reservoir. The battery that has been provided at an undisclosed cost estimated at around $50M stores as much energy as about 15 tons of diesel. ie half a road tanker.

 

If you think it is a boost to clean energy then I suggest you take a look at how it is produced and how much fossil energy went into its fabrication.

[iNow]

[NortonH]

Imagine if I did that.