'Coal is on the way out': study finds fossil fuel now pricier than solar or wind

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  3 months ago  •  67 comments

'Coal is on the way out': study finds fossil fuel now pricier than solar or wind
Around three-quarters of US coal production is now more expensive than solar and wind energy in providing electricity to American households, according to a new study.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


original

“Even without major policy shift we will continue to see coal retire pretty rapidly,” said Mike O’Boyle, the co-author of the report for Energy Innovation, a renewables analysis firm. “Our analysis shows that we can move a lot faster to replace coal with wind and solar. The fact that so much coal could be retired right now shows we are off the pace.”

The study’s authors used public financial filings and data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) to work out the cost of energy from coal plants compared with wind and solar options within a 35-mile radius. They found that 211 gigawatts of current US coal capacity, 74% of the coal fleet, is providing electricity that’s more expensive than wind or solar.

By 2025 the picture becomes even clearer, with nearly the entire US coal system out-competed on cost by wind and solar, even when factoring in the construction of new wind turbines and solar panels.

“We’ve seen we are at the ‘coal crossover’ point in many parts of the country but this is actually more widespread than previously thought,” O’Boyle said. “There is a huge potential for wind and solar to replace coal, while saving people money.”

Coal plants have suffered due to rising maintenance costs, including requirements to install pollution controls. Meanwhile, the cost of solar and wind has plummeted as the technology has improved. Cheap and abundant natural gas, as well as the growth of renewables, has hit coal demand, with the EIA reporting in January that half of all US coalmines have shut down over the past decade.

“Coal is on its way out,” said Curtis Morgan, the chief executive of Vistra Energy, a major Texas-based coal plant owner. “More and more plants are being retired.”

Data released last week highlighted the rise of renewables, with electricity generation from clean sources doubling since 2008. The bulk of renewable energy comes from hydro and wind, with solar playing a more minor, albeit growing, role.

Renewables now account for around 17% of US electricity generation, with coal’s share declining. However, the power of coal’s incumbency, bolstered by a sympathetic Trump administration, means it isn’t on track to be eliminated in the US as it is in the UK and Germany.

Fossil fuels continue to receive staunch institutional support, too. A recent report released by a coalition of environmental groups found that 33 global banks have provided $1.9tn in finance to coal, oil and gas companies since the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

In sobering figures released last week, the EIA predicted that US carbon dioxide emissions from energy will remain similar to current levels until 2050, with coal consumption dropping but then leveling off beyond 2020.

Such a scenario, disputed by other experts who argue the transition to renewables will be more rapid, would be compatible with disastrous climate change, causing vast areas of the US coastline to be inundated, the spread of deadly heatwaves, growth of destructive wildfires and food and water insecurity.

The Trump administration has largely ignored scientists’ warnings over these dangers, instead pushing ahead with an “energy dominance” mantra whereby enormous tracts of federal land and waters are opened up for oil and gas drilling.

The Energy Innovation report, which suggests the “smooth shut down” of ageing coal plants, comes as states and territories start to rally to California and Hawaii’s lead in committing to 100% renewable energy.

Lawmakers in New Mexico recently decided to follow suit, with Puerto Rico poised to vote on the issue this week as states and territories attempt to address climate change in lieu of the federal government.

“It would be better if we had a federal cohesive policy because not all states will take the initiative,” said O’Boyle. “In order to get an affordable, clean energy system we need both federal and state actors involved.”

Initial image: ‘We’ve seen we are at the ‘coal crossover’ point in many parts of the country.’ Photograph: Alamy

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    3 months ago
By 2025 the picture becomes even clearer, with nearly the entire US coal system out-competed on cost by wind and solar, even when factoring in the construction of new wind turbines and solar panels.
 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

They can't build enough solar and wind to replace coal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1    3 months ago
They can't build enough solar and wind to replace coal.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1    3 months ago

"Eminent Domain" for "Green" coming to a town near you !

The Birds, The Bats.....just animals in the way ! 

I'm working on sizing a sail for my car. It should be completed and ready to go in the year 2050 ! Still working out the no-wind kinks though. Maybe I'll add an Electric engine with a Nasty environmentally unfriendly Battery for power. Where do those Old nasty batteries go when they die anyway ?

Don't want to use "Natural Gas". It's just another "fossil fuel" dontchyaknow ! Just another "Drilling" into the "Green Earth" process ! Can't have that.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.3  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    3 months ago
They can't build enough solar and wind to replace coal.

If you think they can, explain to us how this would be accomplished.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.2    3 months ago
Where do those Old nasty batteries go when they die anyway ?

I'm glad you asked.....

How are Car Batteries Recycled?

 

car-battery-disposal-florida.jpg!d

At the recycling center, the battery is smashed to pieces in a hammermill first. The broken fragments go to a vat, with lead and heavy materials settling to the bottom and the plastic rising to the top. The plastic pieces are scooped out and the liquid drained, leaving the lead and metal materials.

The polypropylene plastic is then washed, dried and sent to a hopper where the plastic pieces are melted together. This molten plastic is directed through an extruder and formed into small plastic pellets, which are sold back to the manufacturers of battery cases for reuse.

The lead is melted in a smelting furnace, and the stray metals and other impurities are separated out. Lead is then formed into ingots, which are sent to battery manufacturers to produce new batteries. The old battery acid is sometimes neutralized with an alkaline compound like baking soda, turning it into water.

The water is analyzed to ensure safety, then released into the public sewer system. It can also be converted into sodium sulfate, a white powder that’s used in laundry detergent and other manufacturing processes. 

https://slbatterytire.com/blog/view/what-happens-to-my-old-car-battery
 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.4    3 months ago

Recycling is on it's way out. Not "Profitable" anymore. Our State is just about at a standstill on "Recycling". Not enough buyers for the after product ! 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.6  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.5    3 months ago

Please do a little reading on the economic notion of "value".

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.6    3 months ago

"Please do a little reading on the economic notion of "value"."

Been there, done that ! Saved one more step to the curb for me and my neighbors ! We tried...just didn't pan out !

Recycling actually is about "Profit", not Loss !

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.4    3 months ago

Gosh, SP! How do you know all this stuff!

One might almost imagine that you have a gigantic knowledge-base right there at your fingertips!

... oh wait...

original

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.7    3 months ago
Recycling actually is about "Profit", not Loss !

  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.9    3 months ago

You don't know....do you !

ya think Recycling companies were in it just for "Kicks" ?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.10    3 months ago

Car batteries are highly regulated and recycled regardless of the cost.

Curbside trash recycling is a for profit industry that needs high housing density as well as buyers to be profitable.

It doesn't work everywhere.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.11    3 months ago
Curbside trash recycling is a for profit industry that needs high housing density as well as buyers to be profitable.
It doesn't work everywhere.

I think I was noting that !

"Car batteries are highly regulated and recycled regardless of the cost."

look in the back of some folks homes, used car lots and some older "Automotive Parts" places for example,  one time.

That "Highly regulated" isn't so much working then. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.4    3 months ago
I'm glad you asked.....

I didn't think these were the same kinds of batteries used in electric cars.  Are they and I just don't know?

 
 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.13    3 months ago

He really did not specify did he?

All standard car batteries are capable of being recycled and places like dealerships and Napa, etc make a big deal out of complying with recycling.

Are electric car batteries like the enormous Prius batteries recyclable?

You bet they are, but by the time they start to fail most electrics or hybrids are many years older and are traded in.  Toyota has their own recycle program that is shared with Tesla.

Same process, same by products.

“The Prius is a good entry-premium car, and when this happens, we can get people to trade up to the next hybrid,” Sullivan said. “It’s a good story for us.”

Regardless of what the owner chooses, expired battery packs aren’t wasted, thanks to a battery recycling program Toyota launched in 2010. 

After being removed, the battery pack is sent to specialist recycling firm Kinsbursky Brothers in Anaheim, California -- the same firm responsible for recycling used lithium-ion battery packs from Tesla.

On arrival at the specialized facility, battery packs are broken down into their constituent parts, with nickel being smelted down for stainless steel used in making refrigerator doors, while rare-earth elements, plastic casings and electrolyte are all recycled into appropriate industries. 

Ultimately, the whole process is a win-win scenario for everyone involved: dealers get extra custom, and customers get to choose between a newer model with even better gas mileage or a new battery pack. More importantly perhaps, not a single traction battery pack ends up in landfill, proving that batteries -- no matter what their chemistry -- are still the most recycled consumer product. 

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071391_life-after-death-what-happens-when-your-prius-battery-dies
 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.15    3 months ago
Same process, same by products.

Cool.  Thanks.

We just bought my wife a plug-in hybrid in December.  We like it a lot.  I may get one next year.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.1.17  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.16    3 months ago

In fact replacement is very rare and usually covered by a 300,000 or 250,000 warranty regardless of time factors,

but could cost 4 to 5 K to replace retail,

but when I worked with Ford they were loathe to replace them - it always turned out to be some energy management software glitch or a sensor.

I'm just waiting for heavier vehicles since it's so damned windy here, lol.

I hate those unintended lane changes on 35 and there's not much room for error in some of the express lanes

on 35 & 820

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.17    3 months ago
I'm just waiting for heavier vehicles since it's so damned windy here, lol.

No kidding.

My wife's car is an X5, which is 5200 lbs, so we haven't had problems in the wind yet.  The first big road trip is next weekend, so we'll see.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.19  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1    3 months ago
They can't build enough solar and wind to replace coal.

Coal is dead and the industry knows it. Consol energy sold off their coal division. Arch and Peabody mining declared bankruptcy.

Peabody tried to walk away from their environmental regulations but the courts wouldn't let them.

Consol is investing in green energy and natural gas.

In April 2017, Consol Energy had divested all of its coal operations, except for the Pennsylvania mine which it was in the process of spinning off into an independent company.

.

In January 2016, Arch Coal filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This was stated to be a part of a restructuring aiming at reducing debt by $4.5 billion
 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    3 months ago

More and more utilities here in the US are converting to natural gas for power production. But how is coal selling overseas? I suspect sales are good, but yes, coal production is winding down slowly

The problem with wind and solar is that not enough power can be produced to satisfy the demands of the whole country, urban and rural, home and commercial buildings, especially during US winters with the short days, low sun angles, and no winds to speak of. The existing grid will still have to be ready to go on short notice as a back up source of power production.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @1.2    3 months ago
I suspect...

Why don't you take a few minutes to Google it and be sure?

The problem with wind and solar is that not enough power can be produced...

Oh? Do you have a source for that affirmation?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.2    3 months ago

Oh!

Do you mean that sometimes NT members may post "facts" that are not true?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you...

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.2    3 months ago

"It will also deliver more than $16 million in tax revenue over the first 10 years of its operation."

I get a refund ?

Oh....sorry...that's paid over to the Reckless Government Spenders !

And here i had hope ! jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

We have Duke Energy. When they installed their neat little "Exact Meter", my bill went up 75 bucks. Duke is soooooo caring !

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.4    3 months ago

Yeah well Duke will try to kill you one way or another.

Burning coal or refusing to cleanup toxic coal ash.

They have issues that someone has to pay for,

and utility customers always end up taking it in the "tail pipe".

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.5    3 months ago
and utility customers always end up taking it in the "tail pipe".

Oh ….. The "Stupid" utility customers in my state voted State wide to put more "Taxes" on Duke Energy....for "Feelings" sake.

"They'll get that Big BAD utility Company by God" !

They fucked themselves …. and ME ….. even more !

Now they are bitching again about the high cost of electricity.

Some folks shouldn't be allowed to VOTE !

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.6    3 months ago
'Some folks shouldn't be allowed to VOTE !'

Tell me about IT !

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.7    3 months ago
Tell me about IT !

A lot of folks have tried. jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.9  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.2.1    3 months ago
Oh? Do you have a source for that affirmation?

Do you have a source that says that wind and solar can supply 100% of our electrical needs anytime soon?

I deal with reality, not with hopes, dreams, and lots of taxpayer subsidies on renewables.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.10  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @1.2.9    3 months ago
I deal with reality...

deleted/ no record of comment [ph]

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     3 months ago

But but, coal is king.../s

 
 
 
Sparty On
4  Sparty On    3 months ago

I know what i'm going to say below is true for Natural Gas.   Not 100% sure about coal.   Coal might be closer due to all the emission control costs the EPA has added recently ....

That said, here's the problem with studies like this.   They usually don't account for all factors when they make comparisons.   Right now one word can destroy renewable energies cost per unit.

Demand.

The amount of additional infrastructure that is required with renewable sources is generally cost prohibitive from a cost per unit standpoint to the end user.   In other words your cost per KWH WILL go up significantly.   That'e because sun doesn't always shine and wind doesn't always blow.   Massive backup systems (such as battery banks) need to be built to insure "Demand" is met at all times.   Thus significantly raising the cost per unit to end users.

I suspect this study did not account for that.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @4    3 months ago

Are you implying that American ingenuity cannot come up with a blended solution and back up systems?

Evolution happens at all levels and this is no different.

Eventually there will be a blend of natural gas, nuclear and renewable energy that works for all 50 states.

I'm lucky to be in TX where I have solar that literally is free about 4 months of the year.

That may increase as we recently installed a Trane variable speed heat pump with variable speed blower to reduce our electric consumption by $110 per month.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @4.1    3 months ago
Are you implying that American ingenuity cannot come up with a blended solution and back up systems?

Not at all.   I just get tired of all the false promises made by renewable energy advocates.  

Most of them don't know their head from a hole in the ground but they're cool ..... green proposing machines.

100% renewable energy is a pipe dream with todays technology and cost tolerance.   Never happen in our lifetime with those considerations

That may increase as we recently installed a Trane variable speed heat pump with variable speed blower to reduce our electric consumption by $110 per month.

Nice, i applaud you but that just reaffirms part of what i'm saying.   Not everyone can afford the added cost of such a thing.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @4.1    3 months ago
Are you implying that American ingenuity cannot come up with a blended solution and back up systems?

I know I would not say that.  However, it's going to be quite some time before we actually get to the point of NEAR 100% renewable.  And that's a long way off.

U.S. electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 20181

Energy source          Billion kWh          Share of total

Total - all sources   4,178

Fossil fuels (total)  2,651                   63.5%  

Natural gas              1,468                   35.1%  

Coal                         1,146                   27.4%  

Petroleum (total)           25                     0.6%    

Petroleum liquids          16                     0.4%    

Petroleum coke               9                     0.2%  

Other gases                   12                     0.3%

Nuclear                       807                   19.3%

Renewables (total)     713                   17.1%  

Hydropower                  292                     7.0%  

Wind                              275                    6.6%  

Biomass (total)                63                     1.5%    

Wood                               41                     1.0%    

Landfill gas                      11                        .3%    

Municipal solid waste (biogenic)     7         0.2%    

Other biomass waste         3                      0.1%  

Solar (total)                      67                      1.6%    

Photovoltaic                     63                      1.5%    

Solar thermal                     4                        0.1%  

Geothermal                     17                         0.4%

Pumped storage hydropower3     -6         -0.1%

Other sources               13                          0.3%

Source:  https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Please note that the source is none other than the US Government itself.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.2    3 months ago
Please note that the source is none other than the US Government itself.

All the more reason to scrutinize it carefully.

Can you imagine what the wind or solar totals would be without Texas which generates at the very least 18% of its power from wind and solar?

And the chart only accounts for utility scale generation facilities.

That does not include almost 2 million homes with solar panels, a number which keeps growing every year.

And if I had a damned wind power generator during the last few TX nights we could be selling even more power back into the ERCOT grid.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.3    3 months ago
And if I had a damned wind power generator during the last few TX nights we could be selling even more power back into the ERCOT grid.

Four of America's 10 windiest cities are in Texas.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.4    3 months ago

That explains Texas politicians, LOL !!!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.5    3 months ago
Not at all.   I just get tired of all the false promises made by renewable energy advocates.  

Or maybe it's a result of Texas politicians......jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Jack_TX @4.1.6    3 months ago

384

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4    3 months ago

Petroleum is the most subsidized industry ever. There are subsidies at every stage, from exploration to depletion-writeoff.

Without those subsidies, gasoline at the pump would cost somewhere between ten and fifteen dollars per gallon.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2    3 months ago
Without those subsidies, gasoline at the pump would cost somewhere between ten and fifteen dollars per gallon.

And of course you have proof of that bit of satire correct?

Just because that's what fuel costs in Europe, don't extrapolate that to the cost here.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.1    3 months ago
And of course you have proof of that bit of satire correct?

I've seen many such reports. I know this to be true to my satisfaction. Feel free to do your own research.

Just because that's what fuel costs in Europe

No. It's around $8. EuroBigOil gets the same subsidies. Then drivers pay more pump taxes.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.2    3 months ago
I've seen many such reports.

YOU made the claim, now make a valiant (but likely futile) attempt at supporting it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.3    3 months ago

No.

If you're interested and honest, a few minutes with Google will enlighten you. If you're not interested or not honest, nothing anyone says will make any difference.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.4    3 months ago
If you're interested and honest,

To quote you;

NO

Obviously, you simply refuse to substantiate YOUR claim.

That's the difference between you and I.  When I post a claim as you did, I provide the SOURCE with it.

You run and hide saying research it yourself.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2    3 months ago

Not anymore Bob.    The failures for subsidized green energy companies have been copious in the US and elsewhere.

Try to BS someone else who doesn’t know the industry from a technical and personal basis.    You will lose this one if you keep trying.

Give it up.    Go after something else.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.6    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.5    3 months ago

Your problem.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.6    3 months ago
subsidized green energy companies

peanuts

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.9    3 months ago

Lol .... that’s the best you got?

You’re losing it there Bobby.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.11  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.10    3 months ago

I'm lucid, that's all.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.12  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.6    3 months ago
The failures for subsidized green energy companies have been copious in the US and elsewhere.

Oh boy, the Solyndra bogey man syndrome again?

By 2014 the USDE portfolio was doing well.

By 2016 the interest payments were rolling in from the survivors.

The program guaranteed loans, not the success or the survival of these companies. It was intended to spark innovation, like NASA did for Tang.

Congress under Bush in 2005, put aside 10 billion to cover losses, which so far totaled $780 million ( $528m on Solyndra alone, key the groans please /s )

Over all losses of 2.28% with projected collected interest of between 5 & 6 billion profit to  US taxpayers.

The program went quiet from 2011 til 2016 when it guaranteed new loans for 2 nuclear plants in Georgia and the Block Island Wind Farm off Massachusetts.

Naturally, Trump called on Perry to discontinue the program in 2017.

Once, informed by facts Perry not only kept the program  going but expanded it with TELGP, maybe 1st Warrior or Kavika can chime in with more info.

The Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program (TELGP) is a partial loan guarantee program that can guarantee up to $2 billion in loans to support economic opportunities to tribes through energy development projects and activities.

LPO has more than $40 billion in loans and loan guarantees available to help deploy large-scale energy infrastructure projects in the United State. Over the past decade, LPO has closed more than $30 billion of deals across a variety of energy sectors. Subscribe to LPO's newsletter to keep informed about the program.

https://www.energy.gov/lpo/loan-programs-office

So by most banking standards US DOE has done a better than expected job.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.11    3 months ago

Nah, more like puzzled.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.14  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.13    3 months ago

This is why I won't spend time doing research for you.

SP gave the details... which you ignored.

   jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.15  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.1    3 months ago

Well you could just google Us government energy subsidies" and see what pops up

instead of attacking anyone...even Bob.

https://www.fuelfreedom.org/oil-company-subsidies/

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

A new study, the G7 Fossil Fuel Subsidy Scorecard, measured the US against other G7 countries on each country’s progress in eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. The US ranked the worst out of the G7 countries, spending over $26 billion a year propping up fossil fuels. (The G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and the US.)

How did the US manage to score so low? By continuing to subsidize fossil fuel production, and then promoting even more pro-polluter, pro-fossil initiatives since President Trump took office.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/danielle-droitsch/time-us-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies

and

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies, not including other costs of fossil fuels related to climate change, environmental impacts, military conflicts and spending, and health impacts. This figure varies each year based on oil prices, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Greater transparency in reporting would allow for more precise figures.

When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.

Oil Change International’s most recent reporting looks at money for fossil fuel production only (including exploration, and extraction, and development) in the G20 governments – which includes many of the world’s most developed countries. These governments are providing support to oil, gas, and coal companies to the tune of $444 billion per year, between direct national subsidies, domestic and international finance, and state-owned enterprise investment.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/30/america-spends-over-20bn-per-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-abolish-them

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/06/us-still-subsidizing-fossil-fuels-to-tune-of-27-billion/

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-renewables-actually-depend-on-tax-breaks/

_

Now, in fact, there are still too many subsidies for oil & natural gas in my opinion, but many have been eliminated by Bush 43 & Obama,

when the government pushed wind and solar subsidies, ( many of which are supposed to be phased out in 2019 & 2020 )

leaving many fossil fuel tax incentives and direct subsidies from 1916, still intact.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.15    3 months ago
Now, in fact, there are still too many subsidies for oil & natural gas in my opinion, but many have been eliminated by Bush 43 & Obama,

Many of the "subsidies" described by biased media sources are simply standard tax deductions available to most companies.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.17  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.14    3 months ago

And that’s why I don’t waste too much time on you.    Your bias.

Characterizing Solyndra as any kind of success is absolutely ridiculous.   It was a complete flop.   The program that funded Solyndra became successful in time but what was lost on Solyndra taxpayers will never get back.

The left wing spin doctors are playing loud tonite.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.18  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.17    3 months ago

Ummm....

I did not mention Solyndra...

Perhaps you pay too little attention?

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.19  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.18    3 months ago

Sure you did, you quoted someone who included it.

Short attention span or intentionally disingenuous?    We both know it’s the latter.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.20  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.19    3 months ago

Do a "page search" in your browser. There are six instances of "Solyndra". None from me.

   jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.21  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.2.20    3 months ago

Wrong, as noted above, you referenced one.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.2.22  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.21    3 months ago
Wrong, as noted above, you referenced one.

Which do you mean, "quoted" or "referenced"? Or perhaps you don't know the difference?

   jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5  XDm9mm    3 months ago
said Mike O’Boyle, the co-author of the report for Energy Innovation, a renewables analysis firm.

Yeah, no bias or conflict of interest there, right?

 
 
 
nightwalker
6  nightwalker    3 months ago

Not bad thinking on Duke's part.

If they have solar panel farms it'd be cheap electricity and it'll keep people buying their power on their power grids because it would be cheaper for people then if they installed their own panels.

Still is a good idea for whatever reason.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online