I would have thought that oil didn't get any kind of government subsidy. Also coal surely didn't.
But, I repeat that it would be better if there no government subsidies for any energy source.
Two problems arise from subsidies. One is that it throws off the market mechanism, so you don't know which is the best fuel. Second, it directs research in a particular direction, which may not be the best. This means major money goes chasing after perhaps a false path.
At the same time, those who might be interested in pursuing innovative alternatives are dissuaded by the enormous advantage enjoyed by those subsidized.
In other words, perhaps solar, wind, and nuclear might now be supplying us with electricity if government were not involved.
Harry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce wrote:
Harry, I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start and/or a big boost through subsidies of some kind. Oil certainly did. And nuclear really did, too. Do you say those subsidies were "bad"? Or is it only new subsidies that are "bad"? What has changed other than who are the economic royalists? WWHGsay?Bruce Leier > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 1:27 AM > To: Bruce Leier; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: The Solar Economy > > Bruce, > > If the presenter was correct, the $27,000 cost of each wind turbine was > written off with special tax advantages. That was the point I was making. I > would be happy to have no subsidies of any kind for any method of producing > power. > > As it is, how does that $27,000 mix into the cost pkh? > > Harry > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Bruce wrote: > > >Harry, > > > >Seems to be a lot of conclusions and judgments without many facts or > >much data. What was the cost pkh? What is the cost pkh? Give us that; > >then we can discuss something. > > > >Bruce Leier > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard > > > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 5:27 PM > > > To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Cc: Keith Hudson > > > Subject: RE: The Solar Economy > > > > > > Karen, > > > > > > I was waiting to give a paper at an AAAS annual conference (obviously, > >my > > > paper was the reason for good attendance). The guy ahead of me was > >giving a > > > paper on the economics of wind turbines. I had vaguely notice in the > >LA > > > Times proposals for investment in these things. The ads were careful > >to say > > > you needed an income of $250,000 - or a net worth rather more than > >that. If > > > you qualified, you could reap lucrative rewards from government tax > >breaks. > > > > > > He estimated that each wind turbine cost $27,000 - hidden in the tax > > > breaks, and never appearing in any balance sheet. My thought was > >forget > > > them as an energy source except in special locations. The economist > >had > > > other ideas. His recommendation was that the tax break system should > >end. > > > Instead, there should be direct subsidy by the Federal government. The > >fact > > > that the electricity produced was prohibitively expensive apparently > >didn't > > > occur to him. > > > > > > That was 20-30 years ago. I assume that during this time, the cost of > >a > > > turbine has gone up, but the efficiency of the turbines will also have > >gone > > > up. I wonder what the cost of a kilowatt is now? > > > > > > The economist's advice was taken. If you install a wind turbine, > >California > > > will now pay half the cost along with giving a tax credit of 7.5%. > > > > > > I don't know how the new wind-farms are financed. > > > > > > The put the solars out in the desert. Didn't help. > > > > > > Solar hot water heaters are in the yellow pages in Florida. They are > >also > > > used, I understand, all over North Africa. But, so far, as a > >replacement > > > for coal, oil, or nuclear - no luck. > > > > > > Fuel cells don't produce power, though from the excitement they cause, > >one > > > would think they are the definitive answer to non-renewables. The > >answer to > > > their use at the moment is Bah! Humbug! > > > > > > In Southern California. now the daily temperature is down into the > >60's - > > > practically freezing. (We may even get some rain in the next few > >days.) So > > > playing with these toys isn't crucial. But, in the North-East and > >Mid-West > > > they can't heat their homes with fantasies. Babies with pneumonia > >aren't a > > > pretty sight. > > > > > > So, the alternatives aren't particularly practical. They may become so > >in > > > due course, but at the moment - Marley's ghost has nothing to offer. > > > > > > Bah, Humbug! > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >----------- > > > > > > Karen wrote: > > > > > > >Harry, you are such a Scrooge: Bah, Humbug on all these new fangled > >energy > > > >projects! > > > > > > > >Light bulbs weren't that great when first invented. Telephones are > >much > > > >improved, some would say not for our benefit. Everyone agrees the > >auto is a > > > >better vehicle for transportation that the family mule, though a > >mule's > > > >emissions problems didn't impact as wide an area as airborne carbons > >do now > > > >and it could be recycled. We don't even want to start a thread about > >how > > > >much better medical science is that how it was practiced initially. > > > > > > > >Your arguments below against newer developments into sustainable > >energy > > > >projects seem to reflect the bottom line that if it doesn't work for > >me, > > > >right here in my own backyard, then it is doomed to failure. Sure, > >the new > > > >ideas are still being developed and will probably be best used as > >backups in > > > >the energy grid, but we need all the backups we can use. I haven't > >noticed > > > >too many people in California voluntarily riding their bikes to work, > >using > > > >oil lamps at home unless forced to by blackouts. > > > > > > > >Call me a Pollyanna, but I think that attempts to broaden our base > >for > > > >energy sources should be considered. No matter that they've just > >discovered > > > >huge wells of natural gas off the coast of India, (1) or that there > >may be a > > > >pipeline through northern Russia for its oil in another decade, we > >have to > > > >look at the needs of the future, not just living off the past. > > > > > > > >PacificCorp built a wind farm between Portland and Pendleton, Oregon > >in 3 > > > >months last fall. Works great and annoys just the birds, not the > >cows. PGE > > > >built a smaller-sized urban power plant in 6 months, and it > >immediately > > > >began acting as a supplement to the bigger plants. Some cities have > >tapped > > > >into their underground aquifers to heating city buildings, saving > >taxpayer > > > >money. It all adds up, and the supplements are accomplished quickly > >without > > > >huge voter or corporate commitment. > > > > > > > >So they weren't smart enough to put wind farms out in the countryside > >in S. > > > >California. The ones between the Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley > >have been > > > >in place since when, the 70s? Wouldn't those poles cycling in the > >wind be a > > > >nicer view interruption than oil rigs off the Southern coastline, > >say, that > > > >long stretch south of LA known as Camp Pendleton where nobody cares > >what the > > > >view is anyway? I am not aware of any windmill pollution or spill > >dangers. > > > >Since Pendleton is an Army base, there shouldn't be aircraft landing > > > >conflicts. > > > > > > > >And if they can't succeed with solar in lovely San Diego, then > >someone just > > > >had a bad business plan. Too much of the delay in building new > >nuclear > > > >power plants is the argument about retooling them and what tax > >credits can > > > >be had or denied. Then they take forever to construct and have to be > > > >recertified every 5 years (I think, still), a very time-consuming > >process. > > > >It's not the R&D, it's the profit line that is cramping the future of > > > >energy. > > > > > > > >Bush's energy vision is in the past. Individual states are moving > >ahead in > > > >spite of him, not following his leadership (2). Coal may be > >plentiful, but > > > >pulling it out of the earth is devastating large swaths of coal > >country, > > > >polluting rivers and drinking water for many communities. We have to > >have > > > >other options besides these old fossils. > > > > > > > >To quote Tufts Prof. Agyeman on sustainability, "It isn't rocket > >science; > > > >it's plain common sense. It's not about no growth, but a different > >kind of > > > >growth. It's about using more of our unlimited mental resources and > >less of > > > >our limited natural resources. It's about not using up our natural > >capital > > > >such as wilderness areas, forests, a fish stock or an aquifer, but > >living > > > >off the harvest and other ecological services they provide." (3) > > > > > > > >Karen > > > >East of Portland, West of the Windmills > > > >1. Big Gas Fields Found in Indian Waters @ > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/13/business/worldbusiness/13GAS.html. > > > >2. On Global Warming, States Act Locally @ > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36696-2002Nov10.html > > > >3. From Responsibility to Sustainability @ > > > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/783068.asp > > > >Harry wrote: If there was any place that solar power could work, > >it's in > > > >Southern California, where sunshine is the rule rather than the > >exception. > > > >Yet, solar power failed here in spite of government subsidy and > >complete > > > >relief from property taxes. > > > > > > > >That eventually it may become less expensive, or non-renewables might > >become > > > >more expensive may change things, but that's not now. > > > > > > > >Even if one forgets the cost, there is still the environmental > >impact. Both > > > >solar and wind take up enormous areas to produce the same energy as a > > > >modern power station. Wind makes lots of noise and people a mile or > >more > > > >away are bothered by the continuous onslaught on their ears. > > > > > > > >There seem to be only two probabilities - coal and nuclear. The US > >has coal > > > >that could last us for several thousand years. It can be sent through > >a > > > >pipeline too, if necessary. Nuclear is a best bet. The technology we > >are > > > >using is 3-4 decades old. New nuclear furnaces apparently don't > >require > > > >coolant or containment shells. > > > > > > > >Fuel cells are the biggie at the moment even though they produce no > >power. > > > >(Haven't these people learned anything at school?) > > > > > > > >If important people are beginning to discover the uselessness of > >Kyoto, > > > >could we say they are following a prescient George W. Bush? > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
