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 want some details of their tax subsidies - one source of info can be found HERE
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".
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
A rational honest person would accept it and move on. A fan boy would give a tantrum and blame others.
No one ever claimed all of the fossil fuel subsidies where specific to that industry. Who is being dishonest?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;QuoteRoughly 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.
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.
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.
... because the extraction, refining, transport and combustion of coal, oil and gas all have zero ecological impact?
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...
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.
This sums up rather well what I think of people flatly opposed to wind turbines.