Renewable Revolution

Energy => Fossil Fuel Folly => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 10, 2013, 09:13:03 pm


Title: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 10, 2013, 09:13:03 pm
Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.


What is a fossil fuel subsidy?

A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.

Are you looking for information about International Fossil Fuel Subsidies?  Then go here.

Want to take action to end fossil fuel subsidies? Sign this petition.

How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below


http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Title: The True Cost of Oil
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 06:57:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=84zIj_EdQdM
Title: The Cost of Carbon
Post by: AGelbert on October 18, 2013, 05:56:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kY-ZnpWbJdw

The fossil fuel industry is NOT PAYING IT; WE ARE!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/minzdr.gif)

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif)   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)
Title: Fighting the good fight
Post by: AGelbert on October 20, 2013, 03:06:22 pm
From a thread I participated in  ;D to keep the fossil fuelers from spreading 'inaccuracies'.  ;)


Stan Curlee   

No A.G., I deplore inflated dividends also. And did I post yet on being dead set against nuclear? I am. Here’s the bottom line with me and I have stated it here more than once. My concern is a dependable grid that will not harm the percent delivery on demand and quality of power we get or cause financial pain beyond what we can afford—vastly higher rates, vastly higher taxes or government default.

If renewables can do it, fine. But they cannot, I submit, past about 15% penetration. And everyone is going to have to find that out the hard way. I’m not sure I’m “mobilizing” against anything, but this is a hoppy and passion, just because I’m a techy type on this stuff and love it. . . . Unless you consider me an army of “one.” A.G., I ask you to dig deep and really consider how many technical points/challenges I am actually misrepresenting. (?) Really? And RE phase 3, I don’t think I’m disguising anything. I think Scheer left out the “honest engineering challenge” phase. He assumes there are ZERO honest challenges to this?? Not one? There’s nothing special about me, but this is my discipline. I run numbers similar to these and risk assess complex systems all the time for viability when I have to solve engineering problems. Thomas made a very telling remark in his great article. Remember? There are simply so many non-technically trained people in places of power and influence who simply will not listen to or take advice from those of us who are technically trained. Their minds are made up.


A. G. Gelbert 


Stan,
Here's the main problem I have with your defense of the fossil fuel energy status quo as if it was something reasonably priced, economical, viable and sane as opposed to your continuous insistence on claiming that renewable energy is too costly and/or unreliable:

Fossil fuel energy was never, and I mean never, cost effective.
In a sane society that doesn't pretend you can add and subtract whatever factors you wish in order to come up with a profit that will attract investment capital, you figure in all the costs to human society.

From the moment John D. Rockefeller started flushing gasoline down the rivers in Pennsylvania in the late 19th century (it was a waste product then) after refining crude oil for lubricants and lamp oil, huge costs were being foisted on society.

Coal is even worse. You pretend all that is water under the bridge. You pretend all the benefits of modern society are an acceptable tradeoff.

Well, they aren't. The only premise that is logical and sane now, with the continued damage that adds insult to injury to the biosphere we all depend on, is to admit that fossil fuels were never a viable, cost effective, sustainable source of energy for mankind and press on to renewable energy simply because there is no other alternative.

Argue this isn't real and those who defend fossil fuel energy are not in la la land in regard to the actual cost of these poisons if you dare.

The subsidies the fossil-fuel (and nuclear) industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity.[18]

IEA position on subsidies

According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production. ,"Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits.

 Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits".[19] In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits".

The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand. "A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue."[20]

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products claim half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach according to IEA $250 billion by 2035. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development.

Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

I say they should take the subsidy money presently assigned to fossil fuels and transfer all of it to renewable energy subsidies.

Fossil fuel was never a viable energy option for mankind. We cannot afford to burn fossil fuels, period.

Somehow, I don't think, you, Stan, would agree to the shutting off of all fossil fuel subsides and giving that money to renewable energy for at least as long as fossil fuels had it (about 100 years!) .




The rest of that thread and the article it was based on here (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08/norway-approves-3-billion-for-wind-power-plants-to-triple-capacity#comment-127376)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2013, 11:05:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za4r5uWj4AY&feature=player_embedded
Title: The REAL "real world"
Post by: AGelbert on October 29, 2013, 03:04:34 pm
Feast your eyes on this EXCELLENT comment that summarizes what pro-fossil fuelers REFUSE to see  ;) about TRUE energy costs versus pricing.


 Gerry Wootton   
 October 29, 2013 

The point about energy independence may not apply (yet) to countries with lots of coal and gas, or at least not in an obvious way. For countries that rely to any extent on imported energy this is more expensive than face value as it continuously drains the domestic money supply: while energy to some extent is converted into value, a large part of it is simply lost even in relatively efficient systems so the balance of trade is always negative.

However, Germany does have a fair bit of coal; the thing they have realized is that coal because of its extreme externalities places a heavy distributed burden on the economy even if its point load seems small. From this perspective, dependence on non-renewable energy, even if domestic, is not energy independence as this energy use places a burden on the economy while scarcity alone determines pricing. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif)
 


One important aspect mentioned in the article is that distributed generation attracts private capital in a way that the centralized model does not and also frees up competition in the market.

A market does not even need a great deal of free competition to make it become competitive. This is certainly one reason that for profit utilities must resist: what is good for the consumer is not good for the shareholder  :emthup:; further, enterprises that have a history of monopolistic control are often poorly equipped  ;) to work in a truly competitive way.  >:(

In my experience, another value of distributed generation, not mentioned in the article, is that it makes consumers more aware of consumption and motivates restraint on consumption and desire for efficiency.  

In off-grid applications there is always a highly visible tension between the cost of generation and storage versus the cost of high efficiency appliances. American utilities unwittingly are playing chicken with that issue by limiting roof-top capacity to an approximation of average customer demand.(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-anime-047.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)


The Official Explanation for the German Energy Transition (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/10/the-official-explanation-for-the-german-energy-transition)

Short List of willfully blind (but not batty  ;) ) bats:

Nicole Foss
Gail Tverberg
Tyler Durden
Charles Hall
CNN
CNBC, etc.   >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.
Post by: AGelbert on October 29, 2013, 09:48:10 pm
The way it USED TO BE was THIS:

(http://paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/plaatjes/world-according-to-americans.jpg)

YES, THERE ARE STILL DIE HARD WAR AND OIL LOVING IDIOTS out there BUT THE TREND IS NOT THEIR FRIEND!

(http://wizbangblue.com/images/2008/02/is_the_iraq_war_causing_the_recession/iraq-oil.jpg)

Americans have become reacquainted with arithmetic:  ;D


IRAQ War = SUBTRACT $,$$$,$$$,$$$ from the US Economy!   ???  >:(


Iraq War Could Have Paid For 100% Renewable Power Grid
 
by Washingtons Blog - April 14th, 2013, 3:30am

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/iraq-war-could-have-paid-for-100-renewable-power-grid/ (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/iraq-war-could-have-paid-for-100-renewable-power-grid/)

Iraq War Poll: 10 Years Later, Majority View Invasion As Mistake

Quote
Ten years after the United States invaded Iraq, 53 percent of Americans now view the war as a mistake -- but with a majority of Republicans still standing behind the effort, according to a new Gallup survey.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-poll_n_2899987.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/iraq-war-poll_n_2899987.html)


(http://www.greenamerica.org/images/pubs/realgreen/articleimages/greenenergy240w.jpg)

RENEWABLE ENERGY = ADD $,$$$,$$$,$$$ TO the US Economy!




(http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/ce/Bipartisan-RES.jpg)


THAT'S RIGHT! >:(  WAR IS a Fossil Fuel subsidy! It's OVER for WARS FOR OIL!  (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)


Title: Pacific Northwest States Link with B.C. on Carbon Pricing Pact
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2013, 06:31:47 pm
Pacific Northwest States Link with B.C. on Carbon Pricing Pact(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/maniac.gif)

10/31/2013 

 Clean Edge News
 

(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif)
The leaders of British Columbia, California, Oregon and Washington have signed the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy, committing their governments, and a region that represents the world’s fifth largest economy, to a comprehensive and far- reaching strategic alignment to combat climate change and promote clean energy.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)

California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, Washington Governor Jay Inslee were joined at Cisco SF by British Columbia’s Premier Christy Clark, who participated via TelePresence from Victoria. BC Environment Minister Honourable Mary Polak attended in person.

 
Through the Action Plan, the leaders agreed that all four jurisdictions will account for the costs of carbon pollution and that, where appropriate and feasible, link programs to create consistency and predictability across the region of 53 million people. The leaders also committed to adopting and maintaining low carbon fuel standards in each jurisdiction. In a joint action plan, the leaders committed to “meaningful coordination and linkage between states and provinces across North America.”

 
“This Action Plan represents the best of what Pacific Coast governments are already doing, and calls on each of us to do more—together—to create jobs by leading in the clean energy economy, and to meet our moral obligation to future generations,” said Governor Inslee. “Each of the governments here is already taking bold steps on climate change; by joining forces, we will accomplish even more," Inslee said.

 
Flanked by supportive business and labor leaders, the governors and Premier redoubled their commitment to growing the region’s clean energy economy. The region covered by the Action Plan has a combined GDP of $2.8 trillion—effectively the world’s fifth largest economy.


“Oregon supports the Action Plan because we are already seeing how our commitment to clean energy is changing the face and fortune of our state, accounting for $5 billion in economic activity and 58,000 jobs,” said Governor Kitzhaber. “The debate is over. The scientific community no longer disputes that climate change is happening and human-caused. But regardless of where you stand on this question, there’s another good reason to act: transitioning to a clean economy creates jobs,” Kitzhaber said.

Under the Action Plan, California and British Columbia will maintain their existing carbon pricing programs along with their respective clean fuel standards, while Oregon and Washington have committed to moving forward on a suite of similar policies. The leaders further agreed to harmonize their 2050 greenhouse gas emission targets and develop mid- term targets where needed to set a path toward long-term reductions.

 

“California isn't waiting for the rest of the world before it takes action on climate change,”  said Governor Brown. “Today, California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia are all joining together to reduce greenhouse gases,” Brown said.

 

The leaders pledged to cooperate with governments and sub-national governments around the world to press for a global agreement on climate change in 2015.

“Taking action to address climate change in our own capitals is an important first step,” said Premier Clark. “By supplying cleaner energy and associated technologies to help others reduce their emissions while growing the economy and creating jobs at home, our generation has an opportunity to lead on the world stage. This agreement signals we are ready to innovate and work together to achieve a healthy, strong, and secure future,“ Clark said.

 

Business leaders hailed the Action Plan as an important milestone and a boost to efforts for national and international policy change.

 

“Our company is seeing significant growth on the Pacific Coast, and it is encouraging that the trend is concurrent with this landmark accord,” said Steve Clem, Vice President of Skanska USA in Portland, Oregon, one of the ten largest construction companies in the U.S.

 

“In this time of political grandstanding and gridlock, private enterprises like ours that are trying to do the right thing are pleased by the recognition here that it really is possible to grow the economy, create jobs and still do our part as a region to fight climate change,” Clem said.


http://www.cleanedge.com/Resources/news/Pacific-Northwest-States-Link-with-B.C.-on-Carbon-Pricing-Pact
Title: Alberta, Canada is subsidizing tar sands fossil fuel biosphere trashing!
Post by: AGelbert on November 12, 2013, 06:48:31 pm
Alberta, Canada is subsidizing tar sands fossil fuel biosphere trashing!

How? The massive flooding that has recently hit Albert is caused by Global Warming. YET, it's the citizens of Alberta that have to foot the bill for flood damages. This is a SUBSIDY that is actually LARGER than the obvious tax breaks and depletion allowance subsidies given to fossil fuel pigs.

Just another TOTALLY IGNORED, IN-YOUR-FACE cost of burning fossil fuels that fossil fuelers refuse to own up to.

Quote

Funding and Insurance

Updated: October 1, 2013 8:15 am

Assistance is available to Albertans to help rebuild homes, businesses and communities.
The Alberta Government has allocated $1 billion  :o  >:( in immediate support for the first phase  ::) of recovery and reconstruction.


Disaster recovery programs (DRP)

Funds to cover uninsurable damage and loss to essential property. Additionally, if you live in a flood fringe, information on funding for mitigation


Estimated residential construction cost

The level of funding homeowners can receive through disaster assistance is based on the cost of construction per square foot to return the space to a functional, basic level of finish.



Hand-up Plan - Small Business Recovery Programs

Low-interest loans partially guaranteed by the province and interest rebates for eligible small businesses, agricultural producers and not-for-profit organizations



Insurance

Contact numbers, insurance information, claims information...



Historical road closures

Record of flood-affected provincial roads and bridges.


http://alberta.ca/recoveryinformation.cfm

The Alberta Fossil Fuel  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) Tar Sands pigs should be the ones billed that BILLION DOLLARS!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif)


And THAT MASSIVE INVISIBLE SUBSIDY that fossil fuelers enjoy on the backs of we-the-people is the MAIN REASON the fossil fuel agents of mendacity and duplicity are going all out to convince people to DOUBT the ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC cause and effect link between burning fossil fuels and damages from Global Warming AMPLIFICATION of extreme weather events.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars   (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif) and conscience free crooks     (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif),    they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it!
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on November 15, 2013, 09:32:42 pm
Fossil Fuels Receive $500 Billion A Year In Government Subsidies Worldwide

Originally published on ClimateProgress

Producers of oil, gas and coal received more than $500 billion in government subsidies around the world in 2011, with the richest nations collectively spending more than $70 billion every year to support fossil fuels.

Those are the findings of a recent report by the Overseas Development Institute, a think tank based in the United Kingdom.

“If their aim is to avoid dangerous climate change, governments are shooting themselves in both feet,” the report, headed by ODI research fellow Shelagh Whitley, said. “They are subsidizing the very activities that are pushing the world towards dangerous climate change, and creating barriers to investment in low-carbon development and subsidy incentives that encourage investment in carbon-intensive energy.”

While the report acknowledges there is currently no globally agreed definition of what constitutes a subsidy, it cites the World Trade Organization’s approach: “a subsidy is any financial contribution by a government, or agent of a government, that confers a benefit on its recipient.”

Germany, for example, provided €1.9 billion in financial assistance to its hard coal sector in 2011, according to the report. That same year, the U.S. created a $1 billion fuel tax exemption for farmers and invested $500 million for fossil energy research and development. The top 11 “rich-country emitters” — the biggest being Russia, the United States, Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom — are estimated to have spent $74 billion on subsidies in 2011.

That total amount outweighs the support provided to developing countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by seven to one, the report found.
Fossil fuel subsidies were actually created to benefit the poor. According to ODI, governments often justify giving tax breaks and freebies to energy companies in order for those companies to provide energy access to those who can’t afford it.

Generally, however, that winds up not being the case. Citing a report by the International Monetary Fund, ODI said only seven percent of the benefits from fossil fuel subsidies in developing countries reached the poorest 20 percent of people between 2005 and 2009. In contrast, more than 40 percent of those subsidies benefited the people in richest 20 percent of people during that time.

(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/11/fossil-fuel-subsidies.png)
Image Credit: Overseas Development Institute

Subsidies for gasoline were the most unequal, with the report citing less than five percent of those subsidies reaching the poorest people and more than 60 percent benefiting the richest. Fossil fuel subsidies for liquefied petroleum gas, more commonly known as propane, had similar numbers. Kerosene subsidies were found to have been pretty much evenly distributed.

(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/11/oil-subsidies.png)
Image Credit: Overseas Development Institute

Subsidies to fossil fuels are also making it difficult to compete with artificially low energy prices, therefore discouraging private investors from putting money into clean energy technologies. What’s more, the growing number of countries that provide subsidies to both fossil fuels and clean energy may actually be negating the impact of climate finance and other clean-energy incentives, according to the report.

ODI is calling on the G20 countries to phase out all subsidies to coal and to oil and gas exploration by 2015, and end fossil fuel subsidies entirely by 2020. The process won’t be easy, the report noted, finding that citizens across the globe are generally misinformed about what they or others receive in terms of subsidies. Additionally, special interests are dominating the playing field, making it difficult to come to a consensus.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, individual and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $239 million to candidates and parties since 1990. But the U.S. isn’t the only moneyed country where special interests assure that fossil fuel subsidies reign on, according to the report.

In India, for example, federal and state governments incur great expense in order to provide the country’s powerful farm industry with “cheap or free” electricity, the report said. That, along with the fact that agricultural incomes are tax-exempt in India, provides farmers in that country with the funds to create a powerful lobby that “ensures that no government can hold on to power without holding on to [fossil fuel] subsidies.”

“The barriers to reporting on subsidies and to their removal are based on the multiple and often diverging interests of a wide range of stakeholders in both developed and developing countries,” the report said. “These include government officials, industry associations, companies, trade unions, consumers, social and labor political activists, and civil society organizations — all of whom need to be on board if subsidies are to be eliminated.” (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif)
 

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/11/fossil-fuels-receive-500-billion-year-government-subsidies-worldwide/#2DhkFruGQfP5Tj4o.99

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2013, 09:33:47 pm
EROI PART 1 OF 2 PARTS

The purpose of this post is to discuss a term near and dear to the heart of any investor in energy products. That is the term EROI. It is important because we all need to know how cost effective any energy product technology is.

In a sane society, if an energy product is found to have a higher EROI than what is presently popular, subsidized by government or simply enjoys monopoly price control, then it would be a no-brainer that the new energy product should, of course, replace the one with a lower EROI. The natural tendency for energy corporations to try to extract maximum profit by externalizing costs aside for a moment, let's compare EROI on a few energy products and also explain the concept of EROI:

Snippet 1:
 [The most recent summary of work and data on the EROI of fuels was conducted in the summer of 2007 at SUNY ESF and appeared on The Oil Drum website and in a readable summary by Richard Heinberg. This paper summarizes the findings of that study, and also those preceding and subsequent to it where available. It also summarizes issues raised by some concerning the findings of these studies and with the calculations within.]

Snippet 2:
[Oil and conventional natural gas are usually studied together because they often occur in the same fields, have overlapping production operations and data archiving.]

Snippet 3:
[.. authors also estimated through linear extrapolation that the EROI for global oil and conventional natural gas could reach 1:1 as soon as about 2022 given alternative input measurement methods (Figure 2).]

Snippet 4:
[The authors of this EROI study note that they exclude the interest paid on debts to purchase foreign oil. Including that cost presumably would decrease EROI. As can be expected, the EROI of imported oil to the U.S. is mostly a reflection of the price of oil relative to the price of general goods and services at that time   ::)  :)  :evil4:(Figure 3).]

The authors note that the differences in EROI can sometimes be attributed to differences in system boundaries and technologies. However, overall there is a lack of empirical information on the subject. ]

Snippet 4
[Wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable energies in the world today, although it still represents far less than one percent of global or U.S. energy use. Since it is renewable energy, EROI is not calculated the same as for finite resources. The energy cost for such renewable systems is mostly the very large capital cost per unit output and the backup systems needed, for two thirds of the time the wind is not blowing.

As a result, the input for the EROI equation is mostly upfront, and the return over the lifetime of the system—which largely is not known well.

For renewable resources a slightly different type of EROI is often used, the “energy pay back time” (EPBT). EPBT is the time it takes for the system to generate the same amount of energy that went into creating, maintaining, and disposing of it, and so the boundaries used to define the EPBT are those incorporated into the EROI. ::)

Although the SUNY ESF study did not calculate EROI for wind they were able to use a recent “meta-analysis” study by Cleveland and Kubiszewski [27].

In this study the authors examined 112 turbines from 41 analyses of both conceptual and operational nature. The system boundaries included the manufacture of components, transportation of components to the construction site, the construction of the facility itself, operation and maintenance over the lifetime of the facility, overhead, possible grid connection costs, and decommissioning where possible, however not all studies include the same scope of analysis.

The authors concluded that the average EROI for all systems studied is 24.6:1 and that for all operational studies is 18.1:1. The operational studies provide lower EROIs because the simulations run in conceptual models appear to assume conditions to be more favorable than actually experienced on the ground.

The authors found that the EROI tends to increase with the size of the turbine. They conclude that there are three reasons for this. First, that smaller turbines are of older design and can be less efficient, so despite a larger initial capital investment larger systems compensate with larger energy outputs; second that larger models have larger rotor diameters so they can operate at lower wind speeds and capture more wind energy at higher efficiencies year round; and finally because of their size, larger models are taller and can take advantage of the higher wind speeds farther above ground. ]

Snippet 5:
[The use of Solar photovoltaics (PV) are increasing almost as rapidly as wind systems, although they too represent far less than 1 percent of the energy used by the U.S. or the world. Similarly, they are a renewable source of energy and thus the EROIs are also calculated using the same idea. Although there are very few studies which perform “bottom up” analysis of the PV systems we are familiar with today, we can calculate the EROI by dividing the lifetime of a module by its energy payback time (EPBT). Like wind turbines, PV EPBT can vary depending on the location of production and installation. It can also be affected by the materials used to make the modules, and the efficiency with which it operates - especially under extreme temperatures.

The SUNY ESF study looked at a number of life cycle analyses from 2000 to 2008 on a range of PV systems to determine system lifetimes and EPBT, and subsequently calculated EROI [28]. The system lifetimes and EPBT are typically modeled as opposed to empirically measured. As a result, EROI is usually presented as a range. Typically the author found most operational systems to have an EROI of approximately 3–10:1. ](http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif)(http://images.ame4u.com/Animated_Clipart/Animated-Solar/sun_shining_solar_panel_hg_clr__st.gif)=or> THAN 20:1!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Snippet 6:
[The SUNY ESF study estimated that one wave energy project could have an EROI of approximately 15:1 [34].  ]

Snippet 7:
[ 13. Discussion
There has been a surprisingly small amount of work done in the field of EROI calculation despite its obvious uses and age. From this review it can be inferred that there are only a handful of people seriously working on the issues related to energy return on investment. As such it does not come as a surprise that the information is scarce and unrefined at best–although perhaps not in the case of ethanol.  :evil4: Additionally there is a great deal of rather misleading material presented in the media and very few with the training to cut through the fog or deliberate lies. We have presented what we believe to be virtually all of the data available until this special issue.

Since the 1980’s the energy information required to make such calculations have become even scarcer, with the possible exception of some European life cycle analyses. This is a terrible state of affairs given the massive changes in our energy situation unfolding daily.

We need to make enormously important decisions but do not have the studies, the data or the trained personnel to do so. Thus we are left principally with poorly informed politicians, industry advocacy and a blind but misguided faith in market solutions to make critical decisions about how to invest our quite limited remaining high quality energy resources. Our major scientific funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation and even the Department of Energy have been criminally negligent by avoiding any serious programs to undertake proper EROI, environmental effects, or other studies, while our federal energy data collections degrade year by year under misguided cost cutting and free market policies.

As stated by Murphy and Hall [15], there needs to be a concerted effort to make energy information more transparent to the people so we can better understand what we are doing and where we are going. Given what we do know, it seems that the EROI of the fuels we depend on most are in decline; whereas the EROI for those fuels we hope to replace them with are lower than we have enjoyed in the past.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)  This leads one to believe that the current rates of energy consumption per capita we are experiencing are in no way sustainable in the long run. At best, the renewable energies we look toward may only cushion this decline.](http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)

Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796
 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability 
-------------

What does all the above mean to you and me? It means EROI math has great difficulty measuring renewables and, due to the boundary framework established for upstream and downstream costs including the EXCLUSION of environmental costs, has the potential to produce some fairly happy numbers for fossil fuels and nuclear. Yet even by the present computation convention, EROI is headed downwards for fossil fuels and nuclear.
Let's explore EROI some more:

-------------
Snippet 1:
[Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be completely different from the output.]

Snippet 2:
[How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers. A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.]

Snippet 3:
[Conventional economic analysis has no formal accounting rules for the consideration of waste products that are created in the production of the ultimate output. For example, differing economic and energy values placed on the waste products generated in the production of ethanol makes the calculation of this fuel's true EROEI extremely difficult.]

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
-------------


And what about environmental degradation costs? Don't they matter in the "real world"? Can we so narrowly define a process like EROI that we deliberately exclude costs that aren't immediately quantifiable? Why are fossil fuel or nuclear energy corporations the first to bray and warn that all new technologies need to have the precautionary principle of science applied to them but get quite huffy when you question EROI numbers for their products? If that's the "real world', then we have a rather serious objectivity deficit in play with EROI math.

Here is an interesting article about a study of algal biocrude EROI. I bring this to your attention because it shows a very serious and responsible approach to determining EROI which I believe is sorely lacking in fossil and nuclear fuels:

-------------

ENERGY RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR ALGAL BIOCRUDE

Snippet 1:
[Over the last year a student (Colin Beal) at the University of Texas, Austin, has been characterizing the experimental set-up at the Center for Electromechanics for testing an algae to bio-oil process. The process stops short of converting the bio-oil into biodiesel, and he presented the results at a recent conference: Beal, Colin M., Hebner, Robert E., Webber, Michael E., Ruoff, Rodney S., and Seibert, A. Frank. THE ENERGY RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR ALGAL BIOCRUDE: RESULTS FOR A RESEARCH PRODUCTION FACILITY, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2010 November 12–18, 2010, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, IMECE2010-38244.]

Snippet 2:
[the stage of development of the entire technology and process of inventing new energy sources and pathways. It is important that we understand how to interpret findings “from the lab” into real-world or industrial-scale processes. To anticipate the future EROI of an algae to biofuel process, Colin performed two extra analyses to anticipate what might be possible if anticipated advances in technology and processing occur: a Reduced Case and Literature Model calculation.]

CONTINUED IN PART 2
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2013, 09:34:43 pm
EROI PART 2 OF 2 PARTS


Snippet 3:
[What Colin discovered was that the EROI of the Reduced Case and Literature Model were 0.13 and 0.57, respectively. This shows that we have much to learn for the potential of making viable liquid fuels. Additionally, Colin’s calculations for the experimental set-up (and Reduced Case analysis) show that 97% of the energy output resides in the biomass, not the bio-oil. For his idealized Literature Model, 82% of the energy output was in the biomass.

While these results seem discouraging, we do not have much ability to put these results into context of the rate of development of other alternative technologies and biofuels. How long did it take to get photovoltaic panels with EROI > 1 from the first working prototype in a lab? We have somewhat of an idea that it took one or two decades for the Brazilians to get reasonable EROI > 1 from using sugar cane for biomass and biofuel production (Brazilian sugar cane grown and processed in Sao Paulo is estimated near EROI = 8 ).  ]

Snippet 4:
[Let’s hope others join in in trying to assess the EROI of their experimental and anticipated commercial processes for alternative energy technologies.]
Source:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2011/01/the-eroi-of-algae-biofuels.html

ALL ABOUT DUCKWEED:

Snippet 1:
[Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that a tiny aquatic plant can be used to clean up animal waste at industrial hog farms and potentially be part of the answer for the global energy crisis. Their research shows that growing duckweed on hog wastewater can produce five to six times more starch per acre than corn, according to researcher Dr. Jay Cheng. This means that ethanol production using duckweed could be "faster and cheaper than from corn," [/i]says fellow researcher Dr. Anne-Marie Stomp.
"We can kill two birds – biofuel production and wastewater treatment – with one stone – duckweed," Cheng says. Starch from duckweed can be readily converted into ethanol using the same facilities currently used for corn, Cheng adds.]

Snippet 2:
[The duckweed system consists of shallow ponds that can be built on land unsuitable for conventional crops, and is so efficient it generates water clean enough for re-use. The technology can utilize any nutrient-rich wastewater, from livestock production to municipal wastewater.]

Snippet 3:
[Cheng says, "Duckweed could be an environmentally friendly, economically viable feedstock for ethanol."
"There's a bias in agriculture that all the crops that could be discovered have been discovered," Stomp says, "but duckweed could be the first of the new, 21st century crops. In the spirit of George Washington Carver, who turned peanuts into a major crop, Jay and I are on a mission to turn duckweed into a new industrial crop, providing an innovative approach to alternative fuel production."]
Source:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605

Duckweed for electricity at 3 CENTS per kwh:

Snippet 1:
[It's a little, water-born plant that doubles in mass every 24 hours. The ducks really like it," Behrens said. Two pounds of duckweed seed in a 32-foot tank in Philadelphia grew to a depth of 2 inches in 10 days, he said.

"It's very easy to harvest," Behrens said. "That was the undoing of a lot of algae concepts. You can't spend too much energy removing fuel from water, otherwise on your balance sheet you haven't made any energy."

Duckweed is smaller than a grain of rice, but a million times bigger than an algae cell, he said. The duckweed is harvested with a nylon mesh, similar to screen doors, then dried.
In many ways, it's similar to wood-products waste, another type of biomass, which is used to generate electricity in White City and other places around the country.

"Trees don't grow fast enough, so we found something that grows faster," Behrens said. "The key is growing fuel on site, because shipping it in is too costly. We just had to find a fast-growing plant -- and there are plenty of those -- and then create an artificial environment that optimizes plant growth."

The artificial environment -- BioEnergy Domes -- is where Pacific Domes comes in. There are four sizes of BioEnergy Domes, ranging from a backyard-sized, 5,000-kilowatt version that can supply energy for one home to a commercial-size, 60-foot-diameter unit, such as the initial unit in a Philadelphia industrial park. The generating unit sits outside the dome and runs silently.

Behrens said it costs about $750,000 to $800,000 to install the largest BioEnergy Domes, and the payback time is only two years.

"You are able to generate electricity at the cost of 3 cents per kilowatt hour, the same as coal or nuclear plants," Behrens said. "It's completely controllable, unlike wind or solar power, and generates on demand like a fossil-fuel plant."]
http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html
-------------
While I laugh at the idea that the actual cost of coal or nuclear power is just 3 cents per kwh because the EROI numbers on those two poisonous energy products exclude massive subsidies and environmental costs, I see no reason to doubt that the 3 cents per kwh is bona fide with duckweed. Since nuclear has an official EROI of 10.0 and coal has an official EROI of 80.0 then duckweed is somewhere in between. Even if it is only in the wind EROI range of 18 it is still a far better alternative than, for example, natural gas as of 2005 which was 10.0 because there are zero pollution costs associated with it and less transportation costs as well because duckweed infrastructure would be decentralized and local.
EROI figures for nuclear, coal, and natural gas 2005 and wind source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

Now I bring this low corn ethanol EROI to your attention. I am certain the EROI would be much higher for ethanol if duckweed was the biomass source rather than corn. Of course that would cut chemical fertilizer and pesticide corporations out of the loop. It would also reduce fossil fuel costs in harvesting because duckweed is not a crop requiring tilling and grows several times faster than corn simply with animal feces in stagnant water. A mechanized netting operation for monthly harvests (shorter intervals are possible depending on climate) would vastly exceed corn biomass in addition to ultimately cutting out fossil fuels from the farm machinery because they would run on ethanol.

CORN ETHANOL EROI

Snippet:
[They found that the EROI range for corn ethanol remained low, from 1.29–1.70 ](http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

source:
http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy100810.htm

Furthermore duckweed can be pelletized and used as food for tilapia fish farming or fuel in furnaces.
sources:
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf
http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater

What about those that claim that renewables like duckweed, wind, photovoltaic, etc. are just niche energy markets and will never actually replace fossil fuels as number one?


Snippet 1:
[4. Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
2011 was the first time global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels.
The global market for clean energy was worth a whopping $250 billion.
The United States (as of 2012 before China passed us) is currently leading in corporate R&D and venture capital investments in clean energy globally, and last year retook the top spot in overall investment with a 33 percent increase to $55.9 billion.]

As to the current EROI figures on fossil fuels, please consider that YOU paid for a lot of the R&D for them as well as current and past subsidies BEFORE the EROI figures are calculated.

Snippet 2:
[6. Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy
To date, the oil-and-gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies from 1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation).

Renewable energy investments should be put in proper historical perspective. According to the Energy Information Agency, “focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years across all energy fuels and technologies.”

The U.S. government is showing a smaller commitment to renewables than it showed in the early years of the oil-and-gas industries. A study showed that “during the early years of what would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth that size, just one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.”]

Snippet 3:
[Here are the top six things you really need to know:

Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy
Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels
Clean energy improves grid reliability
Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
Investments in clean energy are cost effective
Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy]

Source:
http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750

Given all these real world facts about the main energy investment trends and the promise of EROI increases from renewables such as wind, photovoltaic and duckweed free of the environmental hazards of fossil and nuclear fuels and the prospect of much reduced government energy subsidies that we-the-people will benefit from,  isn't it folly to cling to the concept that centralized power systems will remain dominant in the energy markets?

Quote
" One can judge from experiment or one can blindly accept authority.

To the scientific mind experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description to be junked when it no longer fits.

To the academic mind authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."  Robert Heinlein

Title: The End Polluter Welfare Act of 2013
Post by: AGelbert on December 16, 2013, 09:37:28 pm
Legislation to End Fossil Fuel Tax Breaks Introduced by Sen. Sanders, Rep. Ellison
Friday, November 22, 2013

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 – As House and Senate budget negotiators look for ways to lower deficits,

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) today introduced legislation to eliminate tax loopholes and subsidies that support the oil, gas and coal industries.

The End Polluter Welfare Act of 2013 would remove tax breaks, close loopholes, end taxpayer-funded fossil fuel research and prevent companies from escaping liability for spills or deducting cleanup costs. Under current law, these subsidies are expected to cost taxpayers more than $100 billion in the coming decade.

The White House budget proposal for next year calls for eliminating several of the same provisions that the legislation by Sanders and Ellison would end.

“At a time when fossil fuel companies are racking up record profits, it is time to end the absurdity of American taxpayers providing massive subsidies to these hugely profitable fossil fuel corporations,” Sanders said.

“The five biggest oil companies made $23 billion in the third quarter of 2013 alone. They don’t need any more tax giveaways,” Ellison said. “We should invest in the American people by creating good jobs and ending cuts to food assistance instead of throwing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the world.”

The five most profitable oil companies (ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhilips) together made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade.

The Sanders and Ellison legislation is supported by environmental groups including Friends of the Earth, Oil Change International and 350.org.

The fiscal watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, which has worked for nearly two decades to eliminate wasteful energy subsidies, also supports the bills.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/legislation-to-end-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks-introduced-by-sen-sanders-rep-ellison
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2014, 06:17:16 pm
PP said,
Quote
All part of the great upward wealth funnel ponzi.

Yep. People like you and I that see behind the charade are slowly but surely increasing in number. I hope it is not too late. These hallmarks of mendacity a minute that rule over us have planted so many false assumptions about who pays for what, and actual costs of resources and energy, including corrupting the very language to the point that "conservation" means resource **** and impoverishment of native peoples living sustainably (followed by large masses of poor with a degraded biosphere) followed by blame the victim BS that we must assume Mens Rea is the daily bread of the 1%.  Orwell knew what was coming because it was MOSTLY ALREADY THERE. So it goes.  >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: monsta666 on April 01, 2014, 04:44:38 pm
The quagmire that faces industrialised civilisation is much of it was built using cheap fossil fuels which were not only subsidised directly but in nearly all cases the externalities were never factored in so the damage and costs associated with fossil fuel were lugged to the general population/wildlife/environment.

The other important thing is energy especially cheap energy acts as an enabler of other resources. This means if it is cheap to procure energy then the costs of getting other resources lessens and when you reduce the price of any commodity you encourage its consumption. As consumption increases you not only encourage more wasteful consumption but you also make it viable to mine big fields that could only be economic under the current regime of fossil fuels. Think of all those gold mines or other rare metal mines that need to be treated with harsh chemicals. None of those projects would be viable if there was no cheap energy so this is another hidden associated cost of fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on April 02, 2014, 01:34:17 am
Agreed.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2014, 07:44:57 pm
Might I pose the question that if we peak oilers are correct about fracking being a ponzi scheme; that major cracks should start appearing soon in this house of leverage and constantly required drilling or fracking of costly wells.

Tight/shale oil and gas wells aren't expensive, the most recent range of numbers provided to the public by the Texas BEG are in the 3-10 million each range, drilling and completing, I confirmed this independently after I last spoke with Tinker and his group a month or two back.

These kinds of numbers are nearly insignificant when compared to conventional oil or gas production in places like the North Slope or GOM, North Sea, anywhere in the Arctic, and are less than half the cost of doing the SAME thing in Argentina, China, or Russia.

As far as hydraulic fracturing itself being a ponzi scheme, it has been going on for 60+ years, I don't think it has much to do with overall financial performance myself, but more with the relationship between price, cost and well performance.

For example, using financial reports on public companies allows interesting analysis of the aggregate, but not the distribution of profitability at the well level of resolution.

For example, lets take two oil companies in the Bakken. One of them is run by a bloviating amateur, he drills and completes a $10M well, pays $1500/month to have someone operate it for him, and requires a nice office building, a staff of sycophants to blow smoke up his ass, all of these things cost money, and the overhead for this company is $100K/month.

This company will probably lose money, and badly, trying to recoup not only the initial CapEx but the $101.5K month nut they have created.

Whereas another company, requiring only one person to achieve the same result, and wanting a modest income of $2k month from this well, will probably make money.

No difference in anything other than the overhead sitting on top of the well's performance.

Fortunately, when the first company goes bankrupt, the second will buy the discounted cash flow of the first companies wells (doesn't give a crap about the building, let the bank foreclose) and make their money off expected increases in price as peak oil takes hold and the price of oil increases as Malthusians expect.

The combination of these three things at the detail level, and aggregate, is important. Amateurs don't tend to know the difference, in part because they don't see how the performance of private companies works, and how they are just salivating right now, waiting for someone to fall, that their assets might be acquired at a discount.


Quote from: Golden Oxen
Shouldn't financing and borrowing problems be arising already?

They certainly might be.

My connections with Wall Street money says that they are still looking to get in, you can barely get them to bite on 1/4B deals, they really want 1B deals right now, and can easily come up with 10B for the right deal.

So the money does not seem to have dried up yet.
[/size]
  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif)

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens in regard to some of his experiences with people that make holes in the ground to get stuff out of and sell to us for "profit", a FRACKING site is a hole the ground with a bunch of LIARS on top.

Here's an article MKing will disagree with and ridicule as "garden variety" or "irrelevant" or disdain with some other pejorative bit of puffery.

The only part of the article he will agree with is that the Oil and Gas industry ACTUALLY gave solar power technology development a boost back in the 70s because PV supplied power to very remote locations the fossil fuelers tend be located for new profit over planet piggery.  ;D

The FULL story of how we-the-people have supported these fossil fuel and nuclear welfare queens is there from the start until this day. The appearance of profitability ignores our tax money for research and continuous subsidy.

Fossil fuelers have an amazing ability to ignore, not just externalized costs, but the giveaways from we-the-people! They have the brass balls to compute those subsidies as part of the ROI. That's a blatant accounting falsehood. Without subsides they are not profitable, period. But MKing will continue with his fantasies, come hell or high water. So it goes.  :P


SNIPPPET 1:

Quote
The bias against renewable funding and support is clear. Recent analysis found that over the first fifteen years an industry receives a subsidy, nuclear energy received an average of $3.3 billion, oil and gas averaged $1.8 billion,Fto and renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion.

Renewables received less than one-quarter of the support of oil and gas and less than one-eighth of the support that nuclear received during the early years of development, when strong investment can make a big difference. Yet even with this disparity, more of our energy supply now comes from renewables than from nuclear, which indicates the strength of renewables as a potential energy source.

SNIPPET 2:
Quote

The momentum behind renewable development came to a rapid halt as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected president. Not only did he remove the solar panels atop the White House, he also gutted funding for solar development and poured billions into developing a dirty synthetic fuel that was never brought to market.

Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left Renewables Behind)

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 01, 2014, 12:58:50 am
Let’s Even the Playing Field for Renewable Energy   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif)

 
Bill Ritter
Energy
Invest in Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy
Stock Market


BILL RITTER: What is the most cost-effective way to subsidize investment in renewable energy sources? The word “subsidy” is loaded with connotations that the government is “picking winners” when it provides support to certain energy industries and not to others. Instead, the question should be, “What is the most cost-effective way to level the playing field for renewable energy?”

It is important not to demonize well-designed energy subsidies when they are clearly in the national interest. There has been no time in modern history that the federal government has not provided tax breaks and other benefits to one energy industry or another, going back to land grants for timber and coal production in the 1800s. In principle, targeted subsidies are warranted when an important emerging energy technology cannot achieve commercialization without help.

There is another way, however, that government can stimulate investments in a wide variety of energy resources. This type of fiscal policy provides tax incentives for private capital to flow into the energy resources that investors believe offer the highest returns or the greatest potential.

Two examples that have drawn attention recently are real-estate investment trusts (REITs) and master limited partnerships (MLPs). Both provide tax advantages and access to low-cost capital for fossil-energy investors. Until recently, neither extended the same benefits to renewable energy. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)

In May, the Obama administration used its executive authority to allow REITs for certain types of solar-generating equipment. That was a first step to what we might call “investment parity” in federal policy. The next logical step is to give renewable-energy investors the same access to MLPs as fossil-energy investors have.

Legislation to do this, the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act, has bipartisan support in Congress, but it reportedly has stalled.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)  Some members have conditioned their support on the elimination of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy and the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy. According to one report, these members argue it would be redundant to open MLPs to renewable-energy technologies while targeted solar and wind tax credits remain in place.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)

Yet, fossil fuels enjoy a variety of targeted tax benefits as well as MLPs.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg) Denying the same mix to renewable energy investors perpetuates federal policies that have long picked fossil fuels as the winners. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif) The PTC/ITC and MLPs should not be an either/or issue. Both belong in an intelligent mix of tax policies that create more robust market competition on a more level playing field.  (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png)

In addition, opening MLPs to renewable-energy investment is consistent with the “all of the above” energy strategy advocated both by President Obama and the Republican Party. I am confident that as various renewable energy technologies become ready for full-scale commercialization, they will compete very well.

In the absence of access to MLPs, private investors and state governments are creating other ways to capitalize emerging clean-energy technologies. Renewable-energy bonds, green-energy banks, crowdfunding and “yield cos” are among recent innovations.

Nevertheless, a great deal of private capital remains sidelined, waiting for stable and equitable federal energy policies. If we really believe in letting all market-ready energy options slug it out in robust competition, then we shouldn’t ask that federal policies fix the fight. But that is what happens when renewable-energy investors are barred from the tax incentives that investors in fossil fuels enjoy.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Bill Ritter served as Colorado’s 41st governor. He is currently the director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2014/09/30/lets-even-the-playing-field-for-renewable-energy/

(http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/oil.jpg?w=529)
Serious Hangover for Fossil Fuelers coming soon. :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 01, 2014, 01:45:32 am
(http://media.giphy.com/media/HjPbLbmep2aJO/giphy.gif)

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 09, 2014, 11:40:37 pm
(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=1566)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260914180633.png)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 28, 2014, 02:35:11 pm
(http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/astevenson/media/b.bmp)
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Vulnerable_Countries_1024.jpg)
The Next Revolution: Discarding Dangerous Fossil Fuel Accounting Practices

Alex Nicolson, Contributor 
 October 23, 2014  |  10 Comments 



The green revolution and, in particular, renewable energy products such as solar power, wind turbines, geothermal and algae-based fuels are not waiting for viable technology — it already exists in many forms. What they are waiting for is a massive sea change in our antiquated financial accounting systems.

We keep hearing that green technology has too long a payback or too low an internal rate of return and just can’t compete with non-renewable coal, oil and natural gas, etc.

Now to be fair, renewables have two drawbacks that have to be considered in their use and integration into the power grid. The first is their low capacity factors. For example, wind farm turbines sit idle when the wind stops blowing, and solar power output drops sharply when the sun is not shining. On the other hand, non-renewable energy systems can operate 24 hours a day without interruption, so they will be used for some time to come as more dependable baseload power sources.

The second factor is evident when we compare installation and operating costs. Renewable installations spend 80 percent of their budget in the first year and 20 percent over their 20- or 30-year operating life. Non-renewables are the opposite; only 20 percent is spent on the initial installation and 80 percent on the next 20 or 30 years of operation. And so our antiquated and myopic accounting practices analyse these facts and then say that coal, oil and gas plants obviously have a better return on investment.

Of course as we run out of non-renewables, their power production will slowly dwindle. We should be prepared for that inevitable event by building up renewable energy options and developing technologies now. The book “Last hours of Ancient Sunlight” by Thom Hartman covers that inevitability very well.

The Costs of Oil

We complain about $4+ per gallon gasoline, but people do not realize that we would likely pay over $10 a gallon if we add on the currently ignored direct social and economic costs of oil.

Economists recognize the existence of these costs and call them “externalities.” Other than this recognition, externalities are still not assigned to their correct sources.

As just one example, consider the enormous U.S. military budget, (currently a staggering  $700 billion). A large portion of this cost is spent on the 800+ military stations maintained around the world that protect critical sea lanes for oil tankers and oil pipelines and act on a moment’s notice to attack any politically motivated disruptions to foreign oil field production or oil storage sites. A significant portion of that budget is a direct cost of oil.

And to that cost figure, we have to add the social costs of young soldiers being trained, deployed and killed, severely injured or handicapped for the rest of their lives. Then we must also consider the enormous stress this imposes on these soldier’s families and friends, both economically and emotionally. That is another direct cost of oil.

And on another front, consider the enormous costs of the oil spill in the Gulf and its effect on the ocean, wildlife and beach environments. Consider the effect on people’s health and livelihood and the stress they were under during hurricane seasons that threatened a resurgence of oil and toxic dispersant sludge to be thrown up on their shores. That is another cost of oil.

Consider poor mountain people in Afghanistan that are killed and injured due to drone attacks against Al Qaeda. Their injuries and deaths are simply written off as collateral damage, when the truth is that the U.S. is in that poor mountain region mainly due to the huge oil and gas fields located in southern Russia. These sources will eventually need a pipeline to transport the crude oil to a warm-water all-season coastal port where tankers can pick up and transport the oil to markets in the West.

The coal industry has similar externalized costs. Apart from carbon dioxide emissions, mercury and other heavy metals, coal-burning power plants emit over 100 times the radioactivity of nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy. These emissions cause inevitable negative health effects as it is exhausted into the atmosphere and carried to those people living downwind. In fact, annual deaths due to coal plant emissions are estimated at about 60,000 people in the U.S. alone, according to various concerned citizen groups.

Also the huge amounts of foreign aid paid to protect dictatorial regimes against the wishes of the people under their control are all direct costs of oil. Incidentally we see these regimes are starting to fail in the Middle East, due to their younger generation’s frustrations with a static society that has been kept backward and out of step with the modern world just to suit the oil interests.

And closer to home, a typical oil company’s income statement reveals enormous tax breaks, such as depletion allowances from taxes for using up a non-renewable resource, which make no economic or social sense.

And in more recent times, oil companies can drill in federal waters without paying any royalties. To date taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year — an industry that shows record profits for owners and shareholders.

And in the U.S., many states that are under the oil companies’ economic/political lobbying control do not charge them for exploitation of these non-renewable resources. These resources are state-owned assets, and the oil companies acquire them at a very low cost.

Renewables Make Sense

Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy do not need these massive hidden support costs. They cannot be stolen by any super-power and are unlikely to be the source of dragged out wars and intrigue between nations under the sham of spreading democracy, which happens now over oil.

The sun is boundless, and in most mid- and southern-latitude countries, a surprisingly small surface area of solar plants can deliver most of the electricity a country needs. This is particularly true here in the U.S.

Accounting Reform

So taking all these factors into account, accounting practices must enter the 21st century, adapt to a global economy and account for ALL of the real costs of each energy resource as they are incurred worldwide. These numbers will reveal the most viable energy resource technologies.

This will require a sea change in accounting. Accounting principles and practice are still stuck in the industrial revolution where we witnessed horrendous costs to the environment and to workers. All these enormous social costs were externalized and thrown onto the back of the society. Companies were measured on profitability within incredibly narrow accounting standards. Often the most polluting, child-exploiting companies were deemed the most efficient and profitable and given the most support.

Admittedly there has been many improvements over the past 150 years as we can see with child labor laws enforced and many companies in the US and other developed countries are being asked to clean up their dangerous emissions and remove toxins from their workplaces and are starting to do so.

However we need to further expand our accounting horizons to a world-view and take that same approach to a global scale, especially when comparing renewable energy technologies and demand that the comparison be based on their real costs.

If we can achieve that vision, then the correct decisions for support of green renewable energy will become abundantly clear — and the world will be a safer and cleaner place for us all.


 A. G. Gelbert   
 October 28, 2014 

Just wanted to jump in and also thank Ian Crawford, PJ Van Staden and Joe Richardson for telling it like it is.

And for the anonymous poster, I have good news. Canada just approved a hydro power dam project that will generate over one gigawatt. I don't know how it will affect the wildlife but it sure beats fossil fuel nonrenewable poisonous energy any time! I also agree that micro hydro has a great future since it does not disturb the flora or aquatic fauna. Hydro and micro hydro contribute to renewable energy in Vermont but we need a more serious commitment to passive geothermal using heat pump technology to get rid of all fossil fuel use for heating and air conditioning.

"Canada’s Multi-Billion Hydro-Dam Project Wins Environmental Approval

Canada’s $7 billion Site C hydroelectric dam on the Peace River won environmental approval, and is on-track for a final decision before the end of the year. The project would involve construction of a power station near Fort St. John and the flooding of about 5,400 hectares of land in British Columbia’s northeast. The dam would be the third on the Peace River. Once finished, the project will generate enough electricity to power 450,000 homes."

http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/canadas-multi-billion-hydro-dam-project-wins-environmental-approval/

 joe richardson   
 October 28, 2014 

Costs are costs. I think the science fiction writer Robert Heinlein said it first, "TANSTAAFL",
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

joe richardson   
 October 28, 2014 

Great article, it illustrates a fundamental law of the universe. That costs are costs and it doesn't matter if you see them or not or if an accountant wants to put them aside in another column or not, they are there and they will be paid.
 And ill take the total costs of renewables, including the costs of building/planning around the site specific constant output (base load) issues over the TOTAL cost of fossil fuels anytime.

PJ van Staden   
 October 25, 2014 

Yes, real costs. Have you for example seen some of the real costs of fracking. Can you imagine if a cloth or something in the kitchen catches fire and you quickly hold it under the tap to extinguish it, but instead get your water lightning up like a blowtorch? Hey? Like in fighting fire with fire?

Google "Unearthed. The deeper the dig, the darker the secrets." And watch the trailer there so long.

The fossil industry is guilty of an unforgivable crime. And it all for the hunger of money. How shameful.

A. G. Gelbert   
 October 24, 2014 

What Brian Donovan said!

I have sometimes wondered at the term energy RESOURCE used by the media (and everybody else) to describe fossil fuels. It seems to me that they should be referred to as a SOURCE of energy, not a RE-source; you use fossil fuels once, period. They can't be re-used. All renewable energy is, on the other hand, a genuine energy REsource.

I believe our vocabulary is corrupted. Fossil fuels should be called energy sources, not energy resources. But then the cat would be really out of the bag for the fossil fuel polluters, wouldn't it?

When the math actually gets done to include costs to society and the biosphere. renewable energy is the obvious choice. In fact, when all is said and done , the issue is what works indefinitely. Just like running an internal combustion engine in your garage "works" if you don't care about living, burning fossil fuels on a planetary scale "works" if you don't care about life.

This is not hard. Either we have an equitable, do ALL the math. society that respects, not just fellow humans, but the biosphere we and hundreds of thousands of other species of earthlings require for life, or we perish.

See one minute clip on Natural Capitalism:

http://viewrz.com/video/real-money

Fossil fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of Stupid" Video:

http://viewrz.com/video/fossil-fuel-government

FDR two minute clip on Trickle Down "Economics"

http://viewrz.com/video/fdr-on-trickle-down-economics

Patrick O'Leary   
 October 24, 2014 

Of course it will. Of course that was always true. And it was always the case that doing so would impact the general public in a positive fashion. And it was always the case that doing so would negatively impact a small number of wealthy people.

ANONYMOUS 
 October 24, 2014 

Hey folks, please get with the program and include hydro - high capacity factor (60%), considered base load, been with us for over 100 years, can load follow in an emergency in a matter of minutes. Only 3% of existing dams are powered, plenty of potential there except for the onerous and expensive over-regulation, even more so for micro-hydro, from FERC. Why are so many renewable energy writers so afraid of including the pioneer of renewable energy?

sean o   
 October 23, 2014 

You forgot to mention, everything is figured and compared by BTU's which is a pretty antiquated way to compare production.

Brian Donovan   
 October 23, 2014 

Great article. End the wars for fossil fuels!

Renewable has the SAME grid integration needs as baseload: all those spinning reserve and peaking plants are needed for load following by baseload too. We have all seen Germany and Denmark exceed 50% from intermittent renewable with no problems. Yet the myth persists that RE needs "special" backup.

Fossils and nuclear have also gotten massive gov breaks for 100 and 50 years, still get 50 times solar and wind, and got more than solar and wind per MWH at similar stages in development.

Ian Crawford   
 October 23, 2014 

CORRECTION: ".....renewables have two drawbacks that have to be considered in their use and integration into the power grid. The first is their low capacity factors."   (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

The EIA rates new geothermal plants as having a 92% capacity factor  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif), higher than those of nuclear (90%), gas (87%), or coal (85%), and much higher than those of intermittent sources such as onshore wind (34%) or solar photovoltaic (25%).

Geothermal Energy is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/the-next-revolution-discarding-dangerous-fossil-fuel-accounting-practices#comment-136450
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2014, 01:02:31 am

Sen. Whitehouse Proposes Carbon Tax to Repay Citizens for Pollution Costs
  (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)

Anastasia Pantsios | October 29, 2014 4:35 pm

Delivering a keynote address at the New York University Institute for Policy Integrity’s fall conference, in which he noted “The world has just set some dubious records. 2014 is on pace to tie or become the hottest year on record,” U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse announced that he plans to introduce legislation creating a carbon pollution fee next month. He said he will reveal details in the next few weeks.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gives one of his weekly addresses on climate change. Photo credit: Sheldon Whitehouse (at the link)

It was an appropriate announcement to make at the conference whose theme this year was “The Future of U.S. Climate Policy: Coal, Carbon Markets and the Clean Air Act.”

“Pollution-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our infrastructure and harms public health,” he told his audience. “However, none of these costs are factored into the price of the coal or oil that’s burned to release this carbon. The big oil and coal companies have offloaded those costs onto society. Economics 101 tells us that’s a market failure; in the jargon, that negative externalities are inefficient. If a company participates in an activity that causes harm, it should have to compensate those harmed.”

“By making carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually,”
he continued. “By making carbon pollution free, we fix the game, favoring polluters over newer and cleaner technologies that harvest the wind, sun and waves. Corporate polluters, not bearing the costs of their products, are in effect cheating their competitors.”

(http://image.blingee.com/images17/content/output/000/000/000/6a0/604681651_739399.gif)
See above Proud representative of the Fossil Fuel industry... ;D


The Rhode Island Democrat, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, has long been an advocate for climate change action. His official website features a page called “Climate Change: Time to Wake Up” and he has made more than 85 speeches in the Senate on the topic, giving one per week.


U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse at the People’s Climate March in New York City last month. Photo credit: Stefanie Spear (at the link)

Whitehouse praised the Obama administration’s limit on carbon emissions from power plants, announced in June, saying “It will change the way polluters think.” But he’d like to take the next step of making polluters pay for their cost to society. He said that not only would it reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality, it would generate significant new revenue for the federal government, perhaps as much as a two trillion dollars in the first decade. He pointed to some of the positive uses that money could be applied to, including cutting taxes, relieving student debt, increasing Social Security benefits and providing transition assistance to workers in fossil fuel industries.

“It’s win-win-win,” he said. “We can use this revenue to do big things; repair a marketplace failure; and guide the economy toward lower emissions, enhanced productivity and a sustainable future.”

Whitehouse also drew a direct line between the Republican party’s increasingly stubborn climate denier stance and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed a gusher of corporate money into campaigns.

“Not long ago, Republicans joined Democrats in pushing for action on climate,” Whitehouse said. “Leading Republican voices agreed that the dangers of climate change were real. Leading Republican voices agreed that carbon emissions were the culprit. And leading Republican voices agreed that Congress had the responsibility to act. Then the heartbeat flatlined. Republican calls for climate action fell silent. Something happened, right around 2010. It was the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—one of the court’s most disgraceful decisions. Improper fact-finding by the five conservative activists on the Supreme Court concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt elections—just couldn’t do it. By some magic, it’s pure.”

He says that although his Republican colleagues represent many states ravaged by its effects, “Most won’t even utter the words ‘climate change’ on the floor of the Senate at all.  It’s not safe to, ever since Citizens United allowed the bullying, polluting special interests to bombard our elections with their attack ads and their threats.”

http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/29/senator-proposes-carbon-tax/
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on November 09, 2014, 04:56:03 pm
Quote
joe richardson 
 November 9, 2014 


In regards to your comments about road costs. I think its worth noting how Texas and their illustrious Governor Perry decided to deal with that very problem, i.e. paved roads being ruined by fracking industry heavy truck useage in the Eagle Ford shale area.

Texas and Gov. Perry plan was to turn the paved roads back into gravel roads and the hell with the damaged pavement. . I actually believe part of their plan was to strip the pavement from paved roads and just let them go the way of the goat trails and the people that lived in the area, well to bad..

In all fairness Gov Perry's plan was put forth a year ago and I managed to escape not shortly thereafter and haven't paid attention to where the plan went.

Yet another example of the mentality of oil or nothing that will surely drive us all back to the goat trails days if we let it.  >:(

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/10/the-next-revolution-discarding-dangerous-fossil-fuel-accounting-practices#comm136919
Title: How to Promote Solar — And Help Repeal Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Parody
Post by: AGelbert on November 12, 2014, 04:12:46 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AAa0gd7ClM&feature=player_embedded

How to Promote Solar — And Help Repeal Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Parody (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014183928.gif)
 


 Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza,  UnThink Solar
 November 12, 2014

Article at link:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2014/11/how-to-market-solarand-help-repeal-fossil-fuel-subsidies-parody#comment-137011 (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2014/11/how-to-market-solarand-help-repeal-fossil-fuel-subsidies-parody#comment-137011)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on January 15, 2015, 10:04:45 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150115220104.png)

See how much you are getting RIPPED OFF by all the above at the link:   :o  >:(

http://foe-calc.herokuapp.com/peaceaction/
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on January 30, 2015, 06:20:36 pm
01/30/2015 12:47 PM   
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Finally Trending Down, But Not In US  ???  >:(

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z8yLYObQlMc/T9wCMaqLA5I/AAAAAAAADvo/v5HI38D7KeA/s1600/SubsidyFail.gif)

SustainableBusiness.com News

Now that deep sea oil drilling projects are being cancelled across the world because of low petroleum prices, governments should use this opportunity to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).

 And at least 27 countries are doing so, they say. It started in 2013, when fossil subsidies declined by $27 billion to $548 billion, while renewable energy support rose $11 billion to $96.5 billion. The process is accelerating with low oil prices.

"In the absence of subsidies, all of the main renewable energy technologies would be competitive with oil-fired plants," says Faith Birol, Chief Economist at IEA.

IEA calculates that for every $1 that subsidizes renewable energy, $6 is spent to subsidize fossil fuels - precious funds that could be used for sustainable development.

Countries cutting subsides range from Mexico to Germany, from Morocco to Malaysia, mostly in the form of higher gas prices - everyone except the US, as usual! There's no need to subsidize fossil fuel consumption when prices are so low, saving governments lots of money and leveling the playing field for renewable energy.

India, for example, has been spending 2.2% of GDP on fossil subsidies to keep electric and fuel prices artificially low.

 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115181253.jpeg)
Fossil Fuel Subsidies US

Countries need to stop providing subsidies to stoke exploration and production - amounting to about $88 billion last year. The UK, for example, is considering incentives for drilling in the North Sea, and the US - the biggest subsidizer - has a new offshore oil leasing plan. 

IEA has been fervently calling for an end to fossil subsides - that alone, would reduce global emissions 13% - while making it much easier for renewable sources to compete. It would also reduce air and water pollution and free up funding for the Green Climate Fund. 

Efforts to cut emissions by using more renewable energy can't do the job if fossil fuel use keeps growing, says IEA. If the status quo continues, global energy demand will rise 37% and carbon emissions 20% by 2040. That would lead to a 3.6°C (6.5°F) temperature rise - making catastrophic sea level rise, polar ice cap melt, water shortages and other severe effects inevitable.

To get fossil subsidies down faster, the Center for American Progress is promoting "SPARC Bonds," which would be repaid with savings from reduced subsidies. Read more:

 
Website: www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/06/25/90277/subsidy-phase-out-and-reform-catalyst-bonds-2/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26127
(http://www.freesmileys.org/custom/image/tongue%5E_%5Earial%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E0%5E_%5EBurning Fossil Fuels IS SUICIDE%5E_%5E.gif)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on May 30, 2015, 10:30:08 pm
Reflections From Below The Fossil Subsidy Iceberg  :P

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/30/reflections-fossil-subsidy-iceberg/
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on June 15, 2015, 08:00:15 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTwhHTVBDjY&feature=player_embedded

How much does the world spend to subsidize fossil fuels? The IMF wants to know   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

By Heather Smith  on 15 Jun 2015 4:03 am

http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-much-does-the-world-spend-to-subsidize-fossil-fuels-the-imf-wants-to-know/

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif)

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2015, 09:38:19 pm
A Closer Look at Fossil and Renewable Energy Subsidies


The same permanent subsidies that made fossil fuels cheap are simply not available to the re-newable energy industry. Why not?

June 10, 2015

By Susan Kraemer, Contributor

A new study by the International Monetary Fund puts the total cost of fossil fuel subsidies at approximately $10 million a minute globally, when health costs and environmental degradation are included, never mind the effects of a destabilized climate in future centuries.

The most perverse of these subsidies are aimed at finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, even though it is generally understood that these must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic irreversible climate change.

When drilling for oil was a start-up industry in the 1890s, it cost today's equivalent of $500 a barrel to get it out of the ground, according to UC San Diego's James Hamilton in his study Oil Prices, Exhaustible Resources, and Economic Growth.

The first federal tax break for the oil and gas industry came within its very first years. The Intangible Drilling Costs (IDC) still allows the industry to write off most drilling costs, like the tertiary injectants deduction, in full, immediately, rather than at normal business depreciation rates.

Enacted in 1926, the Percentage Depletion Tax Credit actually increases when prices go up, as it allows companies to deduct a flat percentage of income received from oil or gas wells, frequently resulting in tax deductions in excess of investment.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America describes the tax credit this way
Quote
: "This deduction is a standard part of the American tax code that supports the development of U.S. oil and natural gas that would otherwise be uneconomic to produce.”

When coal was a start-up industry (in the U.S.) in the late 1700s, it was given tax-free status, smelting was given incentives, and competing old world coal imports were taxed at 10 percent. Four centuries later, coal is still receiving $5 billion in incentives a year. The result is coal-fired electricity at about US $0.04 per kilowatt-hour (when burned in power plants that are already built, the costs of which have already been passed along to ratepayers).

"There are dozens and dozens of tax credits for conventional energy," said SolarReserve CEO Kevin Smith, based on the knowledge he gained in 30 years of building natural gas plants. "For example, if the Keystone pipeline goes ahead; the refineries who refine that type of alternative fuel get a 50 percent ITC. There are depreciation allowances for wells as they start to degrade, there are just a long list of tax advantages. And all of them are a permanent part of the tax codes.”

These and other oil and gas subsidies total about $7 billion a year in the U.S., according to Taxpayers for Common Sense Understanding Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies.
For centuries, the U.S. Congress has made these sorts of federal investments in each new form of fossil energy.

Permitting, Leasing Inequities, Too

State-level policies increase expenses for renewable energy project developers by making permitting onerous for new projects. In California for example, permitting has historically been almost nonexistent for fossil fuels, but has set a much higher bar for renewable energy.
Permitting solar farms in California can be a three-year multi-million-dollar process. Fossil fuel companies can simply declare on a one page form their intentions to drill next Friday. Further, land leasing costs are higher for solar and wind than for fossil fuels. Land leases for oil and gas were still at 1920s prices in 2009, when the BLM was setting market rates for the renewable industry.

The coal industry pays land rents for natural resource extraction on land that has been undervalued since the 1800s. In the last 30 years, the treasury has lost nearly $30 billion in revenue by undervaluing public lands in Wyoming and Montana where Powder River coal is mined, according to Tom Sanzillo, Finance Director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

Make Renewable Subsidies Permanent


It is almost impossible to reverse permanent subsidies in the tax code. It has never happened in the U.S., so some advocates believe that a more practical solution would be: if you can't beat them, join them.

The coal industry's PTC for producing refined coal is $6.71 a ton — in 2015. The wind industry’s $0.023 per kWh PTC keeps flickering out every few years. Renewables have been stymied by stop/start subsidies that almost seem designed to scare off investors, because none are permanently in the tax code the way fossil fuel subsidies are.

Uncertainty alone makes subsidies less effective. If the ITC and PTC were permanent, renewable investment would be more predictable, so supplying equipment for projects and capital cost would be less, bringing generation costs down. While some investors are able to stomach the risk of buying into renewables projects without knowing whether the tax credits will still be there when their projects reach fruition, most cannot.

Because subsidies for fossil fuels are permanent, the effect is much greater, because permanence provides a stable and predictable investment environment not given to renewables.

One way to create a level playing field with fossil fuels would be make the subsidies for wind and solar just as permanent as those for fossil fuels. Either that, or remove all subsidies for all forms of fuel, something very unlikely to happen.

Quote
Comment by Jan Freed

The Harvard School of Medicine study concludes that coal alone has enormous hidden costs from over 70 harmful side effects, aside from tax breaks.

http://www.nexteraenergycanada.com/pdf/durham/PIC_2_Handouts_P1.pdf

We pay $300-$500 billion per year in these hidden costs, costs that double or triple the sticker price of coal energy.

Perspective?  800 "Solyndras" of taxpayer harms per year for the privilege of burning coal.   

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-fossil-and-renewable-energy-subsidies.html (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-fossil-and-renewable-energy-subsidies.html)

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on June 27, 2015, 06:16:50 pm
 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270615171708.jpeg)
‘Renewables Are Cheapest Energy Option’ When Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Removed, Says REN21  (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)

Alex Kirby, Climate News Network | June 27, 2015 12:34 pm

A significant threshold has been crossed by renewable energy as analysts report that the sectorʼs size last year reached double the level it was at just 10 years earlier.

 (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/reoutpace650.jpg)
Removing fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsidies globally would make it evident that renewables are the cheapest energy option. Photo credit: Shutterstock

This expansion happened in a year when the global economy and energy use both grew, but without a matching rise in emissions of carbon dioxide  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif)—the main greenhouse gas targeted in efforts to restrain global warming.

The report by REN21, a global renewable energy policy network, says the result is an example of sustainable development. Despite the worldʼs annual 1.5 percent increase in energy consumption in recent years and 3 percent GDP growth last year, 2014ʼs CO2 emissions were unchanged from 2013ʼs total of 32.3 billion tonnes.

The reportʼs authors say this decoupling of economic and CO2 growth is due to Chinaʼs increased use of renewables and to efforts by OECD countries to promote more sustainable growth, including by increased energy efficiency and use of renewable energy.
 
“Renewable energy and improved energy efficiency are key to limiting global warming to 2°C and avoiding dangerous climate change,” says Arthouros Zervos, who chairs REN21.


 (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/policies.jpg)

Distorting subsidies

Solar, wind and other technologies, including large hydro-electric schemes, used in 164 countries added another 135 Gigawatts last year to bring the worldʼs total installed renewable energy power capacity to 1,712 GW. This was 8.5 percent up on 2013, and more than double the 800 GW of capacity recorded in 2004. One GW can power between 750,000 and one million typical U.S. homes.

The authors say the sectorʼs growth could be even greater were it not for more than US$550 bn paid out in annual subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. They say the subsidies keep the prices for energy from these fuels artificially low, encouraging wasteful use and hindering competition.

Christine Lins, executive secretary of REN21, says: “Creating a level playing field would strengthen the development and use of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Removing fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsidies globally would make it evident that renewables are the cheapest energy option.”

 (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/electglobal.jpg)

By the end of 2014, renewables comprised an estimated 27.7 percent of the worldʼs power generating capacity—enough to supply an estimated 22.8 percent of global electricity demand.

The amount of electricity available from renewables worldwide is now greater than that produced by all coal-burning plants in the U.S. Coal supplied about 38 percent of U.S. electricity in 2013, compared with around 50 percent in the early 2000s.

Solar photovoltaic capacity has had a rapid 68-fold growth, from 2.6 GW in 2004 to 177 GW in 2014, while wind power capacity has increased eightfold, from 48 GW in 2004 to 370 GW in 2014. Employment in the sector is also growing fast, with an estimated 7.7m people worldwide working directly or indirectly on renewable energy last year.


 (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jobs.jpg)

Outpacing fossil fuels

New investment globally in renewable power capacity was more than twice that of investment in net fossil fuel power capacity, continuing the trend of renewables outpacing fossil fuels in net investment for the fifth year running.

Investment in developing countries was up 36 percentsu from the previous year, to $131.3 bn. It came closer than ever to overtaking the investment total for developed economies, which reached $138.9 bn in 2014—up only 3 percent from 2013.


 (http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/invest.jpg)

China accounted for 63 percent of developing country investment, with Chile, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey each investing more than $1bn. By dollars spent, the leading countries for investment were China, the U.S., Japan, the UK and Germany. Leading countries for investments relative to per capita GDP were Burundi, Kenya, Honduras, Jordan and Uruguay.

But REN21 points out that more than a billion people—15 percent of humanity—still lack access to electricity, and the entire African continent has less power generation capacity than Germany.

The report says that off-grid solar PV has “a significant and growing market presence,” and other distributed renewable energy technologies are improving life in remote off-grid areas.

However, it stresses that this growth rate is still not enough to achieve the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) goals of doubling renewable energy and energy efficiency, and providing universal access for all by 2030.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/27/renewables-are-cheapest/2/ (http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/27/renewables-are-cheapest/2/)


Agelbert NOTE:
The math done above is accurate as far as it goes. However, it does not even begin to explain how REALLY EXPENSIVE fossil fuels ALWAYS HAVE BEEN!

WHY? Because the invisible "subsidies" (health care costs, pollution costs, wars for oil costs, ETC.) were not included. There is NO SUCH THING as an "externality" in thermodynamic processes. EVERYTHING that happens has a MEASURABLE effect. The Empathy Deficit Disordered ASS HOLES in the dirty energy industry have tried to make their biosphere math challenged fairy tale view of reality the "accepted wisdom". Only fools continue to believe them.

Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables: Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)

Quote
The quagmire that faces industrialised civilisation is much of it was built using cheap fossil fuels which were not only subsidised directly but in nearly all cases the externalities were never factored in so the damage and costs associated with fossil fuel were lugged to the general population/wildlife/environment.  - Monsta666

Monsta is right. But he ignores the DELIBERATE malice and aforethought that gave dirty energy the "subsidies" in the first place AND continues to be used as a hammer to hamper cost effective energy (i.e. RENEWABLE ENERGY) development due to MASSIVE big oil corporate corruption of government.  >:(

MKing's mendacity and double talk (see defense of fracking   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) below) about energy costs is a textbook example of the mens rea modus operandi of externality ignoring fossil fuelers everywhere.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
 
Might I pose the question that if we peak oilers are correct about fracking being a ponzi scheme; that major cracks should start appearing soon in this house of leverage and constantly required drilling or fracking of costly wells.

Tight/shale oil and gas wells aren't expensive, the most recent range of numbers provided to the public by the Texas BEG are in the 3-10 million each range, drilling and completing, I confirmed this independently after I last spoke with Tinker and his group a month or two back.

These kinds of numbers are nearly insignificant when compared to conventional oil or gas production in places like the North Slope or GOM, North Sea, anywhere in the Arctic, and are less than half the cost of doing the SAME thing in Argentina, China, or Russia.

As far as hydraulic fracturing itself being a ponzi scheme, it has been going on for 60+ years, I don't think it has much to do with overall financial performance myself, but more with the relationship between price, cost and well performance.

For example, using financial reports on public companies allows interesting analysis of the aggregate, but not the distribution of profitability at the well level of resolution.

For example, lets take two oil companies in the Bakken. One of them is run by a bloviating amateur, he drills and completes a $10M well, pays $1500/month to have someone operate it for him, and requires a nice office building, a staff of sycophants to blow smoke up his ass, all of these things cost money, and the overhead for this company is $100K/month.

This company will probably lose money, and badly, trying to recoup not only the initial CapEx but the $101.5K month nut they have created.

Whereas another company, requiring only one person to achieve the same result, and wanting a modest income of $2k month from this well, will probably make money.

No difference in anything other than the overhead sitting on top of the well's performance.

Fortunately, when the first company goes bankrupt, the second will buy the discounted cash flow of the first companies wells (doesn't give a crap about the building, let the bank foreclose) and make their money off expected increases in price as peak oil takes hold and the price of oil increases as Malthusians expect.

The combination of these three things at the detail level, and aggregate, is important. Amateurs don't tend to know the difference, in part because they don't see how the performance of private companies works, and how they are just salivating right now, waiting for someone to fall, that their assets might be acquired at a discount.


Quote from: Golden Oxen
Shouldn't financing and borrowing problems be arising already?

They certainly might be.

My connections with Wall Street money says that they are still looking to get in, you can barely get them to bite on 1/4B deals, they really want 1B deals right now, and can easily come up with 10B for the right deal.

So the money does not seem to have dried up yet.
[/size]
  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif)

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens in regard to some of his experiences with people that make holes in the ground to get stuff out of and sell to us for "profit", a FRACKING site is a hole the ground with a bunch of LIARS on top.

Here's an article MKing will disagree with and ridicule as "garden variety" or "irrelevant" or disdain with some other pejorative bit of puffery.

The only part of the article he will agree with is that the Oil and Gas industry ACTUALLY gave solar power technology development a boost back in the 70s because PV supplied power to very remote locations the fossil fuelers tend be located for new profit over planet piggery.  ;D

The FULL story of how we-the-people have supported these fossil fuel and nuclear welfare queens is there from the start until this day. The appearance of profitability ignores our tax money for research and continuous subsidy.

Fossil fuelers have an amazing ability to ignore, not just externalized costs, but the giveaways from we-the-people! They have the brass balls to compute those subsidies as part of the ROI. That's a blatant accounting falsehood. Without subsides they are not profitable, period. But MKing will continue with his fantasies, come hell or high water. So it goes.  :P


SNIPPPET 1:

Quote
The bias against renewable funding and support is clear. Recent analysis found that over the first fifteen years an industry receives a subsidy, nuclear energy received an average of $3.3 billion, oil and gas averaged $1.8 billion,Fto and renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion.

Renewables received less than one-quarter of the support of oil and gas and less than one-eighth of the support that nuclear received during the early years of development, when strong investment can make a big difference. Yet even with this disparity, more of our energy supply now comes from renewables than from nuclear, which indicates the strength of renewables as a potential energy source.

SNIPPET 2:
Quote

The momentum behind renewable development came to a rapid halt as soon as Ronald Reagan was elected president. Not only did he remove the solar panels atop the White House, he also gutted funding for solar development and poured billions into developing a dirty synthetic fuel that was never brought to market.

Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left Renewables Behind)

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/unnatural-gas-how-government-made-fracking-profitable-and-left-renewables-behind)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2015, 11:51:45 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070815234504.png)

The fossil fuel government has the fossil fuel (welfare queen) industry's back!  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) And OUR our wallet!    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)


Quote
Did you know you could get billions of dollars from the US government to be in the oil business? Or the coal industry? Or fracking? In this satirical infomercial, famous American government grant guru Matthew Lesko shows how you too can get billions of dollars from the government to destroy the environment!

• Seriously, fossil fuel companies are racking in billions from subsidies. Learn more  here. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf)

• This is part of our comedy series, Climate change: too hot to handle

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/aug/07/fossil-fuels-govenment-subsidies-satire-video (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/aug/07/fossil-fuels-govenment-subsidies-satire-video)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on August 17, 2015, 07:12:25 pm
 Why Republicans Vote for Bernie (http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/08/why-republicans-vote-bernie#comment-332346)

Agelbert comment: Thom,

You left out one VERY IMPORTANT reason why most Americans will support Senator Sanders for President:

Senator Sanders has submitted legislation to eliminate the subsidies for Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power. That corporate welfare queen THEFT is a HUGE millstone around the neck of America that AIDS the polluters and HINDERS the 100% Renewable Energy transition that would provide jobs and a chance to survive Climate Change.
Quote

“At a time when scientists tell us we need to reduce carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies that pad fossil-fuel companies’ already enormous profits,” said senator Bernie Sanders, who announced on 30 April he is running for president.

Sanders, with representative Keith Ellison, recently proposed an End Polluter Welfare Act, which they say would cut $135bn of US subsidies for fossil fuel companies over the next decade. “Between 2010 and 2014, the oil, coal, gas, utility, and natural resource extraction industries spent $1.8bn on lobbying, much of it in defence of these giveaways,” according to Sanders and Ellison.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

Many conservatives are keenly aware of this.  People get tired of being ripped off by the fossil fuel government. They can add and subtract.

For example, gasoline prices have not been cut anywhere near what they should have been cut.

The amazing way a pipeline here, or a refinery shut down there (accompanied by copious crocodile tears about wanting to provide us a "service"), manages to keep gasoline prices "inelastic" (on the way down, OF COURSE - they have a hair trigger on the way up!) so they go up at a moment's notice despite that bla, bla about all the "good, prudent, business" reasons they don't go down is more mindfork as per Orwell speak and Machiavelli.

Quote
One must know how to color one’s actions and to be a great liar and deceiver. – Niccolo Machiavelli

Quote
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato

Joe Mauk called BS on a recent crocodile tear piece by an oil industry shill titled "Why don't gas prices fall?":

"At $80 a barrel being 42 gallons of gas at $1.60 a gallon, then $49 dollars a barrel should be at about .95 to $1.30. The figures for a barrel of oil to a gallon of gas is over a $1.50 more per gallon than it needs to be so, they are making profit, what they report losses on is anyone's guess."
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2015, 10:15:42 pm
Tell Congress: Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes
58,141 signatures
58% Complete
100,000

In 2013, taxpayers spent BILLIONS in subsidies for big oil and gas companies – the same year the Big Five oil companies brought in $93 BILLION in profits. That’s $177,000 per minute! It’s outrageous: Congress is pouring money into companies that are already wildly profitable.

Some of these tax loopholes have been on the books for 100 years! Over the years, oil loopholes have amounted to a gift of hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers to one of the most profitable industries in the world. With taxpayer subsidies like that, it's no wonder the Big Five oil companies were able to pay their
CEOs $125 million last year alone.

It’s time to stop giving unfair tax giveaways to Big Oil. Add your name to tell Congress to close Big Oil tax loopholes! (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)


Sen. Al Franken
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sen. Ed Markey
Sen. Bob Menendez
Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Chuck Schumer
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

http://signforgood.com/bigoiltaxloopholes/?code=Leahy
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2015, 09:55:59 pm
The 800 Ways Taxpayer Money Supports Fossil Fuel Industries
   
If the world seeks to lower carbon emissions, why is support for fossil fuels so strong?   (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)
 


September 21, 2015

By Reed Landberg, Bloomberg

As world leaders converge on New York for a United Nations gathering that’s expected to have a strong emphasis on climate change, the OECD is pointing out 800 ways rich industrial nations support fossil fuels with taxpayer money, along with a handful of countries that are catching up quickly.

The measures were worth $167 billion last year for the oil, natural gas and coal industries  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based institution that advises 34 industrial nations. While that number has fallen from almost $200 billion in 2012, it easily exceeds the value of subsidies for renewables such as wind and solar.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp) >:(

The findings released Monday are designed to stimulate debate on what constitutes fair support for energy technologies. World leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping are attempting to ratchet up ambitions for a global deal reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The UN-organized negotiations are expected to yield an international agreement in Paris in December. The OECD report suggests policy makers burrow into their own tax and spending measures for a solution.

“We’re totally schizophrenic,” Angel Gurria, the OECD’s secretary-general, said at a press conference in Paris on Monday. “We’re trying to reduce emissions, and we subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. These policies are not obsolete, they’re dangerous legacies of a bygone era when pollution was viewed as a tolerable side effect of economic growth. They should be erased from the books.”

The report covered OECD member nations plus six developing economies outside the group -- Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa. It expands on a 2013 assessment and on the work of the International Energy Agency, which put the cost of fossil fuel subsidies at $548 billion in 2013, down 25 percent from the year before.

Biggest Subsidizers

The IEA report includes countries from the Middle East and Africa such as Qatar, Iran and Nigeria that top other rankings of big subsidizers. It looked at how consumer prices vary from market prices, while the OECD looked specifically at measures in national budgets that support fossil fuels.

“If other developing countries were included, then the total would be much higher,” said Angus McCrone, senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. “The reassuring point from the OECD report is that although it found attempts to reduce fossil-fuel subsidies running into inertia, it also concluded that support is now on a downward trend.”

Renewable energy subsidies rose 15 percent to $121 billion in 2013 and may rise to $230 billion by 2030, according to an IEA report released last year. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

The measures counted by the OECD covered some of the most obscure pieces of national tax codes -- including direct controls on gasoline prices, depreciation allowances for oil drillers, breaks for refiners, credits for infrastructure like pipelines and stimulus for technology to clean up coal emissions.

‘People Are Outraged’  (http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-023.gif)

“People are outraged when they find out that their tax dollars are being used to prop up the richest industry on the planet,” said Jamie Henn, strategy director at 350.org, the campaign group founded by environmentalist Bill McKibben to urge investors to divest from high-polluting industries.

Quote
“Funding fossil fuels is like buying up typewriters at the dawn of the computer age.”    (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif)

Oil and oil products reaped 82 percent of the support, according to the OECD, with coal collecting 8 percent and gas 10 percent. A plunge in crude oil prices reduced some of the cost of subsidies.

More important were measures taken in India, China, Mexico and Indonesia, as well as most industrial nations, to reduce handouts to forms of energy that produce significant amounts of pollution. India saved 200 billion rupees ($3 billion) from 2012 to 2014 by slashing subsidies for diesel. Indonesia reduced consumer aid for electricity and motor fuels that ate up a fifth of its spending as recently as 2011. In the U.S., Obama has proposed $4 billion a year of savings from reduced fossil-fuel support.

“We’re certainly not saying that all the measures are bad,” since some are targeted to help poor people afford fuel they need, Jehan Sauvage, the lead author of the OECD report, said in an interview. “The key message is to ask if this is the best use of public money. Are these measures the best way to support the goals we have?”

©2015 Bloomberg News
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/09/the-800-ways-taxpayer-money-supports-fossil-fuel-industries.html
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2016, 07:15:17 pm
President Obama said,
Quote
“Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future — especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”

(http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg)(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003730383/3816438968_29Oil_Subsidies_xlarge.jpeg)



Jan 13, 2016 Sara Shor - 350.org: 
 
Quote
Since 1920, the government has been selling coal, oil, and gas on federal land to the highest bidder. President Obama has rightly identified that this is an antiquated system due for an overhaul. But these federal fossil fuel auctions don’t just require minor adjustments -- each and every one of them needs to be cancelled. (Last year, local activists mobilized around six government fossil fuel auctions, and managed to get two of them called off.)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

Half the fossil fuels under U.S. soil are on these public lands. That includes coal in Montana, offshore oil in Virginia, and fracked gas in Colorado. If he wanted to, President Obama could say “let’s keep it all in the ground” tomorrow, and we could keep 450 gigatons of carbon out of our atmosphere (without interference from climate deniers in Congress).

Fossil fuel companies already have five times more oil, gas, and coal than they can burn. We can’t afford to sell them any more. We have to just start saying no.
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Click here  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300614160245.gif) to tell the President to get our government out of the fossil fuel business once and for all.  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif) (https://act.350.org/sign/obama-kiitg/)





Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on February 19, 2016, 06:27:02 pm
(http://crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/15/11/kochtopus.jpg)
Koch Brothers Plotting Multimillion Dollar War on Electric Vehicles   (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)

Lorraine Chow | February 19, 2016 2:45 pm

SNIPPETS:

Death to the electric car?    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) Charles and David Koch are reportedly backing a new group that will use millions to promote petroleum and fight against government subsidies for electric vehicles.

In an effort to strike back at record-breaking EV sales, the fossil fuel industry is allegedly funding a new organization that will spend $10 million a year to push petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies on EVs, refining industry sources told the Huffington Post.


Elon Musk
✔  ‎‎@elonmusk 

Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf


http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/19/koch-brothers-war-on-evs/


Comment by renewableguy

Fossil fuels is scared sh--less.

Agelbert reply:
Yep.

Amory Lovins knows the score. The fossil fuel industry is a wounded beast. It's days are numbered.

QUOTE
Over the past 40 years, Americans have saved 31 times as much energy as renewables added. Those cumulative savings are equivalent to 21 years’ current energy use.  They’re simply invisible: you can’t see the energy you don’t use. But globally, it’s a bigger “supply” than oil, and inexorably, it’s going to get much, much bigger.

Oil companies worry about climate regulation, but they’re even more at risk from market competition. The oil that’ll be unburnable for climate reasons is probably less than the oil that’ll be unsellable because efficiency and renewables can do the same job cheaper.

An oil business that sputters when oil’s at $90 a barrel, swoons at $50, and dies at $30 will not do well against the $25 cost of getting U.S. mobility—or anyone else’s, since the technologies are fungible—completely off oil by 2050. That cost, like the $18 per saved barrel to make U.S. automobiles uncompromised, attractive, cost-effective, and oil-free, is a 2010–11 analytic result; today’s costs are even lower and continue to fall.

In short, like whale oil in the 1850s, oil is becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before it became unavailable even at high prices.
UNQUOTE

As Oil Prices Gyrate, Underlying Trends Are Shifting To Oil's Disadvantage (http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_02_01_as_oil_prices_gyrate_underlying_trends_are_shifting_to_oils_disadvantage)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on February 19, 2016, 06:34:20 pm
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

 
‘Shocking’ revelation finds $5.3tn subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments
   >:(



Excellent article with revealing graphics and charts: (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on May 04, 2016, 03:08:12 pm
Agelbert NOTE: If the Saudis can eliminate the oil subsidy SWAG, there is NO REASON we can't do the same in the United States.

(http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg)

(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-062.gif) Saudi prince makes bold challenges to kingdom's old ways

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman got a standing ovation when he visited a gathering of Saudi youth last month.

Posted 04 May 2016 23:00 Updated 04 May 2016 23:30



SNIPPET 1:

Last week, Prince Mohammed officially unveiled Saudi Vision 2030, his blueprint to move the economy decisively from that he called its “addiction to oil” towards the private sector.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)



SNIPPET 2:
The phased removal of subsidies on fuel  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif), water and electricity - part of the welfare lavished on Saudis, of whom about four out of five workers hold public sector jobs - is already underway.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191456.bmp)



SNIPPET 3:

Abdulaziz al-Sager, head of the Jeddah and Geneva-based Gulf Research Centre, says there is a growing recognition among Saudi leaders that the oil-based economic system is not sustainable. That will necessarily lead to social and political change.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/insight-saudi-prince-ma/2756600.html?cx_tag=trendingworld&cid=tg:recos:trendingworld:standard#cxrecs_s


We-the-people CANNOT AFFORD to continue to baby the fossil fuel industry WELFARE QUEENS in the U.S.!  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif)

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-281014151757.png)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on May 05, 2016, 06:17:38 pm
Elon Musk: We Must Revolt Against the Unrelenting Propaganda of the Fossil Fuel Industry

Lorraine Chow | May 5, 2016 11:18 am

During an interview at the World Energy Innovation Forum (WEIF) at Tesla’s Fremont, California factory Wednesday, Elon Musk criticized fossil fuel subsidies as well the alleged “propaganda” tactics deployed by Big Oil and Gas to tarnish his companies, including Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX.

Quote
“The fundamental issue with fossil fuels is … every use of fossil fuels comes with a subsidy (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp) ,” Musk said in his talk with forum organizer and DBL Partners venture capitalist Ira Ehrenpreis.

According to the Tesla CEO, cheap oil and gasoline prices not only prevent drivers from switching their gas-guzzlers to electric cars, it also deters the fight against climate change.

Musk explained that the well-funded fossil fuel industry isn’t even paying for their contribution to environmental destruction.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

Quote
“It would be like if you could just dump garbage in the street and not pay for garbage pickup,” he said.

Citing data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Musk lamented he’s “competing against something that has a $6 trillion per year subsidy,” and that the low gas prices that subsidies create are “weakening the economic-forcing function to sustainable transport and clean energy in general.”

Musk suggested that a carbon tax would help curb Dirty Energy’s emissions but passage of such a policy would be “hugely politically difficult” and that politicians usually pick the easier path of providing subsidies for electric cars, “even though gas cars are getting a bigger subsidy.”

Although the electric vehicle maker said he was “encouraged by the Paris talks,” he still thinks that the transition to clean energy and sustainable transportation isn’t happening quickly enough.

Musk gave an example of how the fossil fuel industry has been feeding negative stories to the press about his many companies.

As Electrek explained:

The CEO implied that the LA Times article from last year that misleadingly asserted that Musk’s companies received $4.9 billion in subsidies originated from the fossil fuel industry.

Musk suggested that the report was planted to counter the IMF study that found that the fossil fuel industry was receiving the equivalent of ~$5 trillion in subsidy a year. Both reports came out around the same time.

“After the IMF came out with their study showing that fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $6 trillion a year [it’s was actually $5.3 trillion in 2015]–like $6 trillion per year,” Musk said. “Then some representatives from the oil and gas industry added up all the incentives that Tesla had received and will receive in the future, which happens to coincide with the $6 billion figure.”  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)

“We need to appeal to the people–educate people to sort of revolt against this and to fight the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry which is unrelenting and enormous,” he concluded.

Earlier in his talk, Musk also predicted that autonomous cars are the future of transportation.

“It’s going to become common for cars to be autonomous a lot faster than people think,” Musk said, adding that half of all new cars will have self-driving technology within seven to 10 years.

“It’ll just be something where it’s odd if it’s not in your car. Like not having GPS or something like that, but even bigger. It’ll just be normal,” he said.

The entire interview was captured by Electrek in the video below. Musk’s discussion about the fossil fuel industry starts around the 18:30 mark.

https://youtu.be/pxS9mlZ7n8s

http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/05/elon-musk-fossil-fuels/
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on July 28, 2016, 06:05:02 pm
(http://dl10.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2491/2491210ovie015m90.gif)

Agelbert NOTE: The following is a copy of one of 5 letters sent today to the candidates for governor of Vermont.

Each letter differs only by the name of the recipient.

The candidates for governor of Vermont are: Peter Galbraith, Bruce Lisman, Sue Minter, Matt Dunne and Lt. Gov. Phil Scott.


Quote
Jul 28, 2016

 Peter Galbraith

 To Galbraith,

 I agree with Ashley Orgain, as you should as well.

 "We can't have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley
 Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh
 Generation, Burlington, Vermont

 I am retired and live in a manufactured home. I have a low income but
 have never collected ANY kind of welfare, home heating assistance or
 food stamps, although I respect Vermonters who require those worthy
 services to help them get back on their feet.

 But there is a service this state is providing the polluters that is
 not worthy or justified by any stretch of the imagination. That is the
 direct and indirect subsidy that Vermont provides for fossil fuels and
 those who profit from selling them.

 Subsidizing fossil fuels and "externalizing" the pollution on
 to we-the-people is NOT a worthy service because of the directly
 related health care costs to the state, including, but not limited to,
 reduced longevity, absence from work due to illness and fossil fuel use
 related occupational hazards.

 I support a carbon pollution tax paired with tax cuts and investment in
 clean energy and efficiency.

 As a candidate for governor - I hope you understand that the vast
 majority of Vermonters believe global warming is real, primarily caused
 by humans and that we want to be part of the solution.

 We also want leaders willing to pursue policies that will protect our
 environment and strengthen our economy.

 We can do just that -- by lowering taxes on income, employment and
 sales,  investing in clean energy and efficiency and paying for it with
 a gradually rising tax on carbon pollution.

 This is an environmental and economic winner for our state. Continued
 subsidies and babying of fossil fuel providers is a LOSER for our state.

 If I am willing to pay a tax on carbon AND support the elimination of
 ALL subsidies for polluting fuel producers, there is no reason, besides
 unjustified profit over people and planet, that you should not do the
 same.

 Sincerely,

 Anthony G. Gelbert
(home address and e-mail address included)
Colchester, VT 05446

Yes, I know this letter to five candidates for Governor of Vermont is probably another one of my quixotic efforts.  :(  Howevah, ya never know when common sense might prevail over bought and paid for stupidity.

(http://www.stefanmart.de/12_quixote/1205_quixote_z.gif)
The story of my life: Outnumbered, always; outgunned, usually; outclassed, never.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

(http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCi1IdQWYAAcO5Y.jpg)


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270716175152.png)

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on August 08, 2016, 06:44:26 pm
 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080816184719.png)

To show you that the cratering of fossil fuel prices (and STOCK!) is NOT a recent trend, here's last year's one year performance Oil & Gas Writing on the Wall (Street).   8)

 
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080816185404.png)

The totally unjustified price increase earlier this year was due to SPECULATION, not "supply & demand", as the recent wailing   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif) and gnashing of teeth by oil trader crooks evidences (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-profits-getting-eaten-alive-by-renewable-energy!/msg5521/#msg5521) when they got their arses handed to them by the Chinese.

Last year, reality was asserting itself in the stock market. Reality has a habit of doing that, despite the most energetic efforts at corruption and rigging by the champions    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (https://smileyshack.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/stupid-im-with-arrow-left.gif) of profit over planet.  8)



Fossil Fuel Corporations are going to lose a lot of money.

Here's why. It is in the category of correct accounting procedures. Perhaps it is such a shock to the corporate world that they had to invent a new accounting term (i.e. Stranded Assets.).

"Stranded Assets", the new term for fossil fuels and the accompanying infrastructure plant and equipment, in real world accounting, means "LIABILITIES".

When that realization FINALLY hits the balance sheet preparers in the corporate world, the red ink will produce a TORRENT of fossil fuel industry bankruptcies. GOOD!  ;D

(http://www.ceres.org/images/press-release/Graphic_FossilFuelAssets.jpg/image_large)

And let's not forget all those refineries, pipelines, drilling rigs and, last but not least, ocean going oil tankers that will find it rather difficult to carry olive oil or biofuels instead of crude oil....    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191456.bmp)


Looky here, a floating white elephant!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Hellespont_Alhambra-223713_v2.jpg)
Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 04, 2016, 06:41:14 pm
When you’re in a carbon hole, stop digging  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

Published on 03/10/2016, 4:53pm 

Coal mine expansion makes dirty fuel cheap and delays the transition to clean alternatives. A moratorium is in order, argues Richard Denniss


By  Richard Denniss 

A world that is tackling climate change needs fewer coal mines, not more. But despite the simple truth of that statement, very large new coal mines are still being approved, subsidized and built around the world.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif)

In Australia, for example, the proposed Adani Carmichael mine – the largest ever in the country – would boost world coal output by around 40 million tonnes per year, enough to push the world price of coal down by around 1–2%.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement will require a broad range of measures, given that less coal will be needed in a low carbon future.

A simple first step for a world committed to a safe climate would be a moratorium on new coal mines, such as that proposed by the then-President of Kiribati, Anote Tong.

In addition to the obvious benefits of reducing coal production, avoiding unnecessary investment in unnecessary projects, and pushing up the price of coal, a moratorium on building new coal mines has a number of political economy, equity and diplomatic benefits.

Coal is by far the largest contributor to global emissions, and financially and politically, coal is the weakest member of the fossil fuel family. A moratorium on new coal mines further weakens the political power of the industry: Not only does it separate coal from the oil and gas sector, but it also separates the interests of the owners of existing coal mines from the interests of those proposing new coal mines.

Closely related to this is how a moratorium on new mines fits with the need for a “just transition” away from coal. Avoiding new mines helps to protect the jobs and wages of workers in existing coal mines, some of which might otherwise be forced to shut down early amid competition from new, often subsidized, coal mines.

This means a moratorium can help to support a more just and orderly transition for affected communities. When global demand for coal is flat or declining, every new coal mine built lowers both the market share and price received by all existing coal mines. That means new coal mines not only delay the transition away from coal; they also hurt existing coal miners’ livelihoods.


Study: Existing coal, oil and gas fields will blow carbon budget  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150715183719.png)


At a diplomatic level, the call for a moratorium allows countries that are committed to global climate action to place diplomatic pressure on the small number of countries that are committed to the construction of new coal mines.

In this sense, the call for a moratorium is the diplomatic equivalent of a divestment or "Keep it In the Ground” campaign. Forcing countries such as Australia to defend their right to significantly expand their coal exports is likely to help marginalize the views of such countries in existing foreign policy forums, including international climate negotiations.

As world demand for coal declines over time, the result will be lower prices. This will, inevitably, induce further demand, and thus delay the point at which renewable energy is significantly cheaper than coal fired electricity.

In addition to avoiding unnecessary investments and protecting the jobs of workers in existing coal mines, supply-side policies such as a coal moratorium can help to keep upward pressure on price and, in turn, augment and speed up the rate at which demand-side policies and technological change can drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Richard Denniss  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) is chief economist at The Australia Institute, tweeting @rdns_tai. To learn more about efforts to achieve a moratorium on new coal mines in Australia, see: http://www.nonewcoalmines.org.au.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/10/03/when-youre-in-a-carbon-hole-stop-digging/

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCi1IdQWYAAcO5Y.jpg)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270716175152.png)

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on December 02, 2016, 07:04:19 pm
Germany tells World Bank to quit funding fossil fuels (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/12/01/germany-tells-world-bank-to-quit-funding-fossil-fuels/
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on February 08, 2017, 02:06:08 pm
Agelbert NOTE: ANYONE who claims that there is not ample proof on this thread of the gargantuan, and totally unjustified, subsidies (THEFT from taxpayers) the fossil fuel industry welfare queens get annually from our government (and foreign governments all over the world too!) is REALLY off their rockers.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif)

To the ignoramous who complained about lack of fossil fuel subsidy proof here: Argue your point or STFU.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S.


What is a fossil fuel subsidy?

A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.

Are you looking for information about International Fossil Fuel Subsidies?  Then go here.

How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $14 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below


http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on February 16, 2017, 04:30:36 pm
(http://graysondemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/end-oil.jpg) 
Fossil fuels subsidies ‘jeopardising climate deal’, say major investors

Published on 15/02/2017, 12:01am
 
A group of investors and insurers who manage $2.8trn has called on the G20 to end public funding for coal, oil and gas by 2020   (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)

By Karl Mathiesen 


Investors with US$2.8 trillion  :o under management have called on the world’s leading economies to stop subsidising fossil fuels within four years.

The group, which includes insurance brands Legal & General and Aviva, issued a statement on Wednesday calling for a 2020 deadline to be set for a phase out of subsidies for coal, oil and gas by the G20 nations. G20 foreign ministers are meeting this week ahead of a leaders’ summit in Hamburg in July.

The G7 nations have pledged to end their subsidies by 2025, but much of the world’s carbon emissions growth is coming from countries on the next rung of the economic ladder.

The G20, which encompasses many of the world’s emerging economies, have agreed to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption” over the “medium term”. But despite increasing pressure from civil society and some countries within the G20, the commitment has remained hazy.

The group of fund managers, many of which hold large fossil fuel investments, said a clear signal from the world’s biggest economies would give them the confidence to shift capital towards clean energy.

Meryam Omi, head of sustainability and responsible investment strategy at Legal and General, said: “The current level of inefficient subsidies and lack of transparency are jeopardising the global goal of meeting the Paris climate targets and of ensuring a secure, healthy and reliable energy system.

Quote
“As investors, we are faced with a tremendous opportunity to finance the low carbon transition and, as such, we look for the governments to set a clear timeline and a plan for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies to enable an orderly transition. " (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)

Subsidies can come in the form of tax breaks, direct finance and indirect assistance but the definition is a subject of debate. Because of this, estimates of global fossil fuel subsidies vary widely, but even conservative estimates set the annual spend in the hundreds of billions.

Secretary general of the Mercator Research Institute Brigitte Knopf leads a task force charged with advising on the G20 meeting’s climate agenda. She said the topic of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies would be discussed at the meeting.

“However, in the current political situation we will see what is realistic in the end,” she said. The meeting will be the first multilateral talks attended by the new US president Donald Trump and a major test of his anti-globalist agenda.

The US has led on this matter in the past, last year presenting a joint peer review with China. Germany and Mexico are set to follow suit. But Trump has already reversed many of the pro-climate initiatives of his predecessor Barack Obama.

On fossil fuel subsidies, Knopf said “a clear deadline would certainly help with this endeavour. However, a phase-out year of 2020 is very ambitious. In 2016, the G7 have agreed on a date of 2025 and I don’t expect that the G20 can become more ambitious than the already positive signal of a joint 2025 deadline. It is also very well possible for the G20 to come out with a two-step approach of different speeds, meaning that the industrialized countries agree to phase out earlier than the emerging economies.”

Shelagh Whitley, head of climate and energy at the ODI, said ministers and leaders meeting in Hamburg in July must heed the financial sector.

“Global investors and insurers are sending a clear message to governments that burning public money through fossil fuel subsidies is not just bad for the planet, but bad economic policy too,” she said.

A similar call was made by three insurers ahead of last year’s of G20 nations in China. In repeating their statement they were joined by a dozen investment groups and insurers. In terms of wealth managed, the group is equal in size to the world’s largest public fund - the US Social Security Trust Funds –  and more than three times larger than the largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway’s.

Foreign ministers from the G20 will meet in Bonn, Germany, later this week.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/15/fossil-fuels-subsidies-jeopardising-climate-deal-say-major-investors/

Agelbert NOTE: The U.S. Trump Fossil Fuel Government's Front Man, Tillerson  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png), will, of course, fight common sense policies to phase out fossil fuels tooth and nail. If he is successful (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png) , we are doomed.  :(

Quote
"The fossil fuel industry swallows up $5.3 trillion a year worldwide in hidden costs to keep burning fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
 
This money, the IMF noted, is in addition to the $492 billion in direct subsidies offered by governments around the world through write-offs and write-downs and land-use loopholes.

In a sane world these subsidies would be invested to free us from the deadly effects of carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels, but we do not live in a sane world. "  -- Chris Hedges

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-110217171320.png)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on May 12, 2017, 11:04:31 pm
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/all/themes/clew/logo.png)

German Government plans to phase out support for fossil fuel heating systems by 2020  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)


The federal economy ministry (BMWi) plans to phase out support for heating systems that run entirely on fossil fuels by 2020, as part of its new “Energy efficiency and heat from renewable energies” strategy.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

Industry (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) opposition to the plans is inevitable, Dana Heide writes for Handelsblatt.

The government aims to “clean up the current parallel, and sometimes muddled” support for energy efficiency measures in buildings, Heide says.

In a press release, state secretary Rainer Baake said the plans “implemented an important measure of Germany’s Climate Action Plan 2050”. But it remains to be seen if the strategy will be carried through by a new government after the federal elections in September, the article says.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/end-fossil-heating-support-nrw-state-vote-key-coal-exit

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on June 30, 2017, 08:20:43 pm
Agelbert NOTE: ALL of the following events are part and  parcel of just ONE aspect of the PREDICTED Catastrophic climate change activity from having TOO MUCH CARBON DIOXIDE in our Atmosphere. There will be a LOT MORE of them. This is just the leading edge. Catastrophic climate Change is HERE NOW. (http://s15.rimg.info/dcda0e08e538cb37431314e6bd49279b.gif) Every COST we incur because of these storms is a HIDDEN SUBSIDY for the fossil Fuel Fascist Polluters.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)

Have a nice day.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)

https://youtu.be/bkaChcbYpE8


(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025419.bmp) Sky split open: Moscow hit by ‘downpour of the century’ (VIDEOS, PHOTOS)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp) 
 

Published time: 30 Jun, 2017 15:18

Moscow Region has been hit by a powerful storm that brought heavy torrential rains and hail. The capital has not seen such a storm in almost 100 years, according to meteorologists.  :o  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-150715183719.png)
                   

https://www.rt.com/news/394826-moscow-storm-hail-rain/

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-270716175152.png)

Driving home today (in NY State) I was in the hardest downpour I have ever seen. I was driving uphill on had 6 inches of water on the road. There was rain mixed with sleet and small branches. Two lanes reduced to 5 MPH all with flashers on. Then after about 15 minutes it stopped.

There will be more of these events and they will occur more often. They are called microbursts. Their increasing frequency and duration are part of the predicted Catastrophic climate Change now arriving thanks to the fossil fuel polluter fascists.

We had a couple of them recently in Vermont:

Quote
Two Microburst Event on 18 May 2017
1.) Introduction:
On 18 May 2017 scattered strong to locally severe thunderstorms erupted across portions of the Champlain Valley, as well as parts of central and northern Vermont. A warm, moist, and unstable air mass was in place from the Eastern Adirondack Mountains into Vermont with surface temperatures in the mid-80s to lower 90s. The temperature reached 93 degrees in Burlington, VT, which tied the all-time record for warmest maximum temperature for the month of May, along with breaking the daily maximum temperature for the date. This impressive heat helped to fuel the afternoon and evening showers and thunderstorms.

This severe weather event had three areas of concentrated that included Western Addison County on Potash Bay Road, South Burlington/Williston area, and across the Northeast Kingdom near Barton, VT. The NWS Burlington Office determined from a storm survey the damage which destroyed a camp and knocked down trees and powerlines on Potash Bay Road in the town of Addison, VT was caused by a microburst with estimated wind speeds of 80 to 100 mph. Another microburst occurred in South Burlington causing trees and power lines to come down, along with a measured 58 mph wind gust at Burlington International Airport, before we lost power to the observing equipment. Additional damaging thunderstorm wind gusts blew over a tractor trailer in Barton, VT with areas of trees and powerlines down in parts of the Northeast Kingdom. Figure 1 below shows a plot of storm reports across the North Country on 18 May 2017.
See Appendix A for entire listing of severe weather reports received by NWS BTV.
 

Read more at link:

http://www.weather.gov/media/btv/events/2017-05-18%20Microbursts/summary.pdf (http://www.weather.gov/media/btv/events/2017-05-18%20Microbursts/summary.pdf)

(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-110217171320.png)

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on July 23, 2017, 11:28:02 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kY-ZnpWbJdw

The fossil fuel industry is NOT PAYING IT; WE ARE!  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/minzdr.gif)

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif)   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2017, 08:53:09 pm
The Republican Crocodile Tear "Tax Reform" SCAM (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif) to get more SWAG for Rich Corporate Welfare Queens

"Skinny Repeal" Failed  ;D, So Watch Out for "Tax Reform" Next (w/Congressman Keith Ellison)

https://youtu.be/Ab6ZtAdPQfw (https://youtu.be/Ab6ZtAdPQfw)

July 28, 2017

Thom is joined by Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN, 5th District, Deputy Director - DNC) to talk about the failure of "Trumpcare" and what tricks republicans will be up to next that we'll need to shut down.

Congressman Ellison and Senator Sanders will counter the Republican attempt to cut more money from badly needed social services by offering a bill that REALLY can cut Government costs a LOT  (but the Repukians will be quiet as DEATH about that OBVIOUSLY excellent TAX REFORM Bill because it CUTS the subsidy SWAG from the fossil fuel "Industry" polluter  WELFARE QUEENS).

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/05/c7/d8/05c7d881009dec85c4f24ed8561bf288.jpg)
Yeah, I know. The Bought and paid fors like Pelosi and the other Blue Dog and **** Devilcrats will not support the Sanders/Ellison Bill either.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

Sorry Grandma. Meals on wheels was just cancelled so that subsidies for our loyal servants, the Fossil Fuel Industry, would not be. Have another banana, Grandma.(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)
 
(http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle-pics/Flag_of_the_United_States.png)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 14, 2017, 05:02:36 pm
The U.S. Tax Code — $4.6 Billion In U.S. Oil Company Subsidies  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif) Per Year

October 14th, 2017 by Cynthia Shahan

In a new study of 800 undeveloped U.S. oil fields, researchers found that about half of the fields will never go into production … if oil company tax breaks are taken out of the picture. In related matters, without a shadow of a doubt, renewable energy offers jobs. Renewable energy offers jobs with a future — not temporary part-time work, but jobs that are probably sustainable well on into the future.

Obama was supporting such policies — an end to oil and other fossil fuel subsidies, solar power for low- and moderate-income families that also created jobs, a program to train 25,000 veterans for new solar jobs, and much more. He was pushing for a fresher, more productive future.

What person does not want pure air to breathe, clean water to drink, a future for their children that makes them less likely to get cancer, heart problems, etc.? Yet, we still have oil subsidies — taxpayers covering oil company costs in a variety of ways.

“In a new study Monday in Nature Energy, SEI researchers looked at newly discovered U.S. oil fields that have not yet been put into production — all 800 of them,” Tim McDonnell of The Washington Post reports.

Quote
“The researchers found that about half of these undeveloped fields would never go into production, (assuming an oil price of $50 per barrel, close to where it is today) — if oil company tax breaks are taken out of the picture. The study is based on the current range of subsidies and doesn’t account for changes that could result from the new GOP plan.

“But if the range of subsidies offered today remain, those new wells could produce up to 17 billion barrels over the next few decades, SEI found, which in turn would produce around six gigatons of carbon dioxide. To meet the goal set out under the Paris climate agreement to keep warming ‘well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels,’ the United States can emit no more than 30 to 45 gigatons of CO2 between now and 2050.”

A society of sustainable, productive work in clean energy is inspiring. Instead, sacrificing jobs, the economy, and American health and well-being, the current White House wants to go in the wrong direction. It is something akin to the infamous delusion of a young, uneducated queen saying, “Let them eat cake.” That is what the administration sounds like too many days of the week. Fortunately, useful information continues to stream.

(http://www.funny-emoticons.com/files/funny-animals/blue-bird-emoticons/801-listen-up!.png)This is how you create jobs:

(https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/IRENA-jobs-in-renewable-energy.png)


(https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/US-Wind-Energy-Jobs-AWEA.png)

Tax reform is a vitally important issue. It can help fight climate change. McDonnell clearly points out, “Just not the kind of tax reform Trump and Republicans are proposing.”

Going on: “the oil industry is still calling it a win, citing proposals that would make it easier for oil companies to recover their investments in exploration and to shield profits earned from drilling overseas, in addition to lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.”

Can someone please ask Trump on what kind of planet he sees his grandchildren and great-grandchildren living if he continues to ignore clean air initiatives?

Maybe an imploding planet is a metaphor for the president’s state of health.

(https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2015/12/oiled-bird-3_l1.jpg)

“The tax blueprint also expands Trump’s reversal of Obama-era climate measures. In 2009, President Barack Obama joined other Group of 20 leaders in a pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies eventually. The GOP tax plan gives little indication of keeping that commitment — and that could have significant implications for U.S. oil production and the climate.”

Backwards, backwards, backwards — into a quicksand of confusion and tragedy for the well-being of the general population. This heartless tax shelter for the profiteers of future pre-existing conditions — and not a few dollars to help hungry children in schools. Ignoring solar job potential while subsidizing some of the richest companies in the world.

McDonnell continues, “Already, the U.S. oil industry benefits from a dozen specialized subsidies adding up to about $4.6 billion per year, according to a 2015 review by the Obama administration. Among other things, the subsidies reduce the costs of labor and equipment involved in drilling — and shield some of the profits earned on the oil itself. Those tax breaks and other subsidies don’t just help the industry a little bit. In many cases, they determine whether it’s even worth drilling in the first place, according to a study earlier this year from the Stockholm Environment Institute, a nonprofit research organization.

Without federal and state subsidies, nearly half of U.S. oil production — about 45 percent — would be unprofitable at current prices, the researchers found. So, unless oil prices go rocketing up, reducing or eliminating those subsidies would likely lead to a significant reduction in oil production over time".

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/14/u-s-tax-code-4-6-billion-u-s-oil-company-subsidies-per-year/

Agelbert NOTE: These God Damned (and I'm not swearing here) Fossil Fuel Polluter WELFARE QUEENS go out of business or most humans die, PERIOD.
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280817124413.png)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Subsidies - The Invisible Ones are Worse Than the Obvious Ones!
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2017, 03:13:27 pm
 (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png)

Scott Pruitt   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)  says subsidies give renewables an unfair edge, and here’s why he’s a monumental hypocrite

LAST UPDATED ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2017 AT 4:37 PM BY ALEXANDRU MICU
(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pruitt.jpg)
Mom says I’m good at Photoshop, ok?  ;D Image credits me / ZMEScience, free to use with attribution.

In a pioneering display of cognitive dissonance, EPA chief Scott Pruitt said on Monday that he would to do away with subsidies for renewable energy and let them “stand on their own and compete against” other sources of energy, such as fossil the latter being heavily subsidized, and has been so for decades.  (http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Spiele/smilie_game_017.gif)
 
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)

(https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/Pfund-subsidies_618_275.jpg)

Another week, another Pruittism.  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif) This Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator said that he believes federal tax credits for wind and solar power should be eliminated in the interest of fair play on the energy market. (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)

“I would do away with these incentives that we give to wind and solar,” he told attendees at a Kentucky Farm Bureau event.

“I’d let them stand on their own and compete  ;) against coal and natural gas and other sources, and let utilities make real-time market decisions on those types of things as opposed to being propped up by tax incentives and other types of credits that occur, both in the federal level and state level,” he further explained.

Now, I like hypocrisy just as much as the next guy (spoiler alert: I don’t (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) ) but Mr. Pruitt definitely went to previously un-dredged lows with that announcement. To see why, let’s take a look at what subsidies are and how they play out across the energy sector.

Here’s the too long; didn’t read version, presented by David Hochschild, a commissioner with the California Energy Commission, at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in Sydney in February 2016. Image via CleanTechnica.

(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/david-subsidies.jpg)

Subsidy, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary

A grant or gift of money: such as:
a) a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b) money granted by one state to another
c) a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.

We’re interested in the latter meaning of the word. Let’s take a look at the subsidies Mr. Pruitt would do away with:

1.Wind power currently enjoys a tax credit of about 2.3 cents per kWh produced, and the measure starts phasing out this year and will expire completely in 2020.
2.Solar energy investments get tax credits equal to 30% of their sum to encourage companies to invest in the sector. These credits will expire completely by 2022.

These incentives enjoy wide support among environmentalists and Democrats, while direct competitors of renewable in the energy market obviously oppose them, as do some Republicans. They’ve been touted again and again as the sole reason why renewable energy has seen such rapid growth in recent years, and the fossil fuel industry has been endlessly complaining they’re an unfair advantage.

Now let’s take a look at the subsidies oil, gas, and coal receive, as quantified by researchers at Oil Change International (full report at the bottom of the article). The sums in brackets are the estimated costs per year of these subsidies. Find a comfy seat, ’cause this is going to take a while.

The monetary black hole that is fossil fuel subsidies

Exploration and production related:

1.Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion): Independent producers can fully deduct costs that aren’t directly related to the final operation of wells (such as labor, surveying, ground clearing, including development costs). Integrated companies can deduct 70% up front and the rest of 30% over five years.
2.Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion): Independent fossil fuel producers can deduct a percentage of their gross income from production, reflecting reservoir depreciation.

Non-production related:

1.Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion): A special corporate form that is exempt from corporate income taxes and publicly-traded on stock markets, primarily available to natural resource firms, the majority of which are fossil fuel companies.
2.Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion): Allows oil companies to assume for accounting purposes that they sell the inventory most recently acquired or manufactured first. When inventory is experiencing increasing prices, LIFO assigns the most recent prices to cost of goods sold and oldest prices to remaining inventory, hence resulting in the highest amount of cost of goods sold and lowest taxable income for the company. It gets even better! LIFO-like measures are prohibited under international financial reporting standards.

Fire-sale on federal lands:

Author’s note: these methods hand over energy resources from public lands and federally-controlled waters to the fossil fuel industry at extremely low relative prices.

1.Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2 billion): outdated royalty exemptions, rate setting, and procedures for assessing oil and gas production on federal lands shortchange taxpayers by more than a billion dollars each year. If the federal government were to charge a 20% royalty rate for onshore drilling, the lowest rate charged by the state of Texas, taxpayers would benefit from an additional $3 billion in revenues.
2.Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin ($963 million): allows coal companies to lease federal land at low costs in the Powder River Basin (PRB), a mostly federally-owned coal-producing region in Wyoming and Montana that accounts for 40 percent of U.S. coal production (and 85 percent of coal production from federal lands). By exempting from ‘major coal producing region’ status, the federal government did away with requirements to plan and monitor coal production according to a systematic management process, making for significantly lenient lease rates in the PRB.

From now on I’ll just give a few examples in each category, and I’ll keep them short because most of you are probably dozing off by now.

Coal Bailouts:


Author’s note: as coal companies become insolvent, taxpayer dollars cover their obligations to communities and workers.
1.Inadequate industry fees recouped to cover the Abandoned Mine Land Grant Fund ($400 million).
2.Inadequate industry support to cover worker health impacts ($330 million).

Pollution subsidies:

1.Deduction for oil spill penalty costs ($334 million).
2.Tar sands exemption from payments into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ($47 million).

Subsidies that lock in fossil fuel dependence:

1.Enhanced oil recovery credit ($235 million in 2017, could cost $8.8 billion over the next decade according to The Office of Management and Budget).
2.CO2 sequestration credit ($95 million).

Gets hard to follow, so here it is in chart form for 2016: (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png)

(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PermaTaxBreak.png)

(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US_Fossil_Fuel_Subs_2015_16_categories.jpg)

(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/OCI_US_Fossil_Fuel_Subs_2015_16_categories.jpg)

Add everything up and you get $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare. One-fifth of that goes to coal, the rest to oil and gas. Another factor at play here is continuity and length of these subsidizing schemes.

Another graph presented by Hochschild in Sydney, showing the short-term nature of the subsidies for renewable energy.
(https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/david-susbidies-time.jpg)

Quote
“There is a myth around subsidies, but there is no such thing as an unsubsidised unit of energy,” Hochschild told RenewEconomy after his presentation, and CleanTechnica later picking up on the quote here. “The fossil fuel industry hates to talk about that,” he added.

He explained that oil depletion allowances have been in place since 1926 and would continue, despite the fact that oil is “one of the most profitable industries in the world.” Insurance costs for nuclear plants, “without which there would be no nuclear plants,” are also a subsidy, CleanTechnica goes on to write. Drilling or fracking, which have been made exempt from compliance with the safe drinking water act, also serve as a subsidy by allowing natural gas companies to cut costs.

US wind and solar industries were stifled with repeated changes to their federal support mechanisms. The tax credits have been changed seven times in a decade, according to Hochschild.

“How can you plan a wind turbine factory or project in those types of conditions?” he asked.

A sliver of a crumb

Everything I’ve listed above is only part of the direct subsidies fossil fuel companies receive in the US, because the OCI only looked at direct production subsidies. OCI notes that the estimates of state-level subsidies are probably low, since many states don’t report the costs of tax expenditures (i.e., tax breaks and credits to industry), so data is difficult to come by.

Add to the above roughly $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies (things like Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps residents pay for heating bills,) $2.1 billion in subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects, and probably the single greatest offender, indirect subsidies. This latter category involves things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels, which are naturally really hard to quantify precisely but navigate in the region of hundreds of billions of dollars.

It’s not happening in the US alone. According to the International Energy Agency, global subsidies for fossil fuels outweigh those for renewable energy more than 10-fold — CleanTechnica estimates it’s more than 13-fold if you don’t count biofuels. Vox reported that the International Monetary Fund estimates the world spends $500 billion in direct subsidies for fossil energy, a figure that increases to about $5.3 trillion a year after indirect spending (including environmental damages) are factored in.

But only Mr. Pruitt has the audacity to claim subsidies unfairly favor renewables, and they should be scrapped. It’s both hilarious and infuriating when the chief of the EPA says that, considering that the US’ subsidy policy on renewables is “hey we’ll help cover a bit of the cost of each unit of energy a wind turbine produces, and any company that invests in building solar energy will get just shy of 1/3 of that investment as a tax reduction. For the next 3-5 years.” Then it turns around and shells some $30 billion to fossil fuel companies every year.

Why? Well, as OCI concludes:

“In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those same years — an 8,200% return on investment.”

Every penny of that is paid from your pocket. Every year, your taxes pay for a company’s search for new deposits and the means to exploit them, its tax breaks, covers accounting artifices that are banned under international financing standards, forfeiture of royalties, dirt-cheap leasing, and finally they cover the costs when that company pollutes your air and water or simply fracks up big time and spills something or goes insolvent. Every year, some starting as far back as the 1900s.

All of it so that a fossil fuel company can keep making money, despite the fact that renewables can take up the job for less spending, fewer health impacts, less wealth concentration. And with 100% less global warming cover-up shenanigans.

(http://www.funny-emoticons.com/files/funny-animals/blue-bird-emoticons/801-listen-up!.png) So tell me again about how energy companies need to “stand on their own and compete” Pruitt, you brass-necked hypocrite.

OCI’s full report is available here. For a more comprehensive list of the subsidy schemes energy companies enjoy, as well as more details for the ones I’ve listed here, you can use the Green Scissors database.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/scott-pruitt-energy-subsidy/


The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif)