Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Calidovi]

What would be a real change is permanently transferring a few billion from the coal and oil subsidies budget to the renewable subsidies budget. You wanna talk about cost effectiveness? Fossil fuels get 100 billion dollars in subsidies every year. Renewables get, at my last check, about 7 billion.

That's right. The "impractical solar panels" are about ten times as actually practical as fossil fuels. Don't even get me started on the others. If we didn't have the state propping it up even the reddest most ornery sweaty Texan would be demanding renewable expansions.

That seems pretty cyclical.

[Neonivek]

What would be a real change is permanently transferring a few billion from the coal and oil subsidies budget to the renewable subsidies budget. You wanna talk about cost effectiveness? Fossil fuels get 100 billion dollars in subsidies every year. Renewables get, at my last check, about 7 billion.

That's right. The "impractical solar panels" are about ten times as actually practical as fossil fuels. Don't even get me started on the others. If we didn't have the state propping it up even the reddest most ornery sweaty Texan would be demanding renewable expansions.

Fossil Fuels also are a much much bigger industry then "Renewables".

It would be like saying the Vatican is a lot more "efficient" then the USA because their total spending is significantly less

I actually think most forms of renewable energy are on their way out. We already have a cheaper and cleaner alternative to wind generators, for example.

[Flying Dice]

I mean, the thing is, even if you're die-hard for the fossil fuel boner, we're past peak oil. We need to start trimming the fat and using what we have left to do some combination of building up energy infrastructure that doesn't rely on fossil fuels and getting established in space so that we can exploiting the rich deposits elsewhere in the system. It's not just an issue of continued environmental destruction, but also one of blatant careless wastage of one of the most critical and finite resources we have. It becomes markedly more difficult to bootstrap into nuclear/solar/whatever for everything if we wait until we're out of oil and starting to run low on natural gas and coal before even thinking about doing it seriously.

The greed of the fossil fuel industry is twofold: they're willing to sacrifice both our quality of life and our future as a continually advancing civilization (not to mention incredible long-term profits from exploiting extra-terrestrial resources) for the sake of short-term profit, since they don't give a shit about anything but their own immediate gains and probably won't live long enough to suffer seriously from the consequences of their actions. Corporate capitalism in a nutshell.

[Frumple]

What would be a real change is permanently transferring a few billion from the coal and oil subsidies budget to the renewable subsidies budget. You wanna talk about cost effectiveness? Fossil fuels get 100 billion dollars in subsidies every year. Renewables get, at my last check, about 7 billion.

That's right. The "impractical solar panels" are about ten times as actually practical as fossil fuels. Don't even get me started on the others. If we didn't have the state propping it up even the reddest most ornery sweaty Texan would be demanding renewable expansions.

That. You're having a laugh, right?

Existence doesn't work like that, MSH. Coal and oil is 2/3rds of the US energy production. Renewables... aren't. They're a bit over a 10th (~13%) if you include hydro (which is just about as much as the rest of the renewables combined), under if you don't. A smaller subsidy for an industry a small fraction of the size of another doesn't mean it's more cost efficient.

... that said, clinton's stated she's aiming for solar investment (140 GW) that would mean a price tag between ~25 and ~60 billion, checking on it. And I'm pretty sure that's not including the stated 60 billion general clean energy project. Or all the other stuff. So, uh.

[mainiac]

I mean, the thing is,

I mean the thing is, the bootstrapping is already taking place.  As evidenced for instance by the major party candidate whose plan is that solar alone adds 10% of current US capacity for all electricity in four years.

Mind you, yeah, sooner or later the prices are going to catch up and complaining about what we get now will be like grumbling about quarter sodas.

Yeah, we are in a glut right now.

There is a chance that the glut might continue until cheap solar power creates the next glut.  That would be pretty sweet if it happened but it probably wont.

[Calidovi]

It always gets me wondering: what will it take?

Do we need to have a dramatic change to lobbying and challenge what many consider to be a form of free speech? Does the process of extracting fossil fuel need to be ass-maddeningly difficult (but by then we're too far, aren't we)?

[mainiac]

It always gets me wondering: what will it take?

A moderate tax on emissions and a few tens of billions in subsidies per year would do a decent job of it.

[Calidovi]

lets be reasonable come on

EDIT: If Hillary wins this, would we be able to implement a proper emission reduction plan with a majority Dem Supreme Court? Don't know about moving around subsidies, that's beyond my naïve scope.

[Neonivek]

It always gets me wondering: what will it take?

Does the process of extracting fossil fuel need to be ass-maddeningly difficult (but by then we're too far, aren't we)?

Actually yes... Trust me this isn't a business that has stagnated FAAAR behind as far as technology is concerned.

[Frumple]

It always gets me wondering: what will it take?

Do we need to have a dramatic change to lobbying and challenge what many consider to be a form of free speech? Does the process of extracting fossil fuel need to be ass-maddeningly difficult (but by then we're too far, aren't we)?

Well, it takes people caring about it, and enough it starts impacting their voting (/political influence and whatnot, in areas that aren't democratic) and consuming patterns. Then the politicians and businesses (well, the ones that aren't/weren't aware and concerned enough to be changing behaviors already) will start reacting, and the path gets walked.

Which, uh. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the last 20-30 years, that's been happening, and at increasing speed. It's been shockingly obvious if you've lived through it -- early 90s, this sort of conversation wouldn't have been happening to any meaningful extent outside of fairly limited corners of academia. Whether it's fast enough is questionable as all hell but that there's been a serious shift in public opinion and awareness, and by extension government and economic attention, over the last generation or two is just ridiculously blatantly evident.

[Max™]

The "form of free speech" mentioned above was unlimited campaign contributions, which would indeed require a dem majority supreme court and would rock.

I, as an ornery Texan, am pissed at all the NIMBY morons bitching about the idea of giving any nuclear plants any sort of support, and blame them for the stupid state of our energy industry at least as much as the entrenched fossil fuel interests.

[mainiac]

EDIT: If Hillary wins this, would we be able to implement a proper emission reduction plan with a majority Dem Supreme Court? Don't know about moving around subsidies, that's beyond my naïve scope.

Let's suppose Hillary + 50 democratic senators but a republican house.  So they can fill the supreme court but cant pass budgets.  In that case, we'll just see what is already happening continue.  The EPA will set carbon targets that the states will have to hit or the EPA will start shutting down plants.  That would result in the emission targets that Obama has laid out.  Maybe it even results in the republicans deciding they might as well cut a deal and we get an actual budget through congress which probably includes some but not all of the green investments.

I can't answer the "enough" part though.  The world heats up but not as much as it might.  I dont know if that is enough or not.

[alway]

"Enough" is and always has been overemphasized. Every additional ton is bad, regardless of the result. It may well be "Oh no, 3.5C above where we were before, several governments are collapsing in poorer regions and there are a billion people displaced who are now refugees... but at least we didn't hit 5C above." In that regard, the (at this point unrealistic) temperature limits set in various negotiations, as they are reported on, put too much emphasis on a binary less/greater than.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Existence doesn't work like that, MSH. Coal and oil is 2/3rds of the US energy production. Renewables... aren't.

No shit. You can't push the way we chose to enact policy previously as proof of that policy's accuracy.

They're a bit over a 10th (~13%) if you include hydro (which is just about as much as the rest of the renewables combined), under if you don't. A smaller subsidy for an industry a small fraction of the size of another doesn't mean it's more cost efficient.

It does when the industry sells electricity for the same or lower costs as the supposedly more efficient one, even when subject to lower subsidies.

[Flying Dice]

I mean, the thing is,

I mean the thing is, the bootstrapping is already taking place.  As evidenced for instance by the major party candidate whose plan is that solar alone adds 10% of current US capacity for all electricity in four years.

Token additions to solar doesn't mean jack shit if she gives the wink and nod to the companies which are continuing to increase production even as they're forced to tap into markedly more difficult deposits.

Either you're drinking the cool-aid because she's your horse in this race, or you legitimately don't understand what peak oil means. Small increases to solar is less than what we should have been doing fifty or sixty years ago. It's the same bullshit as the centrist money-grubbers are trying to feed us on the ecology side, making recycling programs and moderate reductions in carbon emissions out to be massive, sweeping changes when they're basic entry-level efforts being tossed out half a century behind the curve to appease people who actually care about things beyond the next few decades.

This isn't even funny, it's on the same level as promising free state-funded cold medicine and pretending that that's equivalent to comprehensive public healthcare.