Wind turbines and politics

[Someone]

But as I've mentioned on here before if I had enough money to invest in wholesale infrastructure it would be in storage (hydro being a strong front runner).

  800% agree!  (Bloody Batteriser...)

This really really is the elephant in the room, the most important aspect of decreasing CO2 emissions from electricity generation, but is hardly ever mentioned.

Without MASSIVE scale storage, we will always need fossil and/or nuclear plants.....

If you look at the daily energy market in your country or mine storage utilities make money and improve the efficiency of fossil fuel and nuclear plants too! But the investment money has been going into open (and some closed) cycle gas plants to provide dispatchable power as the upfront investments are smaller, despite the lower return over the life of the plant.

Checking the installed base of Australia it looks like around 10% of the total installed capacity is in sort availability gas peaking plants, compared to 20% total hydro (which is very profitable with its ability to store and dispatch),

[zapta]

If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE

Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".

http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/

I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".




 

[Srbel]

Thermal power plants can work 24/7, wind turbines can not. Fail.

[mtdoc]

If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE

Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".

http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/

I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".

Probably. As probably do many engineering and software companies. How is Tesla relevant? From your link:

What activities are eligible for the Section 199 deduction?

Per Section 199, domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) can be derived from the following qualifying production activities as long as they are conducted in whole or in significant part within the U.S.:

The manufacture, production, growth, or extraction by the taxpayer of tangible personal property. This encompasses all tangible personal property (except land and building), computer software, and sound recordings.
The production of qualified film
The production of electricity, natural gas, or water
The construction of real property
The services of architecture/engineering

[zapta]

If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE

Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".

http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/

I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".

Probably. As probably do many engineering and software companies. How is Tesla relevant? From your link:

Conveniently you dodged the main point that section 199 is not fossil energy specific.

As for Tesla, they also manufacture domestically.

"Making hamburgers would qualify for a lowered tax rate on "manufacturing, production, growth or extraction" profits in section 199, under the reasoning applied by Judge James V. Selna. He held that arranging candy bars, wrapped cheese, wine bottles, and other items "creates a new product with a different demand" than grocery items have individually"

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Features/EAA894611F6FFC3085257BBE0046DAF0?OpenDocument

[mtdoc]

If you want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE

Looking for example at the 199 section tax break that mentioned in that paper, it is not specific to fossil fuel companies and covers general manufacturing activities such as ""computer software, and sound recordings.", "The services of architecture/engineering" and "The production of qualified film".

http://greenwaltcpas.com/2010/10/what-is-the-section-199-deduction/

I will not be surprised if Tesla also benefits from this tax break since it manufactures "tangible personal property".

Probably. As probably do many engineering and software companies. How is Tesla relevant? From your link:

Conveniently you dodged the main point that section 199 is not fossil energy specific-?

Main point? Huh?  You're the one who dug it out of a reference. Who said it was fossil fuel specific?

As for Tesla, they also manufacture domestically.

Uh, yeah. So do thousands of companies - why bring up Tesla?

You seem to go be going through a lot of twists and turns to bring in your usual agenda and create conflict. 

As for the topic of the thread -All energy/electricity production is heavily government subsidized - citing one obscure tax break and trying to change the topic to Tesla doesn't change those facts - it just reveals a political agenda.

[zapta]

You seem to go be going through a lot of twists and turns to bring in your usual agenda and create conflict. 

As for the topic of the thread -All energy/electricity production is heavily government subsidized - citing one obscure tax break and trying to change the topic to Tesla doesn't change those facts - it just reveals a political agenda.

mtdoc, pointing that Tesla and hamburger makers are also covered by the 'fossil fuel subsidy' Section 199 listed in the doc you linked is not an agenda, it is a debunk.

A rational honest person would accept it and move on. A fan boy would give a tantrum and blame others.

[mtdoc]

You seem to go be going through a lot of twists and turns to bring in your usual agenda and create conflict. 

As for the topic of the thread -All energy/electricity production is heavily government subsidized - citing one obscure tax break and trying to change the topic to Tesla doesn't change those facts - it just reveals a political agenda.

mtdoc, pointing that Tesla and hamburger makers are also covered by the 'fossil fuel subsidy' Section 199 listed in the doc you linked is not an agenda, it is a debunk.

Debunk?  Debunk what? In response to a question,  I posted a link to details of the large subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. One by the IMF that examines the $5+ trillion/ year of government subsidies (tax and non tax related) and one put out by Taxpayers for Common Sense that details the billions in tax subsidies. It clearly details and delineates between Fossil Fuel industry specific and non specific tax subsidies.  In fact it clearly states that this deduction applies to  other industries as well.

You picked one of the non fossil fuel specific ones and go off on a (irrelevant) tangent about Tesla.

No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry.  Who is being dishonest? 

BTW, the mission statement for Taxpayers for Common Sense states:

Founded in 1995, Taxpayers for Common Sense is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan budget watchdog that serves as an independent voice for American taxpayers. Our mission is to ensure that the federal government spends taxpayer dollars responsibly and operates within its means

I would think that would be a mission you would support. No?

A rational honest person would accept it and move on. A fan boy would give a tantrum and blame others.

Tantrum? blame others?  Where? For what?  Please specify.

The thread speaks for itself - anyone can see.

[zapta]

No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry.  Who is being dishonest? 

Well, one of the key arguments for giving the renewable industry targeted subsidies is that the fossil fuel industry gets its own.

The deception is in including a in the argument a tax break that covers many other domestic manufactures including hamburger makers, Tesla, and domestic wind turbines if there is any but singling out the fossil energy companies.

[mtdoc]

No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry.  Who is being dishonest? 

Well, one of the key arguments for giving the renewable industry targeted subsidies is that the fossil fuel industry gets its own.

The deception is in including a in the argument a tax break that covers many other domestic manufactures including hamburger makers, Tesla, and domestic wind turbines if there is any but singling out the fossil energy companies.

1. The 199 deduction was one of many found in one of the references. You're the one who singled it out - not me.  Who is being deceptive?

2.  The point is that ALL energy/electricity production is heavily government subisidized - not just renewables as you are wont  to attack (implying that they are somehow special in that regard) - ignoring all the facts to the contrary. 

3. Since the fact is that all energy/ electricitly production is subsidized, how is the point  that one of the tax subsidies applies to lots of other things relevant?  If anything it just supports the fact that RE is no different. Again, who is being deceptive here?

4. Again - how is Tesla relevant?  Why mention them?

5. Again - are you opposed to the mission of Taxpayers for Common Sense? I ask because I think this should be an area where we can find common ground. Government should spend taxpayer money carefully. Tax subsidies should be targeted and limited. Their examination of tax subsidies to the Oil and Gas industry points out that as a mature, extremely profitable industry - ongoing tax subsidies to them are unjustified - no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Wouldn't you agree?

[zapta]

No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry.  Who is being dishonest? 

Well, one of the key arguments for giving the renewable industry targeted subsidies is that the fossil fuel industry gets its own.

The deception is in including a in the argument a tax break that covers many other domestic manufactures including hamburger makers, Tesla, and domestic wind turbines if there is any but singling out the fossil energy companies.

1. The 199 deduction was one of many found in one of the references. You're the one who singled it out - not me.  Who is being deceptive?

2.  The point is that ALL energy/electricity production is heavily government subisidized - not just renewables as you are wont  to attack (implying that they are somehow special in that regard) - ignoring all the facts to the contrary. 

3. Since the fact is that all energy/ electricitly production is subsidized, how is the point  that one of the tax subsidies applies to lots of other things relevant?  If anything it just supports the fact that RE is no different. Again, who is being deceptive here?

4. Again - how is Tesla relevant?  Why mention them?

5. Again - are you opposed to the mission of Taxpayers for Common Sense? I ask because I think this should be an area where we can find common ground. Government should spend taxpayer money carefully. Tax subsidies should be targeted and limited. Their examination of tax subsidies to the Oil and Gas industry points out that as a mature, extremely profitable industry - ongoing tax subsidies to them are unjustified - no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Wouldn't you agree?

I did a spot check in the doc you linked, picked an arbitrary point, researched it, found it to be misleading (hamburger manufacturers and Tesla are also covered by that 'fossil energy subsidy'), reported my findings here, and you keep going all over the place.

One more proof that debating with the believers is futile.

[mtdoc]

I did a spot check in the doc you linked, picked an arbitrary point, researched it, found it to be misleading (hamburger manufacturers and Tesla are also covered by that 'fossil energy subsidy'), reported my findings here, and you keep going all over the place.

One more proof that debating with the believers is futile.

No,  you cherry picked, tried to use it to make some irrelevant point (that it was claimed to only apply to fossil fuels -refuted in the very same reference) that in no way refutes the fact that all energy is subsidized, did your best to bring in Tesla to the argument,  troll for conflict,   then respond to referenced facts saying something about "believers".

[CatalinaWOW]

This is a forum for engineers, scientists and technicians.  Let's try to act like what we are and use data in a presentable format or else admit that we don't have them.

The petroleum industry does receive some specific "subsidies" (at least here in the US) that I am aware of in the form of tax shelters and so on.  They are arcane, specific rules related to production and production equipment.  They vary from state to state.  I learned of them when trying to deal with the final years taxes of a deceased family member who had got involved in investments involving these tax dodges.  They didn't benefit that family member much and were so involved, requireing incredible amounts of paperwork that I am not surprised that they are not widely understood.  From my point of view they were far more trouble than they were worth.  The same amount of time spent researching stock investments would have provided that person with far better financial returns.

That said, I can't speak quantitatively to the impact of those tax breaks financially or compare them in any meaningful way to other industries.

R&D credits may well provide differential benefits to the petroleum industry since exploration and development of better extraction methods is such a large part of their costs, but that credit is available to all industries, including solar and wind.  If wind companies are not taking tax advantage of their costs for site location and evaluation, design improvement and so on, then shame on them.

If I were to point fingers at politics relative to wind turbines I would look at the NIMBY phenomenon.  There aren't that many truly superior wind generation sites, and many of them have been blocked by folks who don't want their view ruined.  Cape Cod being the most prominant national example.

[zapta]

I did a spot check in the doc you linked, picked an arbitrary point, researched it, found it to be misleading (hamburger manufacturers and Tesla are also covered by that 'fossil energy subsidy'), reported my findings here, and you keep going all over the place.

One more proof that debating with the believers is futile.

No,  you cherry picked, tried to use it to make some irrelevant point (that it was claimed to only apply to fossil fuels -refuted in the very same reference) that in no way refutes the fact that all energy is subsidized, did your best to bring in Tesla to the argument,  troll for conflict,   then respond to referenced facts saying something about "believers".

Tesla is an example for a non fossil fuel domestic manufacturer that is covered by the Section 199 tax break. It's demonstrates the misleading nature of singling out 199  beneficiaries from the fossil energy market.

I was not aware that the name Tesla is so sacred to you. Feel free to replace with other domestic manufacturers.

[mtdoc]

Tesla is an example for a non fossil fuel domestic manufacturer that is covered by the Section 199 tax break. It's demonstrates the misleading nature of singling out 199  beneficiaries from the fossil energy market.

You singled it out - no  one else did.

In fact the reference I provided specifically says on page 16 where it discusses this tax break;

Roughly one-third of all US corporate activity now qualifies for this deduction, including mining, oil extraction, farming, construction, architecture, engineering, and the production of software, recordings and films.

Did you think no one would look?  Your blatant dishonesty here is astounding!

Again - that is one of many tax breaks the oil and gas industry get. Some specific to their industry, some not. No one is claiming otherwise.  That not every tax break they get is specific only to them is irrelevant just as it is irrelevant that not every tax break a RE company gets is specific to them. The point - which you seem unwilling to concede - despite all evidence to the contrary - is that all energy/electricity production is government subsidized.

Tesla has nothing to do with this thread. The reason you bring it up is pretty transparent.

[zapta]

Tesla is an example for a non fossil fuel domestic manufacturer that is covered by the Section 199 tax break. It's demonstrates the misleading nature of singling out 199  beneficiaries from the fossil energy market.

You singled it out - no  one else did.

In fact the reference I provided specifically says on page 16 where it discusses this tax break;

Roughly one-third of all US corporate activity now qualifies for this deduction, including mining, oil extraction, farming, construction, architecture, engineering, and the production of software, recordings and films.

Did you think no one would look?  Your blatant dishonesty here is astounding!

Again - that is one of many tax breaks the oil and gas industry get. Some specific to their industry, some not. No one is claiming otherwise.  That not every tax break they get is specific only to them is irrelevant just as it is irrelevant that not every tax break a RE company gets is specific to them. The point - which you seem unwilling to concede - despite all evidence to the contrary - is that all energy/electricity production is government subsidized.

Tesla has nothing to do with this thread. The reason you bring it up is pretty transparent.

Well, if honest people want to justify very targeted subsidies to wind/solar based on subsidies to competing technologies, they should not count subsidies that target general domestic manufacturing and are not target at those completing technology. Otherwise they intentionally inflate the numbers to mislead the public.

Anyway, I am out of this loop.

Anyway, I am getting out of this loop.

[mtdoc]

This is a forum for engineers, scientists and technicians.  Let's try to act like what we are and use data in a presentable format or else admit that we don't have them.

Yes please.

The petroleum industry does receive some specific "subsidies" (at least here in the US) that I am aware of in the form of tax shelters and so on.  They are arcane, specific rules related to production and production equipment.  They vary from state to state. 

I suspect you're right that there are state specific tax breaks as well. The TCS reference I provided earlier outlines the federal tax subsidies. The IMF report  addresses worldwide subsides.

R&D credits may well provide differential benefits to the petroleum industry since exploration and development of better extraction methods is such a large part of their costs, but that credit is available to all industries, including solar and wind.  If wind companies are not taking tax advantage of their costs for site location and evaluation, design improvement and so on, then shame on them.

Targeted tax subsidies are widespread across many industries. IMO they make sense when an industry is trying to establish a foothold against entrenched competitors (yes, of course many will disagree). This has been going on for many years, across many industrial and technological areas.

Arguing that somehow RE is unique in this regard has no basis in fact.

The question becomes - when do you end the subsidies?  What seems to happen too often is that the companies and industry subsidized early in their development that become financially successful then gain substantial political clout through lobbying and general corruption of the political process that always occurs. As time goes on the subsidies are never ended and often are expanded (case in point - the oil and gas industries)

If I were to point fingers at politics relative to wind turbines I would look at the NIMBY phenomenon.  There aren't that many truly superior wind generation sites, and many of them have been blocked by folks who don't want their view ruined.  Cape Cod being the most prominant national example.

Good point. NIMBYism is a major problem for energy/electricity production across the board. I grew up next door to an oil refinery that was built in the 1960s - before NIMBYism became commonplace.  Wind farms ruining peoples views are prime examples as are the ongoing problems with nuclear waste disposal.

Getting back to the original post, wind power has significant maintenance costs due to it's mechanical nature - as do oil and gas drilling and refining, fossil fuel powered electricity generation and nuclear. Solar does as well but is better in that regard as there are few if any moving parts.

My view - as I've stated before - is that RE will never fully replace fossil fuels. What I find perplexing is why so many politicos are so devoted to impeding progress of something that can at least partially replace what is unquestionably a  finite resource.

[Kilrah]

... because the extraction, refining, transport and combustion  of coal, oil and gas all have zero ecological impact?   

Of course not, but it's either conveniently hidden away from people who would have their say about it, or... providing them jobs.
The wind turbine in front of their window that happily chugs away with minor maintenance needs does neither...

[Simon]

Wind turbines have 30% efficiency (max). Blades brake down in the strong wind (explode, is the better word for it). They disturb the wildlife (birds). And so on...

Funny, last time I walked round my local turbines bird happily flew in and out of them as they went round. There are all sorts of myths about wind turbines but I'll tell you one that isn't: up to 25% of UK energy can be generated by wind, when winter began and the wind stopped one night the grid got into trouble, but apparently wind turbines are useless. Granted the wind does not always blow but they are actually quite good. As for your efficiency figure it's rubbish, and no worse than cars.

[savril]

Wind turbines have 30% efficiency (max). Blades brake down in the strong wind (explode, is the better word for it). They disturb the wildlife (birds). And so on...

Thermal power plants are the dogs balls. Just add filters.

In case of strong wind, blades do not brake. Wind turbines made for high wind locations are designed to secure themselves.
The 3 blades will come along the pole to present a lesser wind profile.

On the west coast of France we have sometimes (rarely) winds of up to 150 km/h. No wind turbine disaster so far.
There are offshore wind turbines in the UK north sea and they see winds higher than that.

[Delta]

They may be able to privide 25% of our electrical energy, but can never be relied upon to provide 25% of our electrical POWER.

No more wind turbines should be built, and the money put into massive scale storage technology developement.

Without huge storage, we will always need fossil and nuclear.

[Kilrah]

What he says is that until storage is available uncontrollably variable sources like wind are bound to stay a minor part of total energy supply.

[gildasd]

This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.

[JohnMoosenl]

This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.

I would like to invite people in favor of wind power to take a look at what happened in Germany:

http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/#sthash.U1dr2E3d.dpbs

 

[DenzilPenberthy]

I'll take wind over coal (especially open cast strip-mined German brown coal!) any day!