Why Is Clean Energy Bad?

[Masark]

Did you realize that all those parts are made with coal?

So? The amount of coal used for steel making is tiny against the amount burned for power generation.

[Speaker]

I'm not sure you understand how energy works. The government subsidized the hell out of it. The reason for that is simple. It spurs economic growth. If it wasn't profitable no business would get into it regardless of the tax incentives. This is the future. Why should it struggle along without help when the fossil fuel industry rakes in billions in government assistance? If you think you aren't benefiting, you are short sighted and not really paying attention to whats happening in the world. Our energy independence is one of the most important issues we face. It's like saying you would rather not pay taxes for NAVSTAR satellites and we can all just use a compass instead. Or that you'd rather not fund research into cancer prevention.

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

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[29] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expense ($7.1 billion)
The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

If we are paying taxes to subsidize all this supposed free energy then I should start seeing a lower electric bill, but it hasn't happened. Also we are closer to being energy independent thanks to fracking, not solar power, or wind or whatever. Also like how that study conveniently stops right when the clean energy hype started. Why does it matter how many subsidies went to oil and gas at a time when oil and gas were the only forms of energy? Find me a more recent study like one from within the last year, otherwise it is irrelevant.

[Zmaniac17]

If we are paying taxes to subsidize all this supposed free energy then I should start seeing a lower electric bill, but it hasn't happened. Also we are closer to being energy independent thanks to fracking, not solar power, or wind or whatever. Also like how that study conveniently stops right when the clean energy hype started. Why does it matter how many subsidies went to oil and gas at a time when oil and gas were the only forms of energy? Find me a more recent study like one from within the last year, otherwise it is irrelevant.

A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP. If you had bothered to look at the page I posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...05750X16304867 It all depends on what you consider to be a subsidy. Not charging for negative externalities could be a subsidy (ie: letting a power plant pollute for free) or just not collecting taxes on foreign profits could also be a subsidy. If you want to understand things it takes more than a quick glance at a forum post.

Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.


There is no such thing as free energy. Fracking is a big boost towards energy independence. In total energy, the U.S. was over 61% self-sufficient in 2013. There is a long ways to go. Fracking won't fill the rest because the price of wind and solar is dropping too fast and it's to difficult to get permits to frack in peoples back yards. It's short sighted to demand instant results and point to old technologies as a solution to new problems. Fracking is a band aid fix to a larger problem that will be solved by renewable energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...y_independence

[Seani]

So? The amount of coal used for steel making is tiny against the amount burned for power generation.

It uses about 12% coal for the coking process.

[TwistedSkull]

Because there ain't money in green energy for the politicians.

[Macaquerie]

At least part of the hard on people have for coal and oil comes down to nostalgia for the good old days and the critical role these fuel sources played in making America great the first time. The point they're missing though, is that it's not the specific form of energy that mattered, but the willingness of Americans to take risks and embrace what was at that time cutting edge technology rather than just going with what they knew.

[Osmeric]

Did you realize that all those parts are made with coal?

And that (which isn't true, btw) has little to do with the argument about efficiency that was being made. I bet a wind turbine gets a hell of a lot more kWh per unit of coal input, though.

The point I was making it's meaningless to compare efficiency of two different energy conversion technologies unless they have the same input and the same output.

- - - Updated - - -

It uses about 12% coal for the coking process.

Did you know that iron for steelmaking can be made without coal or coke? Some (~5%) already is.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

At least part of the hard on people have for coal and oil comes down to nostalgia for the good old days and the critical role these fuel sources played in making America great the first time. The point they're missing though, is that it's not the specific form of energy that mattered, but the willingness of Americans to take risks and embrace what was at that time cutting edge technology rather than just going with what they knew.

If you mean the good old days before the 1950s then I don't know if black lung, non-existent regulations and putting production over safety since it was cheaper to lose men than miss quota are things people should be that excited about. I'd hazard a guess and say that two of those three are still widely prevalent in the industry with black lung still being a common health risk.

[TheRightWay]

It is not bad. Its just a lie that it is viable and more cost efficient than coal (and other such energy).

[Ehuehuecopter]

It is not bad. Its just a lie that it is viable and more cost efficient than coal (and other such energy).

You need to do a TAC because this comment is a brain tumor ring.

[Osmeric]

It is not bad. Its just a lie that it is viable and more cost efficient than coal (and other such energy).

Well, it must be a really REALLY widespread lie, given all the installations that are being made around the world.

Do you think Dubai is installing PV arrays because they had a sudden outbreak of stupid? Or are they being subsidized by the Illuminati?

India is canceling new coal projects at a stunning rate, going to PV instead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a7751916.html

“For the first time solar is cheaper than coal in India and the implications this has for transforming global energy markets is profound,” Mr Buckley said.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

I saw someone insulting someone else over how "clean energy" can be stored for later use.

Which is weird, because I remember hearing that energy cannot ever be stored, or hoarded. It has to be produced for use.

Which makes me think about how any time someone talks about storing energy, like solar energy, they're really saying "We have a giant battery of Acidic Material, and we were able to charge it with this Solar Adapter." and that's stored energy, BUT its on a medium that isn't very environmentally friendly or reproductive.

So anyone who talks about "Solar energy is easy to harvest" seems to conveniently forget that it all has to be kept on a physical battery storage unit. The same kind as a car battery, only probably significantly larger, much more massive, and composed of components, in a factory, in a way and manner that's very harmful to the entire environment as a whole in expenditure. The processing of all those heavy and sensitive metals and alkaline and more chemicals...

And compared to this, you can just sump up and the store Natural Gas or Oil, or Coal. And burn that at leisure.

So yah. When I saw someone say "We want to maintain a healthy relationship with natural gas, oil, and coal" and then someone else says "Fucking we can store solar energy, it's all clean, unquestionably clean, you're an idiot" I often think that the person talking about solar energy is not to be trusted without question.

Clean energy isn't clean, and it's worse than normal because its founded on delusions. That's why clean energy is bad.

[Ehuehuecopter]

Well, it must be a really REALLY widespread lie, given all the installations that are being made around the world.

Do you think Dubai is installing PV arrays because they had a sudden outbreak of stupid? Or are they being subsidized by the Illuminati?

Ofc not, he thinks that because the orange fat bag told him that is the "truth"

- - - Updated - - -

I saw someone insulting someone else over how "clean energy" can be stored for later use.

Which is weird, because I remember hearing that energy cannot ever be stored, or hoarded. It has to be produced for use.

Which makes me think about how any time someone talks about storing energy, like solar energy, they're really saying "We have a giant battery of Acidic Material, and we were able to charge it with this Solar Adapter." and that's stored energy, BUT its on a medium that isn't very environmentally friendly or reproductive.

So anyone who talks about "Solar energy is easy to harvest" seems to conveniently forget that it all has to be kept on a physical battery storage unit. The same kind as a car battery, only probably significantly larger, much more massive, and composed of components, in a factory, in a way and manner that's very harmful to the entire environment as a whole in expenditure. The processing of all those heavy and sensitive metals and alkaline and more chemicals...

And compared to this, you can just sump up and the store Natural Gas or Oil, or Coal. And burn that at leisure.

So yah. When I saw someone say "We want to maintain a healthy relationship with natural gas, oil, and coal" and then someone else says "Fucking we can store solar energy, it's all clean, unquestionably clean, you're an idiot" I often think that the person talking about solar energy is not to be trusted without question.

Clean energy isn't clean, and it's worse than normal because its founded on delusions. That's why clean energy is bad.

Another "ring" do a check-up before it is too late.

[Seani]

And that (which isn't true, btw) has little to do with the argument about efficiency that was being made. I bet a wind turbine gets a hell of a lot more kWh per unit of coal input, though.

The point I was making it's meaningless to compare efficiency of two different energy conversion technologies unless they have the same input and the same output.

- - - Updated - - -



Did you know that iron for steelmaking can be made without coal or coke? Some (~5%) already is.

I don't think that number is accurate. The other thing is I don't think you are as knowledgeable about this subject as you claim to be. We don't use that much coal for energy today anyway, if we stopped using coal all together it would be disastrous for the economy. Are you stupid?

[Osmeric]

I don't think that number is accurate. The other thing is I don't think you are as knowledgeable about this subject as you claim to be. We don't use that much coal for energy today anyway, if we stopped using coal all together it would be disastrous for the economy. Are you stupid?

The 5% number? Look up "Direct Reduced Iron". This is iron produced by direct solid state reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron using reducing gases (mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). While some of this H2/CO comes from coal (primarily in India), most DRI is made with H2/CO derived from natural gas. The output of DRI is well suited for use in electric arc furnace minimills, of the kind Nucor had such success with in the US.

BTW: it takes a wind turbine about 10 months to offset the coal used in its construction, if you assume the steel and concrete were made using coal:

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...-wind-turbine/

[Seani]

The 5% number? Look up "Direct Reduced Iron". This is iron produced by direct solid state reduction of iron oxides to metallic iron using reducing gases (mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). While some of this H2/CO comes from coal (primarily in India), most DRI is made with H2/CO derived from natural gas. The output of DRI is well suited for use in electric arc furnace minimills, of the kind Nucor had such success with in the US.

BTW: it takes a wind turbine about 10 months to offset the coal used in its construction, if you assume the steel and concrete were made using coal:

https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/20...-wind-turbine/

It sounds like you took a trip to wikipedia.

[GennGreymane]

it angers people who see oil/coal as manly jobs.

[Osmeric]

It sounds like you took a trip to wikipedia.

And also google. It's a great way to avoid saying things that are obviously wrong. You might want to take this hint?

[Seani]

And also google. It's a great way to avoid saying things that are obviously wrong. You might want to take this hint?

I didn't ask you about the 5% thing, why are you linking your source for me?

[Osmeric]

I didn't ask you about the 5% thing, why are you linking your source for me?

You disputed "that number". Since "5%" was the only actual number I gave in the post you were responding to, I naturally assumed you were talking about it.

Perhaps you should try to be more intelligible in your responses?