Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[mhaze]

As I said, we can certainly discuss expert qualifications and potential biases -- but don't lose track of where we are. That study addresses energy subsidies, not Peak Oil. (And it's obvious that you still haven't bothered to even look at it, or you'd know that).

I don't see the observation that oil is among the most heavily subsidized of all industries as being really all that controversial, but you don't have to "believe" them. You can see the subsidies they list (and how they define "subsidy"), do the math, and decide for yourself whether the numbers support their conclusions.

Unfortunately, I don't have the same luxury with regard to the article you've just linked to. An English newspaper quotes a report issued by a large investment firm....

Well, at least I'm quoting something reputable, like RIGZONE, not a whackjob environmental nutcase report on Oil (subsidies).

 

[Dymanic]

Well, at least I'm quoting something reputable, like RIGZONE, not a whackjob environmental nutcase report on Oil (subsidies).

You're quoting a quote of a quote, with no path to the original source, the data, or the methodology. If that's enough to meet your standard of evidence, it's no wonder we see these issues so much differently.

And by the way, ELI is a non-profit, non-advocacy organization, so your post also provides a look at your standards for what qualifies as "whack-job environmental nutcase" -- or maybe it's simply more carelessness on your part. Among the things ELI does is conduct its "Boot Camp on Environmental Law", which provides an intensive three-day course in environmental law geared primarily toward attorneys new to envirnomental law, and is open only to members of ELI's Associates Program -- a list which includes more whackjob environmental nutcases, like AT&T, Chevron, GE, Intel, IBM, Lockheed Martin, and Weyerhaeuser.

 

[mhaze]

You're quoting a quote of a quote, with no path to the original source, the data, or the methodology. If that's enough to meet your standard of evidence, it's no wonder we see these issues so much differently.

And by the way, ELI is a non-profit, non-advocacy organization, so your post also provides a look at your standards for what qualifies as "whack-job environmental nutcase" -- or maybe it's simply more carelessness on your part. Among the things ELI does is conduct its "Boot Camp on Environmental Law", which provides an intensive three-day course in environmental law geared primarily toward attorneys new to envirnomental law, and is open only to members of ELI's Associates Program -- a list which includes more whackjob environmental nutcases, like AT&T, Chevron, GE, Intel, IBM, Lockheed Martin, and Weyerhaeuser.

I think you make my point nicely. That's not related to taxation policy or "subsidies" at all. Note you've wandered now from the Tea Party being against HSR....to the Prius....to taxation of oil firms .... to "subsidies" to oil firms...to Peak Oil theories.... to what? Environmental law, spewing out a few choice insults at each cornering turn.

???

WTF????

By the way I just read a summary on taxation policy of investing in oil and gas drilling, and my comments in 246 were accurate. As far as they went in their scope. The first year subsidies for the industry, in the absence of the current tax law, would simply be expensed and not capitalized where drilling was not profitable. You'd then have a maze of complexity, which benefits no one. Yes, there are other tax breaks and incentives other than the first year expense allowances.

So let's have some more of those snot nosed ad hominems, hey? Make them amusing this time. Or not. But since we're galloping around, cowboy. answer this.

What is the amount of subsidies per kilowatt hour for fossil fuel vs "renewables"? No ducking and dodging on this. No 5th, 6th or 7th derail. Here are some numerical numbers to help out.

80T kw/hrs - renewable energy production in US. Of course you need to subtract out hydro.
Oil 5.6M btu/barrel, 1000 kwh = 3.41M btu
US oil production assume 3.6B barrels per year

Oh, and for an indepth review of these subsidy issues, let's check out the CATO Institute. But note that you don't have to read this or study it to answer my simple question above. When you express indignation at the "hugh profits and unfair subsidies" of the oil industry, and you express a preference for "renewables" and lament that they don't get big subsidies (or bigger subsidies) there is a giant logical error if the subsidies are not strictly compared on the basis of production.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

Since recently we've had several high profile cases where the "green industry" got big subsidies with NO PRODUCTION, and then folded, I think this is a reasonable approach.

 

[Dymanic]

That's not related to taxation policy or "subsidies" at all.

Did you lose track of where we were? I linked a study on energy subsidies. You dismissed it (unread) as originating with a biased source, apparently on the sole basis that the word "environmental" appears in the name of the organization that conducted it. If you don't think environmental law is related to energy subsidies, then I can only suggest again that you read that study, where you will find among the listed subsidies such items as the Credit for Clean Coal Investment (IRC Sections 48A and 48B) and the Sulfur Regulatory Compliance Incentives for Small Diesel Refiners (IRC Sections 179B and 45H). Maybe you should also give the CATO study a closer look, as it discusses at length such issues as the avian mortality problem with wind power, water quality and endangered species issues with hydroelectricity, and toxic chemical pollution re photovoltaic solar.

By the way I just read a summary on taxation policy of investing in oil and gas drilling, and my comments in 246 were accurate. As far as they went in their scope. The first year subsidies for the industry, in the absence of the current tax law, would simply be expensed and not capitalized where drilling was not profitable. You'd then have a maze of complexity, which benefits no one. Yes, there are other tax breaks and incentives other than the first year expense allowances.

Like I said, "It's not that simple". So we've found a point of agreement. Do you think I went too far in describing US government subsidies and US tax law as "two massive, intersecting complexities"?

What is the amount of subsidies per kilowatt hour for fossil fuel vs "renewables"?

I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to calculate that. It seems like a crazy way to go at it, considering that less than 1% of our oil goes to generating electricity. Taking the "ratepayer" approach to performing those calculations seems problematic considering that the electricity transmitted across the U.S. power grid is indistinguishable by fuel source; once energy enters the grid, it cannot be traced back to its origin. I have to agree with this statement from the piece you just linked:

"Head-to-head comparison of wind power and other generation alternatives for new generation capacity is mostly a hypothetical debate."

When you express indignation at the "hugh profits and unfair subsidies" of the oil industry, and you express a preference for "renewables" and lament that they don't get big subsidies (or bigger subsidies) there is a giant logical error if the subsidies are not strictly compared on the basis of production.

How about I just counter that bald assertion with one of my own: There is a giant logical error if the subsidies are not strictly compared on the basis of sustainability.

Since recently we've had several high profile cases where the "green industry" got big subsidies with NO PRODUCTION, and then folded, I think this is a reasonable approach.

But only when applied to "green" energy. When efforts to produce oil fail, subsidizing that makes perfect sense.

 

[mhaze]

...I wouldn't know where to even begin trying to calculate that. It seems like a crazy way to go at it, considering that less than 1% of our oil goes to generating electricity. Taking the "ratepayer" approach to performing those calculations seems problematic considering that the electricity transmitted across the U.S. power grid is indistinguishable by fuel source; once energy enters the grid, it cannot be traced back to its origin. .....

Because it's a fundamental question.

All fuels and/or power systems can be equilibrated by their energy density and production versus cost and compared immediately. We buy kilowatt hours, and we buy them from oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro and other sources. Cars run on energy, and the unit of energy is BTU or joule, and those immediately can be measured in...guess what? Kilowatt hours.

If you want to complain about subsidies, you really must compare subsidies per kilowatt hour.

But you don't want to do this. This method will show the subsidies for "green energy" to be orders of magnitude higher than for fossil fuels, right?

Well, that's simply a fact.

Hmm....

 

[Trakar]

Because it's a fundamental question.

All fuels and/or power systems can be equilibrated by their energy density and production versus cost and compared immediately. We buy kilowatt hours, and we buy them from oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro and other sources. Cars run on energy, and the unit of energy is BTU or joule, and those immediately can be measured in...guess what? Kilowatt hours.

If you want to complain about subsidies, you really must compare subsidies per kilowatt hour.

But you don't want to do this. This method will show the subsidies for "green energy" to be orders of magnitude higher than for fossil fuels, right?

Well, that's simply a fact.

Hmm....

?

Mature energy industries naturally spread their subsidies over a larger developed industry than young energy industries.

total levels and cumulative amounts over time, seem the more relevent issues to examine.

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

 

[mhaze]

?

Mature energy industries naturally spread their subsidies over a larger developed industry than young energy industries.

total levels and cumulative amounts over time, seem the more relevent issues to examine.

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

No, no double talk and rationalization. Start with numbers.

• Cost of subsidies per kwhr, "renewables" X.
  
• Cost of subsidies per kwhr, fossil fuels, Y.

Then discuss whether there is some huge injustice in the "massive subsidies to the evil oil industry".

 

[Dymanic]

Because it's a fundamental question.

Sez you -- but nothing says there's a rigorous approach to answering it. Would you like me to provide some examples of fundamental questions for which definitive answers have proved elusive?

We buy kilowatt hours, and we buy them from oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, hydro and other sources.

It may seem like quibbling, but I'll remind you again that we don't buy very dang many of those kilowatt hours from oil -- I mean, unless you want to include the potential kilowatt hours all that oil could -- hypothetically -- produce if we did use it to generate electricity instead of what we do use it for.

If you want to complain about subsidies, you really must compare subsidies per kilowatt hour. But you don't want to do this. This method will show the subsidies for "green energy" to be orders of magnitude higher than for fossil fuels, right?

Let me see if I'm tracking your logic. Over a period of decades, a lot of public money has gone toward propping up the oil industry, and, largely as a result of that, we now have a lot of oil infrastructure in place. That infrastructure produces X amount of energy (in kilowatts or potential kilowatts, if you insist). A lot less public money has gone toward developing infrastructure devoted to other sources, and, not surprisingly, we obtain a lot less energy from those sources. So the observation that those alternative sources are not presently producing as much energy serves as the main justification for continuing to prop up the oil industry while leaving alternatives to struggle unaided upon this unlevel playing field?

 

[mhaze]

Sez you -- but nothing says there's a rigorous approach to answering it. Would you like me to provide some examples of fundamental questions for which definitive answers have proved elusive?

It may seem like quibbling, but I'll remind you again that we don't buy very dang many of those kilowatt hours from oil -- I mean, unless you want to include the potential kilowatt hours all that oil could -- hypothetically -- produce if we did use it to generate electricity instead of what we do use it for.
.....

It's not quibbling, although I know this direction of argument isn't exactly benefical to - paraphrasing - anti-oil-subsidy type people.

But to me it's basic, since we drill, and up comes a mix of product - a lot of it is used for heating. Natural gas, but then we run the oil up separation towers, and down near the base we get heating oil.



I guess you could just concede the issue, and admit that per unit of energy, "renewables" get orders of magnitude higher subsidies that fossil fuels. It's a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but it does make a serious dent in the Flagship of Green Energy Which Needs More and More Subsidies. And then more. And more.

 

[mhaze]

....Let me see if I'm tracking your logic. Over a period of decades, a lot of public money has gone toward propping up the oil industry, and, largely as a result of that, we now have a lot of oil infrastructure in place. That infrastructure produces X amount of energy (in kilowatts or potential kilowatts, if you insist). A lot less public money has gone toward developing infrastructure devoted to other sources, and, not surprisingly, we obtain a lot less energy from those sources. So the observation that those alternative sources are not presently producing as much energy serves as the main justification for continuing to prop up the oil industry while leaving alternatives to struggle unaided upon this unlevel playing field?

What infrastructure is being developed for "green"?

For windmills, they have a useful life of about 15 years. Hydro is a long time, but we've pretty much tapped that out. Geothermal has a long lifetime, yes. PV and other solar I doubt is figured at more than 15 years, anyway it's impossible that current solar will be depreciating at other than very rapid rates due to the price declines we are seeing in new product.

So most green energy doesn't seem to qualify as "infrastructure".

So where's the infrastructure?

 

[WildCat]

It's important to word that correctly. Slowing the rate of decline in domestic production is what we're really talking about. Increasing domestic production isn't even on the table. Frack yourself silly, whatever; not gonna happen. Best we could hope for is small temporary surges like the one that took place after the completion of the Alaska pipeline and the start of production from the largest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay (which peaked two years later).

Domestic oil production has increased every year since 2005: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=88

High oil prices + reduced costs = more oil production as marginal wells become profitable again.

But the short answer is yes -- at least, the assumption that there is a "government" interest in encouraging production is the basis for government subsidies to the oil industry. Nothing says it has to be domestic production, tho.

So you think the government should give tax incentives for foreign oil production?

I'm for it. Leave more of our own oil in the ground while we continue to suck the arabs dry, and our grandchildren will surely thank us.

Why would they thank us for squandering a resource that has far less value to them? I have no doubts that we won't be powering cars with gasoline in 50 years.

Of course, sequestering resources for the future is a risky practice under our present corporate system -- one which values short term gains above all else -- and, unfortunately, our political system suffers the same flaw.

No, it shows a remarkable amount of pessimism for the future. Why will we need similar amounts of petroleum in 2050? Gasoline use is falling in the US even now.

We no longer have the production capacity to significantly impact global oil prices.

We could build the Keystone pipeline and have easy access to the vast oil wealth of Canada. Oh yeah, I forgot you're also against that too. So far you've ruled out domestic oil production, and foreign oil production in favor of squandering all our oil for ouselves at some future date, our grandchildren's time.

Hell of a plan you have there.

 

[Dymanic]

I guess you could just concede the issue, and admit that per unit of energy, "renewables" get orders of magnitude higher subsidies that fossil fuels.

I though it rather obvious that I was questioning the conclusion you draw from that rather trivial observation -- and the very deceptive and biased way you attempt to apply that conclusion -- rather than disputing the observation itself. It's like trying to justify continuation of a centuries-long policy of oppression against a given class of people on the basis that statistics indicate that collectively they are social underachievers.

So most green energy doesn't seem to qualify as "infrastructure".

Neither does black energy. Oil rigs and pipelines aren't energy; they're infrastructure (as are the factories that make the rigs and pipes, and the mines that provide the raw materials, and the roads all that stuff travels over, etc, etc). Solar panels (for example) aren't energy either, and neither are the factories that make them, etc, etc.

So where's the infrastructure?

Good question.

 

[mhaze]

Domestic oil production has increased every year since 2005: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=88

High oil prices + reduced costs = more oil production as marginal wells become profitable again......

Rig count was over 4000 in the late 1970s, it is down to about 1000 now.

Shale oil and gas in Eagle Ford is about 100 rigs for both currently, but that is going up by a factor of 4 in the next several years. Domestic production is forecast to decline, and shale to make up the difference or cause a net increase. But I think we're headed for more conventional drilling also, because the only way we are going to get out of this recession/depression is the energy industry.

 

[Robert Prey]

I had wondered why so many Tea Party types were torpedoing mass transit and other green infrastructure projects all over the USA.

My personal involvement with them concerns the California High Speed Rail project that I support more than just about anything I've ever supported before. And they have been annoying me greatly.

Anyways, it might be all about the United Nations.

It's a NY Times article that gets to the root of Tea Party opposition to new infrastructure projects.

Color all of your dumb, wasteful "green" projects Yellow as in Lemon Socialism -- Boondogles for the well connected, debt for the taxpayers

 

[Dymanic]

Domestic oil production has increased every year since 2005.

It hasn't, actually. I'm guessing that the factoid you're trying to regurgitate is that 2010 production was the highest since 2003 -- but it's not like it marched up to that point in a smooth line:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/PET_CRD_CRPDN_ADC_MBBL_M_2003-2011.jpg

But what's of more significance is what it's done since 1970:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_1920_to_2005.png

We're producing just over half of what we were then.

High oil prices + reduced costs = more oil production as marginal wells become profitable again.

Like I said: small, temporary surges are to be expected.

Over 85 percent of the oil wells in the US are now classified as "marginal", meaning that their production rates have been below ten barrels per day or less for a period of at least one year. The thing to keep in mind is that reopening abandoned wells is unlikely to be profitable under any but the direst scenarios. You're talking about re-outfitting a well that was abandoned after being maybe thirty percent depleted, and going back in after another thirty percent. It's an indication of an energy situation that has become desperate.

So you think the government should give tax incentives for foreign oil production?

Heh. No. I don't even think that. Do you?

Why would they thank us for squandering a resource that has far less value to them? I have no doubts that we won't be powering cars with gasoline in 50 years.

Well, you know, cars aren't the only machines we depend on that run on high density liquid fuels. Harvesters are one of the first things that come to mind. Imagine the battery pack it would take to run one of those suckers. Maybe a really long extension cord?

No, it shows a remarkable amount of pessimism for the future.

Guilty.

Why will we need similar amounts of petroleum in 2050?

Oh, we won't. That's for sure. One way or the other.

We could build the Keystone pipeline and have easy access to the vast oil wealth of Canada.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting about all that US domestic oil in freaking Canada. Like Rick Perry said, "Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don't have to buy from a foreign source".

(By the way, conventional crude in Canada peaked in 1973).

 

[mhaze]

....

Well, you know, cars aren't the only machines we depend on that run on high density liquid fuels. Harvesters are one of the first things that come to mind. Imagine the battery pack it would take to run one of those suckers. ......

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting about all that US domestic oil in freaking Canada. Like Rick Perry said, "Every barrel of oil that comes out of those sands in Canada is a barrel of oil that we don't have to buy from a foreign source".....

I'm okay with that. I think the same way, yes Canada is another country but they are N. American and many goods and people go back and forth.

High density liquid fuels? Just change the carb settings and run methanol. Never going to be a shortage of that.

Oh, and regarding 85% of the wells being marginal? Yes, of course, because of a long history of drilling, that's the "left overs".

Fracking on the other hand, hits paydirt nearly 100% of the time a well id drilled.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm okay with that. I think the same way, yes Canada is another country but they are N. American and many goods and people go back and forth.

I wonder: Do you feel the same way about Mexico?

Oh, and regarding 85% of the wells being marginal? Yes, of course, because of a long history of drilling, that's the "left overs".

Bingo.

And the reason they were left over is that extracting the second 30% (say) of the oil from a well requires not only a greater input of money, but a greater input of energy -- the very thing you're attempting to harvest -- than the first 30% did. Once a certain point of diminishing returns is reached, what you do is move the whole operation off to a more promising site (and that point occurs long before the inevitable point at which extracting the remaining oil would result in a net loss of energy). It all worked just fine as long as there remained an abundance of more promising sites to move on to, but that day passed long ago. So what we're left with is mostly the dregs.

Fracking on the other hand, hits paydirt nearly 100% of the time a well id drilled.

The main drawback of course being the same one that all non-conventional methods suffer from: a much lower EROEI than with conventional sources of light sweet crude (where the stuff basically pumps itself out of the ground; at least for a while). One obvious analogy is that the difference between obtaining oil from oil shale versus obtaining it from a conventional well is like the difference between squeezing water out of clay versus dipping a bucket into a lake.

 

[mhaze]

I wonder: Do you feel the same way about Mexico?
.

con la exception de problems de traffica de drugas y armas, porque no?

......main drawback of course being the same one that all non-conventional methods suffer from: a much lower EROEI than with conventional sources of light sweet crude (where the stuff basically pumps itself out of the ground; at least for a while). One obvious analogy is that the difference between obtaining oil from oil shale versus obtaining it from a conventional well is like the difference between squeezing water out of clay versus dipping a bucket into a lake.

That is more a common misconception, than a reality. And it may just be irrelevant. It's certainly relevant to the destruction of the "peak oil fantasy", but it isn't relevant to everyday availability and price of gasoline or natural gas.

 

[Dymanic]

That is more a common misconception, than a reality. And it may just be irrelevant.

Supporting arguments might have helped to make those statements more persuasive. That you chose to omit them has rather the opposite effect, I'd say.

 

[dc1971]

And we know nuclear power plants are able to repay loans, because their product is in demand.

We do? It is?