Energy, Cost and Subsidy in Power Production

[NortonH]

2 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

You do not get to get around that because you are not satisfied with the responses you were getting.

I checked the rules and trolling is specifically discouraged. I felt that since that was all that was happening the thread was destroyed.

3 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Now, persistently wrong definitions of what constitutes a subsidy

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.

5 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Secondly, you do not get to dictate who is able to participate in a thread or even how they participate

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.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Would you kindly respond to the last part of my post? I have attempted to address your points there and would like your insight. 

 

[NortonH]

22 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

All recent evidence now suggests that they either are, or are well on track.

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.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I posted in direct response to you, so the assumption is that I am responding in reference to your chosen definition. If you care to read the article I posted, I believe there are some more links in there. 

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

so the assumption is that I am responding in reference to your chosen definition

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.

 

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

Hi Outrider.
Thank you for your response.

Hello NortonH.

Your welcome thank you for yours.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

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.

Ok I am anxious to see the evidence for this seeing how the method we use to gain electricity from coal involves numerous, numerous processes. The method we use to gain electricity from wind turbines uses, laughably, one.

Common sense, or logic if you prefer, would indicate the simpler method would prove to be the more efficient one.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

I disagree. Can you give me an example and I will explain why I disagree

Ok the Mp 05 Laferrari 50 Days Power Reserve Men's Watch coming in at just under 250,000$. Costs nothing to operate and manufactured for less than 5,000$.

VS

2018 RAM 1500 loaded for slighly less than 50,000$. Gets a nice 14 mpg and don't forget the oil changes.

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

I have some reason to doubt this which I will explain in a moment once I get some more details together

Ok I'll wait for the details.

[hypervalent_iodine]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

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.

 

 

I look forward to reading it.

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

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.

Ok I was thinking of posting some links myself but lets just do this your way. BTW I worked in a coal fired steam turbine plant for a number of years and thats how I know that one day wind will beat the pants off coal in efficiency. 

You all know how we generate electricity, a few magnets, a shaft and a coil and one more thing some way to spin that wheel. You can spin with your finger or a bicycle it doesn't matter its just got to spin.

The coal plant does this by burning refined coal to heat the water converting it into steam and shooting the steam through massive turbines that spin the wheel. All this takes a humongous apparatus (my plant was 17 stories tall and covered over 2 acres) that has to be rebuilt constantly. Every few months the plant fills up with hundreds of workers doing 7 day 12 hour shifts to rebuild a turbine or a furnace as fast as possible to get that wheel spining again.

All of this ignores mining, refining (ever hear of an acid bath) and transportation of the coal and all the good land that is laid to waste in the process.

All the wind turbine has to do is spin in the wind. Trust me my friend we have been refining our use of coal fired steam turbines for a long time we are just getting started with wind.

When the technology catches up coal will be dead and the only question there will be is why did we wait so long.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Outrider
Cause you know I made mistakes.

[beecee]

On 2/28/2018 at 5:57 PM, NortonH said:

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.

Hiya Norton! I see you are from Wollongong. That's only 85 kms South of Sydney,  where I reside. I often take the Mrs down there for a drive and relate what history I know of the Wollongong/Illawarra and of course Port Kembla region, only a couple of clicks further South. Great coal mining region and Steel production region of course. Just saying.

 http://www.nswmining.com.au/industry/nsw-mining-history

Edited March 1, 2018 by beecee

[NortonH]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Ok I am anxious to see the evidence for this seeing how the method we use to gain electricity from coal involves numerous, numerous processes. The method we use to gain electricity from wind turbines uses, laughably, one.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Common sense, or logic if you prefer, would indicate the simpler method would prove to be the more efficient one.

'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?

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Ok the Mp 05 Laferrari 50 Days Power Reserve Men's Watch coming in at just under 250,000$. Costs nothing to operate and manufactured for less than 5,000$

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.

 

1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

I look forward to reading 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.)

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

Ok I was thinking of posting some links myself but lets just do this your way.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

The coal plant does this by burning refined coal to heat the water converting it into steam and shooting the steam through massive turbines that spin the wheel. All this takes a humongous apparatus (my plant was 17 stories tall and covered over 2 acres) that has to be rebuilt constantly. Every few months the plant fills up with hundreds of workers doing 7 day 12 hour shifts to rebuild a turbine or a furnace as fast as possible to get that wheel spining again.

All of this ignores mining, refining (ever hear of an acid bath) and transportation of the coal

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

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

5 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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.)

 

Call it a subsidy if you wish, but I think you should make your context clear in the post to avoid confusion. 

I know it is a few years old, but it addresses the points I mentioned. I will aim to find some more recent ones later. Currently low on time and computer access. 

[NortonH]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

Call it a subsidy if you wish, but I think you should make your context clear in the post to avoid confusion.

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.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

22 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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.

 

 

I think you are reading more into my post than what is actually there. I said I am happy to use your meaning, and I said that with the implication that I was satisfied that you had explained sufficiently. I’m sorry that you don’t agree your use of the word is unusual, but everyone else here does. Whether or not you are correct, surely it serves you better to account for possible misunderstanding than it is to stubbornly deny it being an issue. I am not trolling you, I am trying to prompt the conversation you are supposedly after. 

Also, this might be a thread you started, but you do not get to dictate how it is run or how people choose to respond.

[John Cuthber]

Since a subsidy is a payment (or rebate or whatever) that one group gets, but another doesn't; you can't say whether me getting $1 back is a subsidy or not.

It is if I get it because I'm a solar power company and the coal power industry doesn't get it.

It's not a subsidy if everyone gets it.

That's why the question makes no sense.

To say if it is a subsidy or not, you need to know what everyone else gets.

[NortonH]

36 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Also, this might be a thread you started, but you do not get to dictate how it is run or how people choose to respond.

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.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, NortonH said:

 When someone has the gumption to actually engage and answer the very simple $10 question we can define a subsidy/skidka and we can use that to progress further and answer precisely your question. So far we are stuck because everyone is too scared to answer a simple question. This is like politicians in CYA mode, not science. Pathetic.

This does not answer the question. Don't think that nobody has noticed that you attack everyone for avoiding questions while avoiding the question.

14 hours ago, NortonH said:

My definition of subsidy/skidka allows us to discuss a conserved quantity. You can prevaricate and divert as much as you like but it will not change that fact.

It's not a conserved quantity, the way you are treating it. You are looking at net energy, not total energy. Total energy is conserved. Net energy is not.

14 hours ago, NortonH said:

Cheaper than what? Give me an example. 

Cheaper than before. The process being more efficient. Economies of scale. It has to do with reducing the average overhead costs, not the energy costs. If I was making 100 widgets but am able to increase that to 200, my rent and heating costs don't go up. The cost per widget goes down, even as the energy required per widget stays the same. 

Monetary subsidy and energy subsidy are not the same thing.

14 hours ago, NortonH said:

So why do they need skidkas?

My point has been that they don't, and I see nothing to indicate that these skidkas exist. You refuse to directly answer the question of what energy subsidy they require. You just insist that they do. Where is your evidence?

14 hours ago, NortonH said:

Until you answer the first questions I asked you are just going to go around in circles. I suspect that is what you want because it is clear you do NOT want to engage in any debate.

I can't address any of your points when you refuse to support your claims. 

[NortonH]

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.
 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

This does not answer the question.

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.

 

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 Which question?

Really? This is the path you choose?

The question is: what actual energy subsidy is required to make solar and wind work?

 

 

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The question is: what actual energy subsidy is required to make solar and wind work?

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.

 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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. 

It's your thread. You have the primary obligation here. 

3 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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). 

I'm a physicist. I understand conserved quantities just fine.

Why are you talking about financial subsidies? You claimed that they got skidkas. Energy, and only energy. You need to answer the question in terms of energy. Money is not energy, and energy is not money.

3 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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.

It is fairly easy to explain why young industries get financial subsidies. The manufacturing costs are high early in their evolution, and they cannot compete financially with established industries, even if their product will ultimately be better. Financial help will assist in R&D as well, in order to improve their efficiency and compete financially.

It has nothing to do with whether they are producing net positive energy.

[Strange]

Is money a conserved quantity? I thought economies could grow so that everyone got wealthier. (Off topic, I know. So ignore this)

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It's your thread. You have the primary obligation here. 

Nobody on this thread is under any obligation. Sorry. If you follow common courtesy I am happy to answer questions but if I get the impression I am being trolled I will ignore you. You refuse to answer the simple questions I asked so understand that I feel no obligation whatsoever to jump when you command.

 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why are you talking about financial subsidies? You claimed that they got skidkas

You obviously missed the bit earlier where Iodine very kindly allowed me to use a word more commonly understood. I have define the word I want to use in the way I want it so that it is a conserved quantity. Unfortunately the dictionary definition that everyone else wanted to use did not appear to lead to a conserved quantity, however, since nobody who demanded we use the dictionary definition could be bothered answering the three little questions I asked I am still unable to ascertain for sure. In any case the definition I have very kindly been allowed to use (on this thread only) does lead to a conserved quantity.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Energy, and only energy. You need to answer the question in terms of energy. Money is not energy, and energy is not money.

I agree. But I was planning to make the case that if you choose the right (conserved) quantities there is a relationship between the two. It is getting a bit late in the evening now so it might have to wait until tomorrow.

 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

It is fairly easy to explain why young industries get financial subsidies.

Most businesses use a start up capital. There is nothing wrong with spreading that out over time for a finite period but if it is permanent then that is  a different matter. In any case, until these things are off subsidies I will make the case that they are net absorbers of money and hence energy.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is money a conserved quantity? I thought economies could grow so that everyone got wealthier. (Off topic, I know. So ignore this)

One could sort of view tax money as conserved. Taxes + borrowing = expenditures.

But net energy is not. For every joule I dig up or harvest, all that matters is that it takes less than 1 joule to do so. But that 1 joule does not go into the equation. Just the difference between energy harvested and energy used, and that can be any value less than 1 joule

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Financial help will assist in R&D as well, in order to improve their efficiency and compete financially.

Indeed. Pretty much every industry gets some level of subsidy for research to develop new products. Are these all equivalent to energy, or is a subsidy in the automotive industry equivalent to cars?

 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Nobody on this thread is under any obligation. Sorry. If you follow common courtesy I am happy to answer questions but if I get the impression I am being trolled I will ignore you. You refuse to answer the simple questions I asked so understand that I feel no obligation whatsoever to jump when you command.

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

2 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 Most businesses use a start up capital. There is nothing wrong with spreading that out over time for a finite period but if it is permanent then that is  a different matter. In any case, until these things are off subsidies I will make the case that they are net absorbers of money and hence energy.

Many businesses get subsidies from the government. It's not just energy generation. The government (in particular, the military) often has a vested interest in certain technologies that would not be economically viable on their own, until a certain technical and manufacturing capability is reached; usually these are ventures that have low to moderate chances to succeed, so there is no business case to do the research. So the government gives companies money to do the R&D, and to develop the manufacturing capability if the product works as desired. And then starts buying the products once it gets to that point.