ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[Dahobbs 18231]

36 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I said, "Each should pay their proportional costs without one subsidizing the other."

Each should pay their proportional costs without one subsidizing the other =/= laying all of the costs ... at the feet of renewables. 

That's fair. I misunderstood your suggestion. 

But I have to reiterate if you really want all proportional costs paid, you have to capture externalities like climate change, environmental damage, and negative health affects. Easier said than done, I know. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Dahobbs

[FartingMonk 3613]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Are you talking about tax credits, or RECs?  RECS are tradeable (meaning that yes, they can be and are used to provide emissions credits to utilities that don't have sufficient renewable generation on their own), and are actually tied to power generated AND delivered to the grid (so transmission issues are built in -- can't get it to the grid, no REC for you).  The renewable energy tax credits are different.  But I won't completely disagree with your policy argument -- carbon credits are a half-measure with their own obvious downside.

None of this shit is perfect or perfectly designed.  Because we don't design an energy market from the ground up.  Instead, we step onto a moving vehicle and try to adjust its course to meet certain goals.  Some of those efforts are more successful and more thought out than others.  But at present, the results of the combined trajectory of the market and government incentives have unquestionably boosted the percentage of our overall needed and used generation that is renewable.  So, the mechanisms for achieving that goal are far from perfect, but they have had real and measurable effects.

Hey.  My bad.  I wasn't trying to gear it towards you.  It was the other guy.  We understand we need this progress.  But the dudes in the actual industry are sitting around and we are like man you fuckers are stupid.  That's what is going on.  You can't believe everything is good with one and everything is bad with the other.  

[Dahobbs 18231]

46 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh Jesus can you shut the fuck up for a minute?  One of the biggest things where we fucked up was carbon credits.  Why the fuck do you think so many solar and wind is happening.   They sell the fucking carbon credits back to the polluters.  Get your fucking head out of your ass dude.  The path you claim pollutes.  They suck.  Maybe a little less than the fossil fuels guys.  But they still suck

The economics of how carbon credits work are well studied and supported. Your criticism would be more valid if the climate goal was zero carbon emissions. But it isn't. The metric that matters is net carbon emissions. And carbon credits provide a way to accomplish that goal by helping establish a way to capture the cost of carbon emissions. 

[Dahobbs 18231]

5 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Hey.  My bad.  I wasn't trying to gear it towards you.  It was the other guy.  We understand we need this progress.  But the dudes in the actual industry are sitting around and we are like man you fuckers are stupid.  That's what is going on.  You can't believe everything is good with one and everything is bad with the other.  

I'm assuming I'm the other guy, but I really don't understand what I've said that has got you so worked up. I think our positions are largely consistent. 

[atomheartbevo 90597]

1 hour ago, texasdago said:

On a side note, all the power generation plants in Texas going gangbusters right now and not getting the maintenance they need.  At some point, something is going to give.  Good times.

So who is going to be the asshole that starts the betting pool on when things shit the bed?  And why will everybody pick Tuesday? 

[Brisketexan 106801]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

So who is going to be the asshole that starts the betting pool on when things shit the bed?  And why will everybody pick Tuesday? 

Cuz that's the day we eat birds.

[bolverk 30290]

4 hours ago, dcar00 said:

I'm sure mining for lithium is cheap and easy.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/the-salton-sea-could-produce-the-worlds-greenest-lithium.html

[Brisketexan 106801]

15 minutes ago, bolverk said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/the-salton-sea-could-produce-the-worlds-greenest-lithium.html

Pish.  Let's leapfrog right over this tech and go straight to dilithium:

[Biff Tannen 46100]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/the-salton-sea-could-produce-the-worlds-greenest-lithium.html

Well that's pretty fucking cool.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, slorch said:

Not using fossil fuels threatens/ damages all of our wallets.

Someone else gets to decide that we should make that sacrifice, for reasons much of the world virtually ignores.  That's the bullshit of it all.

Have some rep, in the event that Iceman doesn’t hit you up. 

15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Renewables are better for our wallets. That's why we build them more than anywhere else in the US. 

No they’re not.

13 hours ago, Clackles said:

I haven’t kept up with all the back and forth in this thread but holy hell, what’s the point if this is one side of the argument.  God gave us stuff to light on fire, and we get paid to light it on fire, so let’s light it all on fire!

Because gas production is exceedingly safe and clean. 

10 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

AKA the Fox News filter.

Nope. I abhor Fox News. 

7 hours ago, luke duke said:

You’re goddam right! Maybe I can start wearing my asbestos winter coat and snort some lines of talcum powder like my grandpa did! I hear that lead paint chips are quite tasty too. Maybe I’ll start putting those in Junior’s lunch this year.

 

Unproductive idiotic comment. See my response to the other retard about gas production being clean. 
 

6 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

It isn't inherently more difficult than other times of resource mining. We are just getting to point of extracting it at scale, so there are definitely a lot of efficiencies to be gained through experience and new methods. 

Solar is cheaper than natural gas even without subsidies (see LCOE information from earlier in the thread). Onshore Wind without subsidies is cheaper than all fossil fuels except combined cycle natural gas. It was roughly equal with CC natural gas as of earlier this year prior to the rise in natural gas prices. 

Of course, the fossil fuel industry always receives billions in subsidies from governments, not mention the trillions in indirect subsidies resulting from the externalized costs of climate change/environmental/health damage. So it really isn't fair to say "but subsidies" without accounting for all of that as well. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

It isn't inherently more difficult than other times of resource mining. We are just getting to point of extracting it at scale, so there are definitely a lot of efficiencies to be gained through experience and new methods. 

Solar is cheaper than natural gas even without subsidies (see LCOE information from earlier in the thread). Onshore Wind without subsidies is cheaper than all fossil fuels except combined cycle natural gas. It was roughly equal with CC natural gas as of earlier this year prior to the rise in natural gas prices. 

Of course, the fossil fuel industry always receives billions in subsidies from governments, not mention the trillions in indirect subsidies resulting from the externalized costs of climate change/environmental/health damage. So it really isn't fair to say "but subsidies" without accounting for all of that as well. 

Tell me about the billions in subsidies the FF industry gets, from “governments” and I’d like you to be specific to the US. Then, I’d like you to expand on the trillions in indirect subsidies. 

[Dahobbs 18231]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Have some rep, in the event that Iceman doesn’t hit you up. 

No they’re not.

Because gas production is exceedingly safe and clean. 

Nope. I abhor Fox News. 

Unproductive idiotic comment. See my response to the other retard about gas production being clean. 
 

I present evidence, and lots of it. You present say so. Ok. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I present evidence, and lots of it. You present say so. Ok. 

You do. I’ll admit that. I haven’t read through your stuff and will. I’d love to hear your thoughts on subsidies, though. 

[Dahobbs 18231]

14 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Tell me about the billions in subsidies the FF industry gets, from “governments” and I’d like you to be specific to the US. Then, I’d like you to expand on the trillions in indirect subsidies. 

Sure:https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-proposals-to-reduce-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2021

Some specifics from the link:

Quote

The fossil fuel industry is also subsidized through inexpensive leases and low royalty rates on fossil fuels extracted from public lands. The below-market price of leases on federal lands starts at $2 per acre—a number that has not changed since 1987—and the onshore royalty rate has remained at 12.5 percent since 1920. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the onshore royalty rate to 18.75 percent for new parcels, which is equivalent to the offshore royalty rate, would raise federal revenue by $200 million over ten years. 

Quote

The Department of Energy (DOE) has historically subsidized fossil fuels through research and development (R&D). Between 1978 and 2018, 24 percent of DOE’s R&D budget was spent on fossil energy. However, Executive Order 14008 calls for government agencies, such as DOE, to “take steps to ensure that … Federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels.”

Quote

Between 2015 and 2020, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), DFC’s predecessor, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the United States Export-Import Bank (EXIM) provided over $13 billion for fossil fuel projects overseas.

 

More: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds

Quote

 

The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%)

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Hermanator 7590]

10 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

“Why does Rice play Texas” 

For the money

Edited July 22, 2022 by Hermanator

[Nivek 17390]

Well that's pretty fucking cool.

It’s going on in Arkansas as well and NE Texas. I believe The investment is around $400 million NPV if my memory serves me.

[Texzilla58 4779]

At present the neighborhood next to me has no power. I figure that allows me to be at 70 degrees.

[drt 645]

Just peeked at the Ercot graph. Could be a tight one today. 
 

Just like so many days recently. Cool, cool. 

[texasdago 7763]

Fingers crossed...

[Guest]

Quote

The fossil fuel industry is also subsidized through inexpensive leases and low royalty rates on fossil fuels extracted from public lands. The below-market price of leases on federal lands starts at $2 per acre—a number that has not changed since 1987—and the onshore royalty rate has remained at 12.5 percent since 1920. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the onshore royalty rate to 18.75 percent for new parcels, which is equivalent to the offshore royalty rate, would raise federal revenue by $200 million over ten years. 

So offering below market rates on federal lands, which is almost always below average quality acreage, is a "subsidy"? 

Quote

The Department of Energy (DOE) has historically subsidized fossil fuels through research and development (R&D). Between 1978 and 2018, 24 percent of DOE’s R&D budget was spent on fossil energy. However, Executive Order 14008 calls for government agencies, such as DOE, to “take steps to ensure that … Federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels.”

What, exactly, does this even mean?

Quote

Between 2015 and 2020, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), DFC’s predecessor, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the United States Export-Import Bank (EXIM) provided over $13 billion for fossil fuel projects overseas.

So 3 organizations I have never heard of provided $2B per year?  Ostensibly these are federal government entities.  They are sponsoring development - albeit at not a great cost for offshore projects - of foreign assets.  This is so far removed from the discussion of the Texas grid and US electricity generation.  

Quote

The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%)

This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read.  There is no explanation of how they came up with their $5.9T figure, except that 71% of it is pure bullshit.  It is also a global metric.  

Basically, the four snippets you quoted are laughably wrong as it pertains to subsidies, yet you - a smart guy - chose to post them.  Wow.

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Percentage Depletion and IDCs are absolutely a thing, exploited to the fullest.  Percentage Depletion I use every year.  IDCs and ICCs are only applicable on new drilling and I don't really participate much there.  The other two listed above are irrelevant.  Percentage Depletion and IDCs are tax deductions.  I disagree that tax deductions are subsidies.  The government tries to incentivize behaviors it wants (more domestic production through new drilling, more babies, more home ownership, etc.) through favorable tax treatment.  Well, if that's a subsidy, then every entity in this country, including you and Brisket, are subsidized, and "subsidies" to the oil and gas industry aren't the smoking gun you and others blindly think they are.

[Captainant 28463]

lol yall arguing strategic policy decisions with a roughneck oilman that doesn't even read your argument or sources. He ain't gonna change his mind - he's got more holes to poke in the ground! If we wasn't uhpossed to burn it, we wouldn't be able to git it!

Edited July 22, 2022 by Captainant
a word - thanks porty!

[The Dog 44831]

1 hour ago, drt said:

Just peeked at the Ercot graph. Could be a tight one today. 
 

Just like so many days recently. Cool, cool. 

WAT

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

lol yall arguing strategic policy decisions with a roughneck oilman that doesn't even read your argument or sources. He ain't gonna change his mind - he's got more holes to pole in the ground! If we wasn't uhpossed to burn it, we wouldn't be able to git it!

Your presumption constantly betrays you for the smug, ignorant cocksucker you are.  I'm not a "roughneck".  I've never worked a day of my life in the field.  I'm a finance guy that invests heavily in the business by buying oil and gas royalties, and I'm trying to overweight in gas.  Because I like making money, and I like common sense.  I like reading copious amounts of economic data that all point toward a massive supercycle in natural resource commodities.  I don't "pole" holes in the ground, and I can't decipher your hilarious last sentence.

I read every bit of dahobbs' last data-supported post.  I responded to it before the electricity generation datapoints he linked earlier this week for a few reasons: 1) I don't know that as well and want to read/reflect and 2) I know the subsidy argument like the back of my hand.

Refrain from posting in this thread.  Limit your contact with me to wrongly labeling me an anti-abortion Trump supporter.  

[Dahobbs 18231]

21 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read.  There is no explanation of how they came up with their $5.9T figure, except that 71% of it is pure bullshit.  It is also a global metric.  

Basically, the four snippets you quoted are laughably wrong as it pertains to subsidies, yet you - a smart guy - chose to post them.  Wow.

There is a whole report from the IMF. You can read the document here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 (see link to download). It explains the methodology and basis for the report. I obviously can't quote the whole thing here, but you're free to read it. Also, of course it is a global metric. That's exactly what I said the trillion dollar figure was. 

The other snippets are summaries of a different report. Go to the link and pull the underlying report if you want a comprehensive explanation. 

Quote

 I disagree that tax deductions are subsidies.  The government tries to incentivize behaviors it wants (more domestic production through new drilling, more babies, more home ownership, etc.) through favorable tax treatment.  Well, if that's a subsidy, then every entity in this country, including you and Brisket, are subsidized, and "subsidies" to the oil and gas industry aren't the smoking gun you and others blindly think they are.

Tax deductions/credits are a form of economic subsidy. It is wildly ignorant to claim otherwise.  But sure, let's pretend tax deductions aren't a form of subsidy. What exactly did you think renewable subsidies were? I buy solar panels, I get a 26% tax credit for the cost of the system. I buy an electric vehicle, I get up to a ~$7,500 tax credit. That's a subsidy. And that's exactly the same sort of subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/incentives.php

Quote

 

Government financial incentives

Several federal government tax credits, grants, and loan programs are available for qualifying renewable energy technologies and projects. The federal tax incentives, or credits, for qualifying renewable energy projects or equipment include the Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), the Residential Energy Credit, and the Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS). Grant and loan programs may be available from several government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Most states have some financial incentives available to support or subsidize the installation of renewable energy equipment.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 28463]

3 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Your presumption constantly betrays you for the smug, ignorant cocksucker you are.  I'm not a "roughneck".  I've never worked a day of my life in the field.  I'm a finance guy that invests heavily in the business by buying oil and gas royalties, and I'm trying to overweight in gas.  Because I like making money, and I like common sense.  I like reading copious amounts of economic data that all point toward a massive supercycle in natural resource commodities.  I don't "pole" holes in the ground, and I can't decipher your hilarious last sentence.

I read every bit of dahobbs' last data-supported post.  I responded to it before the electricity generation datapoints he linked earlier this week for a few reasons: 1) I don't know that as well and want to read/reflect and 2) I know the subsidy argument like the back of my hand.

Refrain from posting in this thread.  Limit your contact with me to wrongly labeling me an anti-abortion Trump supporter.  

Thanks for pointing out my typo - fixed

oh sorry, you don't poke holes in the ground - you finance the holes that are poked in the ground! My apologies for making the grave error of thinking you were a blue collar worker instead of a white collar dude. That last sentence was in relation to your earlier statement that "we're supposed to be burning all the natgas we can access! It wouldn't be accessible to us if we weren't!" - and now that you've shared that your livelihood depends on more people consuming more natgas, it's pretty transparently clear why you've got such a militant stance against renewables.

My point being: even right now as our state is running low on power - it ain't natgas saving our asses. That thermal generation is so far behind on maintenance that it's become unreliable and is materially threatening major investment in Texas, because every time power goes out at a fab, it costs hundreds of millions to restart. It's renewables rising to meet our needs during the hottest days. At this very moment, it's providing about 25% of our overall capacity! Without those renewables, we'd be in a blackout right now.

Also, sorry that you don't like being associated with the consequences of your choices. Thoughts and prayers.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There is a whole report from the IMF. You can read the document here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 (see link to download). It explains the methodology and basis for the report. I obviously can't quote the whole thing here, but you're free to read it. Also, of course it is a global metric. That's exactly what I said the trillion dollar figure was. 

The other snippets are summaries of a different report. Go to the link and pull the underlying report if you want a comprehensive explanation. 

Tax deductions/credits are a form of economic subsidy. It is wildly ignorant to claim otherwise.  But sure, let's pretend tax deductions aren't a form of subsidy. What exactly did you think renewable subsidies were? I buy solar panels, I get a 26% tax credit for the cost of the system. I buy an electric vehicle, I get up to a ~$7,500 tax credit. That's a subsidy. And that's exactly the same sort of subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/incentives.php

 

I'll read the whole study but the the snippet was so bad that I am not looking forward to it.  $5.9 Trillion where they're not even hiding that 71% of that figure is vague bullshit reeks of an agenda and trying to manufacture a sticker shock number.  Can't wait to read it.

Why don't you post snippets that don't totally suck to get another poster to read an article?  You posted the most brain dead, generic, made up bullshit, and it makes me question your intelligence on this topic.

Wildly ignorant, lol.  Okay buddy.  There is a massive difference between an indirect subsidy, which is effectively what a tax deduction is, and a direct subsidy.  Two points here: 1) I want to reiterate that every entity in this country is the beneficiary of tax deductions.  And that is extent of FF industry "subsidies": tax deductions.  2) The FF industry doesn't have end users that receive such massive "subsidies."  And, what kind of subsidies do the solar companies and EV manufacturers receive as well, direct and/or indirect?  My point is equating direct subsidies of renewables and its associated indirect "subsidies" with the subsidization of the FF industry is laughable, laughable laughable, and it certainly plays a huge role in the purported favorable economics involved. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That last sentence was in relation to your earlier statement that "we're supposed to be burning all the natgas we can access! It wouldn't be accessible to us if we weren't!" - and now that you've shared that your livelihood depends on more people consuming more natgas, it's pretty transparently clear why you've got such a militant stance against renewables.

Also, sorry that you don't like being associated with the consequences of your choices. Thoughts and prayers.

I never said what you quoted.  My livelihood doesn't depend on my royalties business at all.  Sure I would like to see it succeed so I make more money.  But I don't need it.  Its success is not contingent upon more people consuming more nat gas.  Nat gas demand will go up regardless of what you, I or ERCOT say about it.  In fact, demand for US nat gas will skyrocket, as will prices; it's just a matter of whether we want to consume it or export it to Europe as Liquified Natural Gas.  I don't have a militant stance against renewables.  I have a militant stance against those who abandon common sense and believe bullshit, to Americans' economic detriment.

I don't know what your last sentence means.  I am extremely proud to own what I own and be associated directly with such a Texas-centered industry. Particularly when the world sees it as a dying industry and all of the sudden your investment is contrarian, despite all overwhelming data that supports a 10-15 year run. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Porterhouse

[texasdago 7763]

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

My point being: even right now as our state is running low on power - it ain't natgas saving our asses. That thermal generation is so far behind on maintenance that it's become unreliable and is materially threatening major investment in Texas, because every time power goes out at a fab, it costs hundreds of millions to restart. It's renewables rising to meet our needs during the hottest days. At this very moment, it's providing about 25% of our overall capacity! Without those renewables, we'd be in a blackout right now.

T H I S 

[Surly Bevo 25687]

I’m a finance guy. Finance guys are the worst.

They get buried in all their transactional shit, see the money that can be made and never lift their fucking heads to consider basic common sense questions all the time trying to baffle folks with bullshit technical babble.

We are going to create this second lien single family home product that allows borrowers to borrow up to 125% of the value of their homes.

Uh yea, so what happens if home price appreciation slows or reverses?

Well you see this model and that model babble babble babble rabble rabble rabble.

Uhhhhh

I’m sure the energy finance guys and gals are of much better stock

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

I’m a finance guy. Finance guys are the worst.

They get buried in all their transactional shit, see the money that can be made and never lift their fucking heads to consider basic common sense questions all the time trying to baffle folks with bullshit technical babble.

We are going to create this second lien single family home product that allows borrowers to borrow up to 125% of the value of their homes.

Uh yea, so what happens if home price appreciation slows or reverses?

Well you see this model and that model babble babble babble rabble rabble rabble.

Uhhhhh

I’m sure the energy finance guys and gals are of much better stock

They’re terrible. However I moved from that world to putting my money where my mouth is. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19280]

I’m a finance person and Porterhouse is full of shit.  Favorable tax deductions for FF is just another kind of subsidy, similar to the income tax credits on wind and solar or biofuels.  

[utee94 16076]

I'm glad all the Finance people are outing themselves so that if we didn't already have them on ignore, now we can.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I’m a finance person and Porterhouse is full of shit.  Favorable tax deductions for FF is just another kind of subsidy, similar to the income tax credits on wind and solar or biofuels.  

It’s like you didn’t read anything I wrote. I’m 100% correct on my discussion of FF subsidies. 

[Dahobbs 18231]

58 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I'll read the whole study but the the snippet was so bad that I am not looking forward to it.  $5.9 Trillion where they're not even hiding that 71% of that figure is vague bullshit reeks of an agenda and trying to manufacture a sticker shock number.  Can't wait to read it.

It isn't vague at all. It says exactly what I said earlier: "the biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%)". Those are negative externalities that occur as a result of burning fossil fuels that right now are almost entirely born by society at large rather than handled through the responsible economic activity. This throws off the supply/demand interaction because a significant cost isn't included in the price of the good. The specific information about how they calculate the value of those negative externalities are found in the report. And there are hundreds of studies on this topic from scientists and economists. 

Quote

Why don't you post snippets that don't totally suck to get another poster to read an article?  You posted the most brain dead, generic, made up bullshit, and it makes me question your intelligence on this topic.

I posted summary statements. Your responses reveal a lack of understanding of micro and macro economics. That's ok. But you need to educate yourself before making responses like this. 

Quote

Wildly ignorant, lol.  Okay buddy.  There is a massive difference between an indirect subsidy, which is effectively what a tax deduction is, and a direct subsidy.  Two points here: 1) I want to reiterate that every entity in this country is the beneficiary of tax deductions.  And that is extent of FF industry "subsidies": tax deductions.  2) The FF industry doesn't have end users that receive such massive "subsidies."  And, what kind of subsidies do the solar companies and EV manufacturers receive as well, direct and/or indirect?  My point is equating direct subsidies of renewables and its associated indirect "subsidies" with the subsidization of the FF industry is laughable, laughable laughable, and it certainly plays a huge role in the purported favorable economics involved. 

I disagree that there is a massive difference between tax deductions/credits and direct payments. The accounting works out the same either way. With direct payments the government recognizes tax revenue and then makes a payment, leaving it Y net remaining tax revenue. With tax credits and deductions, the government recognizes less tax revenue, but makes no payment and is still left with Y net remaining tax revenue. The ultimate result either way is that revenue that would have been available to government is instead directed to an individual entity. That's a subsidy.

I provided a brief summary of the some of the subsidies received by the fossil fuel industries. These are subsidies that are distinct from the general tax credits/deductions available to every entity or individual. Renewable energy also receives subsidies, primarily in the form tax credits/deductions and favorable loan terms. 

Here is a good analysis of the types of subsidies received by renewable energy. 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2018/11/f57/Examination of Federal Financial Assistance in the Renewable Energy Mark..._1.pdf

 

Quote

 

ES.2.1 Tax-Based Incentives

Tax-based incentives offer the benefit of being relatively easy to introduce and administer. Once enacted, investors will realize the value of tax incentives by claiming credits or deductions on their tax filings. The tax incentives utilized in the renewable sector include:

• Investment Tax Credits (ITCs): ITCs give a business a tax credit for a specified percentage of capital expenditures for qualifying energy projects. ITCs are an investment-based subsidy as they provide upfront financial support for the construction of a project which is expected to deliver a specified good or service in the future (renewable energy in this case).

• 1603 Cash Grants: The Federal government briefly offered cash grants to developers of renewable energy projects as an alternative to ITCs in response to a decline in tax equity financing during the 2008-2009 economic downturn which reduced the number of investors interested in tax credits. Section 1603 of ARRA offered cash payments to developers equal to, and in lieu of, the existing ITC (30% of qualifying investment). This allowed developers to receive a benefit equivalent to the ITC without relying on a tax equity investor.

• Production Tax Credits (PTCs): PTCs give a taxpaying entity a tax credit for power output, in terms of a fixed dollar amount per unit of output. A PTC can thus be considered a form of results-based subsidy, in that it is only paid out when the intended product (renewable energy in this case) is delivered.1

• Accelerated Depreciation: Accelerated depreciation—formally Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS)—is a way for businesses to realize higher depreciation expenses, and in turn, lower tax liabilities, earlier in the life of an asset while still incurring the same total depreciation.

ES.2.2 Credit-Based Incentives

Credit-based incentives provide low cost, long-term debt financing at terms that are unavailable in the private capital markets. Section 1703 of EPAct established the DOE’s loan program targeted at projects employing innovative technology. Under the program, DOE provides a direct loan through the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), which serves as the lender. FFB charges interest slightly above U.S. Treasury rates. DOE then guarantees 100% of the FFB loan. Alternatively, DOE guarantees loans provided by commercial lenders. DOE’s guarantee amount is capped at 80% of principal for a given loan, thus requiring the lender to hold at least 20% of the credit exposure. Collectively, tax and credit incentives help to reduce the cost of power from different generation technologies, thus enhancing their competitiveness against other power sources. Tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and credit support enable significant cost reductions when applied together, and enable power to be purchased by customers at a lower price. The combination of tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and credit support is estimated to reduce the cost of power by 48% for solar power, and 35% for wind.

* * *

Finally, supplementing the financial support through tax and credit incentives was R&D spending. R&D investment in solar power totaled $3.2 billion from 2005 to 2015 and totaled $880 million for wind power over same period.

 

I'm guessing from your post that the only one of those you'd call "subsidies" is the $4 billion in R&D spending. Of course, this doesn't cover individual state directed subsidies, although those are discussed in the report if you're interested. 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't vague at all. It says exactly what I said earlier: "the biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%)". Those are negative externalities that occur as a result of burning fossil fuels that right now are almost entirely born by society at large rather than handled through the responsible economic activity. This throws off the supply/demand interaction because a significant cost isn't included in the price of the good. The specific information about how they calculate the value of those negative externalities are found in the report. And there are hundreds of studies on this topic from scientists and economists. 

I posted summary statements. Your responses reveal a lack of understanding of micro and macro economics. That's ok. But you need to educate yourself before making responses like this. 

I disagree that there is a massive difference between tax deductions/credits and direct payments. The accounting works out the same either way. With direct payments the government recognizes tax revenue and then makes a payment, leaving it Y net remaining tax revenue. With tax credits and deductions, the government recognizes less tax revenue, but makes no payment and is still left with Y net remaining tax revenue. The ultimate result either way is that revenue that would have been available to government is instead directed to an individual entity. That's a subsidy.

I provided a brief summary of the some of the subsidies received by the fossil fuel industries. These are subsidies that are distinct from the general tax credits/deductions available to every entity or individual. Renewable energy also receives subsidies, primarily in the form tax credits/deductions and favorable loan terms. 

Here is a good analysis of the types of subsidies received by renewable energy. 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2018/11/f57/Examination of Federal Financial Assistance in the Renewable Energy Mark..._1.pdf

 

I'm guessing from your post that the only one of those you'd call "subsidies" is the $4 billion in R&D spending. Of course, this doesn't cover individual state directed subsidies, although those are discussed in the report if you're interested. 

 

It’s not vague; poor word choice that was far too generous by me. It’s fabricated. I understand macro and micro very well. There is a MASSIVE difference between the RECIPIENTS of direct versus indirect subsidies. Renewables receive far more tax deducts than FF.

The more I read of you, I feel I’m interacting with a government bureaucrat. The linked IMF study and your continued defense of it is astounding. We have nothing further to discuss. 

[Dahobbs 18231]

12 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

It’s not vague; poor word choice that was far too generous by me. It’s fabricated. I understand macro and micro very well. There is a MASSIVE difference between the RECIPIENTS of direct versus indirect subsidies. Renewables receive far more tax deducts than FF.

The more I read of you, I feel I’m interacting with a government bureaucrat. The linked IMF study and your continued defense of it is astounding. We have nothing further to discuss. 

How would the recipients differ? I'm not even sure I know what you're suggesting there. Presumably the same recipient could receive either direct payments and/or tax deductions/credits. Besides, under your reasoning, renewables do not receive subsidies. Unless you're saying that tax deductions for renewables are subsidies but not for the FF industry.

You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support any of your positions. And frankly you haven't stated a rationale for your positions or why any of the dozens of sources I've provided to you are wrong. You can't argue against the LCOE the numbers, the subsidy totals, or anything else. You've made grand statements that you're right and I'm wrong without a shred of proof or support. I've been civil and provided you information. You've provided nothing of substance in return. And you've insisted you're a finance guy, yet demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of basic financial and economical concepts. 

I'm happy to discuss further when you decide to stop acting like a child. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Dahobbs

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19280]

57 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

It’s like you didn’t read anything I wrote. I’m 100% correct on my discussion of FF subsidies. 

No, you actually aren't.  They are deductions, but FF is the only one that can write off the ENTIRE cost in one go if the effort isn't successful.  Other companies have to write those costs (which are basically R&D costs) over time.   As for the ITCs on solar and wind, the company that builds those facilities gets the credit, and those credits are dependent on the investment getting made and the facility getting certified.  Any other ones you want to talk about?

Edited July 22, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How would the recipients differ? I'm not even sure I know what you're suggesting there. Presumably the same recipient could receive either direct payments and/or tax deductions/credits. Besides, under your reasoning, renewables do not receive subsidies. Unless you're saying that tax deductions for renewables are subsidies but not for the FF industry.

You've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support any of your positions. And frankly you haven't stated a rationale for your positions or why any of the dozens of sources I've provided to you are wrong. You can't argue against the LCOE the numbers, the subsidy totals, or anything else. You've made grand statements that you're right and I'm wrong without a shred of proof or support. I've been civil and provided you information. You've provided nothing of substance in return. And you've insisted you're a finance guy, yet demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of basic financial and economical concepts. 

I'm happy to discuss further when you decide to stop acting like a child. 

There is a massive difference TO the recipients of direct subsidies versus recipients of indirect subsidies. 

Your accusations of me failing to provide evidence to refute your sources - your sources are similar in their approach: they’re academic and have no basis in reality. It is really hard to refute dreamed-up figures, or figures that have no bearing whatsoever on US electrical generation. For example, you’re asking me to provide evidence that refutes $4.2 Trillion of “subsidies” received by the FF industry provided by global society because of poor air quality and deaths.  My only response will be: Lulz. I’m not going to start dodging at your manufactured shadows.  I live in reality. 

Now, I did provide some very specific responses to subsidies that would be directed to the US FF industry. You’ve chosen to ignore those responses. Probably because you’re an academic with no understanding whatsoever of the business. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

No, you actually aren't.  They are deductions, but FF is the only one that can write off the ENTIRE cost in one go if the effort isn't successful.  Other companies have to write those costs (which are basically R&D costs) over time.  And the biofuel credit is who blends the biogas.  As for the ITCs on solar and wind, the company that builds those facilities gets the credit.  Any other ones you want to talk about?

I make a comment about FF subsidies and then your last four sentences talking about other industries and being cocky. Interesting tactic. 

As to the pertinent topic, are you speaking of a dry hole?  Domestic production is driven by resource plays where dry holes aren’t a thing.  If your argument is IDC & ICC are elements of extremely favorable tax treatment, I would agree. 

[drt 645]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

WAT

Hmm. The one I looked at earlier had the peaks within several hundred mW of each other. That looks much better. 

[The Dog 44831]

Just now, drt said:

Hmm. The one I looked at earlier had the peaks within several hundred mW of each other. That looks much better. 

to be fair that chart can be WAAAY off at times and then gets corrected.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Thanks for pointing out my typo - fixed

oh sorry, you don't poke holes in the ground - you finance the holes that are poked in the ground! My apologies for making the grave error of thinking you were a blue collar worker instead of a white collar dude. That last sentence was in relation to your earlier statement that "we're supposed to be burning all the natgas we can access! It wouldn't be accessible to us if we weren't!" - and now that you've shared that your livelihood depends on more people consuming more natgas, it's pretty transparently clear why you've got such a militant stance against renewables.

My point being: even right now as our state is running low on power - it ain't natgas saving our asses. That thermal generation is so far behind on maintenance that it's become unreliable and is materially threatening major investment in Texas, because every time power goes out at a fab, it costs hundreds of millions to restart. It's renewables rising to meet our needs during the hottest days. At this very moment, it's providing about 25% of our overall capacity! Without those renewables, we'd be in a blackout right now.

Also, sorry that you don't like being associated with the consequences of your choices. Thoughts and prayers.

I'm in favor of adding renewables to the grid and I think their role can be even further expanded with the additional storage and transmission lines.  That being said, I'm not in favor of framing the discussion in terms of renewables vs thermal plants, or how one is saving our ass and not the other.   Thermal plants can provide on demand power and operate at a much high capacity factor than wind and solar.  If wind and solar produce 25% of the energy on our grid and have an average capacity factor of 30% and thermal plants produce 70% of our energy and operate with an average capacity factor of 80%, why is that wind and solar is saving our asses?  Wind and solar are an asset that required significant capital investment that are producing within their design parameters.  Some times they produce a percentage of their nameplate capacity that is much lower than we would like, sometimes they produce a higher percentage than what we expected.

But the reality is that right now thermal plants are the backbone of our grid and thermal plants operate in a way that wind and solar cannot replace without significant additions of storage and transmission.  

[Trey3216 15452]

21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Pish.  Let's leapfrog right over this tech and go straight to dilithium:

Hangin out on the ship on the weekends

acting stupid getting drunk with my best friends

Couldn’t wait for the summer at the Warp Core

[Brisketexan 106801]

11 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I'm in favor of adding renewables to the grid and I think their role can be even further expanded with the additional storage and transmission lines.  That being said, I'm not in favor of framing the discussion in terms of renewables vs thermal plants, or how one is saving our ass and not the other.   Thermal plants can provide on demand power and operate at a much high capacity factor than wind and solar.  If wind and solar produce 25% of the energy on our grid and have an average capacity factor of 30% and thermal plants produce 70% of our energy and operate with an average capacity factor of 80%, why is that wind and solar is saving our asses?  Wind and solar are an asset that required significant capital investment that are producing within their design parameters.  Some times they produce a percentage of their nameplate capacity that is much lower than we would like, sometimes they produce a higher percentage than what we expected.

But the reality is that right now thermal plants are the backbone of our grid and thermal plants operate in a way that wind and solar cannot replace without significant additions of storage and transmission.  

This is largely correct.  However, timing of capacity is important, and in Texas, peak demand is (with RARE exception, but an important one) during the summer, when solar is at its best, and wind is reasonably reliable on the plains.  In planning, ERCOT has historically looked at August days to determine likely peak demand, for example.

So, for Texas, renewables make good sense in the overall mix, even taking into account capacity and peak.

The exception is when we have a serious freeze, as we did in 2011 and 2021.  Then we see soaring demand, and generation actually going OFFline because of weather-related issues.  That's a different problem with a different solution, and it effects different types of generation in different ways (e.g., solar irradiance isn't high at that time of year, and snow on the panels makes it near zero, but freezing gas lines also hammers thermal generation).  So, in making sure we have sufficient available power for our needs, we really have to plan for two scenarios, both of which are happening with greater frequency and with greater extremity than before (extreme heat and extreme cold).

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19280]

28 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I make a comment about FF subsidies and then your last four sentences talking about other industries and being cocky. Interesting tactic. 

As to the pertinent topic, are you speaking of a dry hole?  Domestic production is driven by resource plays where dry holes aren’t a thing.  If your argument is IDC & ICC are elements of extremely favorable tax treatment, I would agree. 

You explicitly were comparing FF subsidies with renewables, and then made the argument that oil and gas was different since renewables were with the end user.    

I didn't even go into the deals made on property tax by oil and gas who most definitely do not pay their fair share.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You explicitly were comparing FF subsidies with renewables, and then made the argument that oil and gas was different since renewables were with the end user.    

I didn't even go into the deals made on property tax by oil and gas who most definitely do not pay their fair share.

I made no such argument. You misunderstood, and you didn’t really explain your last post that I responded to. 

Why don’t you go into whatever it is you’re trying to say in the second paragraph. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is largely correct.  However, timing of capacity is important, and in Texas, peak demand is (with RARE exception, but an important one) during the summer, when solar is at its best, and wind is reasonably reliable on the plains.  In planning, ERCOT has historically looked at August days to determine likely peak demand, for example.

So, for Texas, renewables make good sense in the overall mix, even taking into account capacity and peak.

The exception is when we have a serious freeze, as we did in 2011 and 2021.  Then we see soaring demand, and generation actually going OFFline because of weather-related issues.  That's a different problem with a different solution, and it effects different types of generation in different ways (e.g., solar irradiance isn't high at that time of year, and snow on the panels makes it near zero, but freezing gas lines also hammers thermal generation).  So, in making sure we have sufficient available power for our needs, we really have to plan for two scenarios, both of which are happening with greater frequency and with greater extremity than before (extreme heat and extreme cold).

Solar output and peak Texas summer demand definitely have a favorable overlap.  Problem with west Texas wind is that it tends to drop very low in the middle of the afternoon.  There have been some afternoons this summer where wind was only outputting 1-2 GW of its 35 GW nameplate capacity.  4 - 8 hours worth of storage for our wind capacity would make it a very strong summer contributor.     

Winter is a different problem, as you say.  That may require hydrogen storage hubs for seasonal low carbon energy and heat.   

[Samson's Wig 3228]

Ultimately, the industry that lines regulators/politicians pockets the most will be the the last one standing.  Efficacy, sustainability, affordability?  Ha!

[Brisketexan 106801]

6 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Ultimately, the industry that lines regulators/politicians pockets the most will be the the last one standing.  Efficacy, sustainability, affordability?  Ha!

A better summary post for this thread could not be written.

Politics comes first, good policy comes last.  Same as it ever was.

[Captainant 28463]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Solar output and peak Texas summer demand definitely have a favorable overlap.  Problem with west Texas wind is that it tends to drop very low in the middle of the afternoon.  There have been some afternoons this summer where wind was only outputting 1-2 GW of its 35 GW nameplate capacity.  4 - 8 hours worth of storage for our wind capacity would make it a very strong summer contributor.     

There's also a major transmission capacity problem with getting that energy from west TX to east TX, which limits energy storage options as well. IMO I think residential solar is going to be a big factor in reducing overall grid strain and load. It doesn't take any more state-level infra investment to enable, and is putting power right next to where it's needed. I'm also very curious to see what sort of knock-on effects we will see from EV's becoming more common, like if every EV can be a powerwall on wheels like the F150 lightning can

 

Also porter claimed he never said that we should be burning as much gas as fast as we can... Not quite sure how to square that with what he posted prior lol

On 7/20/2022 at 11:17 PM, Porterhouse said:

What’s admirable is to use the resources God gave you in the most expeditious manner possible

Because in terms of long-term resource planning and scheduling, I really strenuously disagree. In fact, I'd argue that this sort of short-term thinking is exactly what's gotten us into our current mess. There's a benefit to having stockpiled resources and backup capacity on hand - it's how you mitigate small problems and prevent them from developing into major systemic issues.