Why All The Hating On Windmills And "Green" Stuff?

[N2EY]

If you don't like "green" energy because of the subsidies, then you must also not like fossil fuel energy for exactly the same reason. In fact, you should like fossil fuel energy even less as it is more heavily subsidized. Personally, I would rather see all of these subsidies removed and let the market work it out.

All sorts of industries are subsidized in the USA, not just energy. The problem is that the subsidies are often not obvious.

Consider the trucking industry. The roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, etc., are built for them with tax dollars, to standards large trucks need. (Drive a no-trucks parkway and see the difference). The truckin industry pays taxes and fees too, of course, but they are on a pay-as-you-go basis; they don't have to build and maintain a right-of-way to every customer before they begin revenue service. So there's a form of indirect subsidy.

Many pro sports teams don't pay to build their own stadiums; instead, they threaten to move and the city builds a new stadium with tax dollars. Taxes created the GPS system, which anyone can use for free as long as they have a suitable receiver. Etc.

Look at all the tax billions spent on nuclear reactor R&D by The Government, starting back in the 1940s. Note how many hydro projects, like Hoover Dam, were Government funded.

Why shouldn't other forms, like solar and wind, get some help?

As to "let the market sort it out", the problem there is the disruption when the subsidies disappear. Particularly for things like oil.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

City transportation (buses, subways, etc.) is heavily subsidized by the government. If there were a more efficient motive force to move people around cheaply and efficiently that'd be a very good thing. Some buses use CNG--and that's a start--but if we can get rid of internal combustion engines and their maintenance costs altogether that'd save big $$$.

We had such systems - and destroyed them.

Cities and towns all over the USA had electric trolley and interurban lines from the 1890s onward. They were extensive, clean, fast, and inexpensive. Usually they interconnected, too. And this was in addition to the extensive passenger rail system of those days.

In the early 1900s (1903, I think) a man rode trolleys and interurbans almost all the way from New York City to Chicago. There were only two segments where he had to take passenger trains: from Grand Central (NYC) to Harmon, and around Fort Wayne, Indiana. All the rest was by riding electric trolleys and interurbans. But of the trolley lines he rode, only the interurban from South Bend to Chicago still exists.

What happened was this: Starting in the 1930s, a holding company called National City Lines started buying up transit properties and destroying them - intentionally. The holding company was held by oil, rubber and car-and-bus-manufacturing companies. The idea was to force people to either ride diesel buses or drive cars. And it worked.

Of course oil was cheap and plentiful then, too. The cost of running a diesel bus on the public road was less than the cost of running electric trolleys on a private right-of-way, which the operator paid taxes on and had to keep up. It never occurred to them that someday diesel fuel would cost more than pennies a gallon.

We could have those systems again, but it would take a serious investment.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

America certainly needs to ramp up economic and political investment in energy sources other than coal, gas, and petroleum distillates. As I've said before, eventually Americans will be faced with astronomical petroleum costs or even the depletion of certain nonrenewable resources, among other scenarios. This will happen regardless of the veracity or falsehood of "climate change". If we as a nation do not invest now, we will pay more later.

We're already paying more now. However the payment is often indirect.

Many Americans don't like change, especially when change requires an greater initial investment....A switch to renewable energy is not a probable savings, but rather a possible savings. There is no infallible way to closely estimate what the future savings will be. Therefore, many are reluctant to proffer investment and especially tax revenue up front, given that any benefit is delayed and possibly insufficent.

That's true, but there's more to it:

1) Some folks just don't have the money, or don't think they have the money.

2) Some new technologies (like PCs and ham gear) have come down dramatically in price over the years, particularly when you consider inflation and what you get for your money. In such an environment, it's natural to go slow. Why should I invest $30,000 in solar panels today if, in 5 years, I can get a more-powerful system for $10,000?

3) In areas like energy we are used to not having much of a personal investment. In my area, all a typical residential electricity customer has to do is to put up an approved service drop, meter box, main panel, cables and ground, and the utility will hook on a drop. Total investment for a 200A service isn't much - some years back, replacing all the stuff listed cost me a bit over $1000, done by a licensed electrician.

The Luddites were anti-industrial-revolution textile activists who rioted against British textile industrialization in the early 19th century. The Luddites rightly suspected that the change from small-scale artisan to large-scale mechanical loom textile production would cast many out of a job. Similarly, a move from nonrenewable energy to renewable energy will unemploy many Americans who are directly or indirectly employed by non-renewable resource excavators, investors, and refiners. In the current economic climate, any short or long term economic change is not welcome, regardless of potential benefits. Even minor short-term economic benefits, such as currency denomination change, are unwelcome given their symbolic threat to economic stability.

I don't think that's a big factor. Any large-scale change to renewables will take decades, and the demand keeps growing. There will be plenty of work extracting fossil fuels for a long time to come. And the new sources will create jobs too.

The United States enjoys very low non-corporate tax rates. Corporate taxes are higher than many other postindustrial nations or the EU, but personal and small business tax rates are among the lowest of any postindustrialized country. Conversion to renewable resources will require both corporate, progressive income, and perhaps even payroll tax increases. None of these options are palatable for most Americans. Opposition to taxation increases can take two forms. First is the "I don't want to pay" personal opposition, which is not always rational and frequently no more than an appeal to emotion (logical fallacy). The other is the often logical argument that the up-front cost of renewable energy investment will not only increase taxes across the board but weaken corporations which are already saddled by energy regulations.

This ties into the "just don't have the money" feelings, too. There's also the strong feeling that governments waste money big-time, and that the more you give them, the more they waste. Almost anyone can give examples; the interesting thing is that different people give different examples.

IMHO, there are other factors:

1) Cultural mindset - the deeply ingrained idea that resources are unlimited.

2) Political/ideological/personal bias - opposing an idea because the "wrong" people proposed it. Wanting them to fail, etc.

3) Scientific/technological ignorance - not really knowing how things work. This is a big one; a lot of folks have very inaccurate ideas. For example, ask 10 people how efficient a light bulb is, or how many kilowatt-hours they use per month, or even how a Diesel-cycle engine is different from an Otto-cycle engine, and you'll rarely get an answer that's anywhere near right. (Heck, ask the difference between "energy" and "power" and see how many wrong answers you get!) In such a culture, urban legends, myths and downright lies flourish.

4) Lack of obvious crises - Hey, the lights are still on, you can still buy gasoline, the weather is about what it was years ago, so what's the panic?

5) Belief in magic - We all wish that someone would come out with a simple, cheap, ingenious universal solution to the problems. I remember, back in the 1970s, hearing all about how someone had come up with a $100 carburetor which could be bolted onto an existing engine and give a 5 or 10 times increase in MPG and reduce pollution dramatically. The only problem was that "the oil companies", "the car companies" or "the government" had locked up the design. Never mind that basic thermodynamics won't allow what the magic carburetor supposedly did. (Some folks still believe this myth!) New myths are invented every day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2RJ]

apples and oranges my friend.

Not at all.

The grid is a shared resource and eminent domain is used to seize land to build powerlines, sub stations and generating stations. Reasonable incentives that can be used to lessen the load on the grid is worth spending public dollars on. Furthermore, fuel supplies are a matter of national security. We don't fight wars in the middle east for nothing.

[N2RJ]

Actually, in some countries such as Canada, the postal system is semi-privatized. Certain aspects of the postal system, such as point-of-sale and P.O. boxes, are often franchized out to small businesses such as stationery stores. I am sure this will become more and more common in the United States as USPS directly owned or leased facilities (like the "town post office") are sold off or vacated.

73, Jordan

The power grid is also heavily regulated too. It's akin to our interstate highway system, but for power.

[K8MHZ]

5) Belief in magic - We all wish that someone would come out with a simple, cheap, ingenious universal solution to the problems. I remember, back in the 1970s, hearing all about how someone had come up with a $100 carburetor which could be bolted onto an existing engine and give a 5 or 10 times increase in MPG and reduce pollution dramatically. The only problem was that "the oil companies", "the car companies" or "the government" had locked up the design. Never mind that basic thermodynamics won't allow what the magic carburetor supposedly did. (Some folks still believe this myth!) New myths are invented every day.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, a company in Muskegon (Continental Motors, now Teledyne, a military vehicle manufacturer) came up with a fuel delivery design that tripled fuel economy. The downside was it also shortened the life of the engine and reduced performance tremendously. That happened in the late 50's and I heard about it in the late 60s from a person that was working at Continental at the time.

We still hear about the huge car from the 50s getting 40 or 50 mpg but we never hear about the engine being sacrificed in the process. Remember, back in the 50's car engines did not see 100,000 miles. Usually they were ready for a rebuild at 70,000. That was bad enough.

Aside from a rumor that Weber bought the design, the car and the system never made it past experimental status, as do many projects at that plant.

[N5PVL]

Because it's bogus, it sucks, it's stupid and it attracts the kind of lowlife trash who like to boss other people around.

Did I mention that it was stupid?

It sucks, too.

Any other questions?

[W9DTC]

Not at all.

The grid is a shared resource and eminent domain is used to seize land to build powerlines, sub stations and generating stations. Reasonable incentives that can be used to lessen the load on the grid is worth spending public dollars on. Furthermore, fuel supplies are a matter of national security. We don't fight wars in the middle east for nothing.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

As I've taken the stance that subsidies should be removed for energy types (mind you, as a contrarian opinion to those that advocate dropping subsidies for only green energy without considering the oil subsidies) , and this argument has been artifically extended to the list you provide , I will follow you take the next logical step in my argument. I suggest that we shouldn't go to war for oil. So, if we don't go to war and kill thousands of people just to keep oil prices down what would happen? Gas prices would go up!?! Oh golly.

If we weren't suppressing the actual price of oil by funding it on the tax payer's dollar, and on the blood and sacrifice of our soldiers, perhaps... just perhaps... green energy would be even more economically viable. Nevermind the additional national security that would be created if we were producing our own power on our own soil.

[KB9BVN]

It's clear to me, except for which nuke plants are run by government appointments? What is a nuclear power grid? Who do you think manages the national power grid?

It's not the government my friend.

Government appointees run the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We don't have a nuclear power grid, it is my assertion that we NEED one. There are 104 nuclear reactors in operation in the United states, the last one that was approved and built was in 1974. WHY? Southern started building a new nuclear plant in December of 2011...it won't produce the first watt of power until late 2016 or early 2017...it's the first new plant in over 35 years.

The US, as backwards as it is when it comes to nuclear power, still produces more commercial nuclear power than any nation on earth...with 65 working plants. We're asleep at the wheel. The profits in oil, gas and coal are so much greater than nuclear power, you can figure that has a lot to do with our reluctance to approve new nuclear plants.

We don't really have a national power grid, what we do have is a collection of independently owned and operated grids, that are in great need of repair and updating.

[KI4NGN]

Government appointees run the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We don't have a nuclear power grid, it is my assertion that we NEED one. There are 104 nuclear reactors in operation in the United states, the last one that was approved and built was in 1974. WHY? Southern started building a new nuclear plant in December of 2011...it won't produce the first watt of power until late 2016 or early 2017...it's the first new plant in over 35 years.

The US, as backwards as it is when it comes to nuclear power, still produces more commercial nuclear power than any nation on earth...with 65 working plants. We're asleep at the wheel. The profits in oil, gas and coal are so much greater than nuclear power, you can figure that has a lot to do with our reluctance to approve new nuclear plants.

We don't really have a national power grid, what we do have is a collection of independently owned and operated grids, that are in great need of repair and updating.

That's fine, but this is what I replied to:

....
Nuke power, when managed properly and not run by government appointments, is safe, clean, reliable, and very long lasting." and the point I failed to make was political appointees should not be running our nuclear power grids, we need to leave it to the experts in that technology.