Texas urges residents to cut power usage as prices surge

Hawkeye10 said:
The claim that fossil fuels are massively subsidized are all over the place. I have not looked into it but given that they have always been heavily taxed I tend to doubt it.
Click to expand...
there is no question here.

O&G subsidies are massive and have been around forever. Don't buy the propaganda put out by the industries and the shills who parrot it.

Reforming global fossil fuel subsidies: How the United States can restart international cooperation

Globally, governments spend more than $500 billion on subsidies for fossil fuels that contribute to inefficiency, inequity, and negative externalities. Despite this obvious problem, efforts at reforming fossil fuel subsidies across the world have been piecemeal....
Click to expand...
global-fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies.jpg

cite
Click to expand...

Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022

The IEA has been tracking fossil fuel subsidies for many years, examining instances where consumer prices are lower than the market value of the fuel itself. Our systematic analysis highlights the magnitude of these subsidies, and the potential benefits of their removal for energy markets, climate goals and government budgets. This report provides our first estimates for 2022, which show that global fossil fuel consumption subsidies doubled from the previous year to an all-time high of USD 1 trillion.

The Glasgow Climate Pact emphasized that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is a fundamental step towards a successful clean energy transition. However, today’s global energy crisis has also underscored some of the political challenges of doing so. This report suggests lessons for energy subsidy reform from today’s energy crisis....
Click to expand...


Governments Spent Record $1 Trillion Subsidizing Fossil Fuels Last Year
Click to expand...
 
QP! said:
Are you suggesting the curves would bend down if instead they were reliant only on Coal and other fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

Red herring attempt on your part. The cost of natural gas has nothing to do with this. What it has to do with is that wind and solar are so unreliable that they require duplication of production means, and then when the over produce, negative sales that are later made up by raising rates on consumers. That is, if wind and solar over produce, the company owning those means of production pays customers to take their excess electrical power.

When they are under producing, they raise their rates on consumers to make up for that previous loss. Then when you couple that with the cost of the wind and solar farms, along with the duplicate means of production to cover when wind and solar aren't producing, you get a far more expensive commercial generation system. Toss in a "smart grid" to try and alleviate that, and you have a recipe for tripling to quadrupling the cost of electricity.
 
Into the Night said:
Hydrogen is colorless and odorless. Democrats do seem to have a lot of trouble with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There is no 'standard'. Government has no business dictating what car you can buy or what energy sources you can use.

It is far cheaper than either solar panels or windmills. It easily adjusts to changing loads on the grid as well, unlike solar panels or windmills.

It's not about taxes.

Hydrogen is not a pollutant.
Oxygen is not a pollutant.
Water is not a pollutant.
These are the ONLY materials involved in creating hydrogen by electrolysis.
The source of energy for the electrolysis is from existing power plants. It DOES require more energy to make hydrogen then to simply charge an EV.
Click to expand...

The process of producing hydrogen creates extreme pollutants.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Red herring attempt on your part. The cost of natural gas has nothing to do with this. What it has to do with is that wind and solar are so unreliable that they require duplication of production means, and then when the over produce, negative sales that are later made up by raising rates on consumers. That is, if wind and solar over produce, the company owning those means of production pays customers to take their excess electrical power.

When they are under producing, they raise their rates on consumers to make up for that previous loss. Then when you couple that with the cost of the wind and solar farms, along with the duplicate means of production to cover when wind and solar aren't producing, you get a far more expensive commercial generation system. Toss in a "smart grid" to try and alleviate that, and you have a recipe for tripling to quadrupling the cost of electricity.
Click to expand...

Not a red heerring.

Your post was the red herring. You post graphs showing the increasing cost of renewables as a way to say 'if you go to renewables... you are going to pay more', when i show in the same time frame the price of fossil fuels was also soaring.

So if there were no renewables the prices of fossil fuels would still soar but even more so, do to more demand with no renewables picking up some of the supply.

You tried to play the silly shell game. It would be like pointing at all Bidens problems to make the case for Trump while ignoring all of Trumps issues that are worse in the same areas.

You know, the thing you guys do all the time.
 
I agree with one sentiment though and that is to get government out of ICE vehicles and Oil and Gas.

NO more subsidies. No more bailouts. Stop dictating what people will buy thru those methods that end up making the end product cheaper and let the market dictate.

But since they will not stop subsidizing them they better equally subsidize renewables and throw in a bit more, to help catch up on the all the legacy subsidies and bailouts.


that is as close to a free market as we will get. Equalize the subsidies to all so no one channel has advantage and thus the government is picking winners and losers.

Time to even the playing field FINALLY for EV's and Renewables.
 
QP! said:
Not a red heerring.

Your post was the red herring. You post graphs showing the increasing cost of renewables as a way to say 'if you go to renewables... you are going to pay more', when i show in the same time frame the price of fossil fuels was also soaring.

So if there were no renewables the prices of fossil fuels would still soar but even more so, do to more demand with no renewables picking up some of the supply.

You tried to play the silly shell game. It would be like pointing at all Bidens problems to make the case for Trump while ignoring all of Trumps issues that are worse in the same areas.

You know, the thing you guys do all the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you go for wind and solar you will pay more for electricity! That's how it works. Historical data shows it clearly. So, if there were little or no use of 'renewables,' an oxymoron, and we went to natural gas and nuclear, there would be a reduction in electrical prices as well as one in CO2 emissions.
 
QP! said:
I agree with one sentiment though and that is to get government out of ICE vehicles and Oil and Gas.

NO more subsidies. No more bailouts. Stop dictating what people will buy thru those methods that end up making the end product cheaper and let the market dictate.

But since they will not stop subsidizing them they better equally subsidize renewables and throw in a bit more, to help catch up on the all the legacy subsidies and bailouts.


that is as close to a free market as we will get. Equalize the subsidies to all so no one channel has advantage and thus the government is picking winners and losers.

Time to even the playing field FINALLY for EV's and Renewables.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's remove all the government subsidies. No more solar, wind, or EV's as they aren't competitive. Works for me.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yes, let's remove all the government subsidies. No more solar, wind, or EV's as they aren't competitive. Works for me.
Click to expand...

Exaclty.

What 'works for you' is maintain all the massive subsidies for O&G and ICE, so you can pretend then it is a free market.

Classic righty. 'I hate subsidies unless they benefit the things i want benefited'.


At least on that front you are honest, for once.

I am for removing them on both (preferably) or keeping them on both. But no advantage to either.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yes, let's remove all the government subsidies. No more solar, wind, or EV's as they aren't competitive. Works for me.
Click to expand...

So let Europe and China take the lead in renewable energy? India just landed a probe on the Moon. Solar is the key to energy in space. How far back to you want the US to fall? Horses and buggies, Terry?
 
Doc Dutch said:
So let Europe and China take the lead in renewable energy? India just landed a probe on the Moon. Solar is the key to energy in space. How far back to you want the US to fall? Horses and buggies, Terry?
Click to expand...

Let them. "Renewables" (aka solar and wind) are total fucking losers as energy sources. The US should shift to nuclear with natural gas filling the variable part of the load. Wind and solar should be dumped entirely as the worthless generation systems they are.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Let them. "Renewables" (aka solar and wind) are total fucking losers as energy sources. The US should shift to nuclear with natural gas filling the variable part of the load. Wind and solar should be dumped entirely as the worthless generation systems they are.
Click to expand...
Thanks for admitting you want China to overtake the United States in technology, Terry. I knew you wanted the US to fail but it’s both sad and interesting to see you prove it.
 
ERCOT runs Texas power. They are maximizing profits and cutting maintenance and technology as cheaply as possible.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Thanks for admitting you want China to overtake the United States in technology, Terry. I knew you wanted the US to fail but it’s both sad and interesting to see you prove it.
Click to expand...

You are a delusional idiot. Solar is a pretty much dead end technology, as is wind. There's no technology for China to overtake. At the same time, if China wants to mass use an inefficient and marginal technology like solar and wind, why should we stop them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top