World's biggest wind farm given go-ahead off Britain

February 4, 2016
Wind energy has grown rapidly in Britain in the past decade, helped by strong winds and suitable geography, now producing 10 per
Wind energy has grown rapidly in Britain in the past decade, helped by strong winds and suitable geography, now producing 10 percent of Britain's energy needs

A wind farm that would be the largest in the world and power more than a million homes has been given the go-ahead in Britain.

Offshore wind developer Dong Energy said Wednesday a final decision had been made to construct the 1.2 gigawatt Hornsea Project One scheme off the coast of Yorkshire in northern England.

Scheduled for completion by 2020, the giant development would span 160 square miles (407 square kilometres) and use 174 wind turbines, each one 190 metres tall—higher than London's landmark "Gherkin" tower.

"It is ground-breaking and innovative, powering more homes than any currently in operation," said Brent Cheshire, Dong Energy's UK country chairman.

"To have the world's biggest ever offshore wind farm located off the Yorkshire coast is hugely significant, and highlights the vital role offshore wind will play in the UK's need for new low-carbon ."

Wind energy has grown rapidly in Britain in the past decade, helped by strong winds and suitable geography, now producing 10 percent of Britain's energy needs, according to trade group RenewableUK.

The industry body said that the development would help Britain to meet pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions made at the World Climate Change Conference 2015 (COP21) in Paris last year.

"This offshore wind farm will play an important part in meeting our Paris climate commitments, but will also help create the new energy infrastructure this country desperately needs," said RenewableUK deputy chief executive Maf Smith.

The construction of Hornsea Project One will provide 2,000 jobs, and it will employ 300 people once the scheme is finished, according to Dong Energy.

The government has agreed to guarantee to underwrite a price of £140 (184 euros, $204) to give Dong Energy investment certainty.

Amber Rudd, the energy and secretary, said government help meant "the UK is the world leader in offshore wind energy and this success story is going from strength to strength."

"DONG Energy's investment shows that we are open for business and is a vote of confidence in the UK and in our plan to tackle the legacy of under-investment and build an energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century," Rudd added.

Explore further: Walney offshore wind farm is world's biggest (for now)

Related Stories

Walney offshore wind farm is world's biggest (for now)

February 11, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Walney wind farm on the Irish Sea--characterized by high tides, waves and windy weather--officially opened this week. The farm is treated in the press as a very big deal as the Walney farm is presently ...

Just how green is wind power?

March 30, 2015

Wind power may have a positive image, but setting up offshore wind farms is complicated and energy-intensive. Because Siemens promises its customers and the authorities a high degree of transparency for the environmental ...

Denmark sets wind energy world record

January 18, 2016

Danish wind turbines set a new world record by generating nearly half of all the electricity consumed by the Scandinavian country in 2015, an official from state-owned Energinet.dk said Monday.

Recommended for you

Solar panels repay their energy 'debt': study

December 6, 2016

The climate-friendly electricity generated by solar panels in the past 40 years has all but cancelled out the polluting energy used to produce them, a study said Tuesday.

Wall-jumping robot is most vertically agile ever built

December 6, 2016

Roboticists at UC Berkeley have designed a small robot that can leap into the air and then spring off a wall, or perform multiple vertical jumps in a row, resulting in the highest robotic vertical jumping agility ever recorded. ...

155 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nattydread
3.3 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
Amber Rudd is a minister who has effectively dismantled green energy policy in the UK.
She has slashed onshore wind farm and solar subsidies this year.
In July 2015, Craig Bennett of Friends of the Earth accused Rudd of hypocrisy in claiming to want to address climate change while at the same time, in his view, "dismantling an architecture of low-carbon policies carefully put together with cross-party agreement over the course of two parliaments". Rudd replied that "[Government] support must help technologies eventually stand on their own two feet, not encourage a permanent reliance on subsidy."
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2016
Farewell natural seascapes; luckless seabirds, marine habitats and ecosystems.
Lord_jag
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
http://static.gui...-001.jpg

Right Willie. Goodbye.

Which is more dangerous?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
Just in time, because this is the way the world is going:

http://www.thegua...s-closed
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2016
Wind farms seem to have a positive impact on local ecosystems - http://www.thegua...wildlife
The study noted that the effects of wind farms will inevitably vary depending on their position, but that offshore wind farms can contribute to a more diverse habitat and even help nature to recover from the effects of intensive fishing, pollution, oil and gas extraction, and shipping.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
Which is more dangerous?
What energy source has the smallest deathprint (kills fewest people per kilowatt-hour produced)?
a. coal b. natural gas c. NUCLEAR d. wind
Surprisingly NUCLEAR has the smallest deathprint, it is safer than wind/solar per gigawatt produced.
http://www.forbes...gy-quiz/
Nuclear power has the lowest human death toll of all available energy sources per terawatt generated, and is simply far more pragmatic than wind or solar.
http://www.newsbu...-nuclear
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
"The government has agreed to guarantee to underwrite a price of £140 (184 euros, $204) to give Dong Energy investment certainty."

Yet another brilliant article. $204 is just enough to make this all profitable. There is something about the green mind and real money that can not exist in the same space.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
Just in time, because this is the way the world is going:

http://www.thegua...s-closed
wind/solar intermittency compensated by coal, natural gas, and now by fracking, what difference.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
http://www.thegua...s-closed

The only reason that coal usage for power generation is declining is because of government regulations. Now some of you might be cheering this development while I am mourning it. We will only know who was correct if and when the US runs out of low cost domestic natural gas.
WillieWard
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
- Long-term habitat loss due to disturbance from wind turbines installed and from ship traffic during maintenance;
- Disconnection of ecological units.
http://www.wind-e...rds.html
"Driving of piles in large numbers offshore causes concerns over plant availability and impact on marine mammals."
http://www.southe...?p=18628
"Offshore wind farms 'could damage seals' hearing' "
http://www.scotsm...-3777752
http://www.breitb...thought/
"Underwater noise associated with the installation process of monopile turbines;
The physical presence of offshore wind farms altering the behavior of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds by reasons of either attraction or avoidance"
https://en.wikipe...Offshore
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2016
I guess they can now rename the company to "BIG Dong Energy"...:-)
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
" There is something about the green mind and real money that can not exist in the same space."
-----------------------------------------

What is the current price for the other sources? Compare that with the cost of Hinckley.

My investment in PV and an EV are paying off, and will do so for decades, while you choke on coal smoke.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
MR166
Now some of you might be cheering this development while I am mourning it

MR166 is of course free to move to Beijing or Mumbai any time. Mean time the people trying to create a better/safer world are looking to find ways to cut pollution and save lives.
Most of the country's carbon emissions come from burning coal to heat homes and fuel power plants, a practice that spikes during winter months.
http://www.cnn.co...d-alert/
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
Ask 166 how much/kWh the 204 price is, so he will have to answer it.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
The collapse in price of coal, and other fossil fuels may actually be the result of cheap renewable energy - now becoming the driver of energy costs - http://energytran...-prices/ As the prices continue to fall - we enter a new era.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
Ok greenies, I will take the challenge, exactly what units, KWH, MWH, does the $204 refer to????????????????
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
No answer eh!!! That is because there is no reasonable answer to crony capitalism.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
No answer eh!!! That is because there is no reasonable answer to crony capitalism.

204$ / MWh
http://uk.reuters...20150624

You could have googled that yourself in less time it took you to write your two stupid posts. Now gho away and let grown-ups talk, OK?
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
OK Anti wholesale power in the US costs 5 cents per KWH or $50/MWH. This power has $204/MWH in Government subsidies. You tell me, exactly how does this make any economic sense??????

As I said, green minds are incapable of adding 2+2 and coming up with 4!!!!
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
You tell me, exactly how does this make any economic sense?

You might want to look how all forms of energy were subsidized in their startup phases (e.g. nuclear to the tune of 70 cents per kWh in germany. Yes. Seventy.)

So why not accord renewables such a boost in the beginning? Moreover since renewables actually have a chance of dropping below the (still subsidized) cost of the old energy models within a very short time. That makes all kinds of economic sense to any investor.

(And all kinds of sense in the geopolitical, environmental and health sectors - which also can be broken down to economic savings)
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
You might want to look how all forms of energy were subsidized in their startup phases (e.g. nuclear to the tune of 70 cents per kWh in germany. Yes. Seventy.)


Wind power has been in its "startup phase" for over 20 years now. You'd think it would be out of it already, bu the subsidies just keep increasing.

How much of that is non-subsidies like loan guarantees and investments, considering that the government has been part-owner or sole owner in many of these ventures. There's a great difference between an investment and a feed-in-tariff. For one - investments are paid back with interest.

And there's still the curious fact that the price of nuclear power is politically fixed in Germany, because the government has dictated the number of kilowatt-hours each reactor is allowed to produce before it has to be decommissioned.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
How much of that is non-subsidies like loan guarantees and investments, considering that the government has been part-owner or sole owner in many of these ventures. There's a great difference between an investment and a feed-in-tariff.

How exactly were those 'investments' paid back with interest? If they are government owned/operated it's tax-payer money. I didn't see any of that being paid back to me with interest. Did I miss a check somewhere?

Call a subsidy by any name you want. If it's tax payer money it's tax payer money. So let's stop the BS and accord renewables the same 50+ years of subsidies as nuclear. If they're not competitive then (ALL ancillary costs/effects included) THEN you can gripe. But before then you're just a total hypocrit.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
"You might want to look how all forms of energy were subsidized in their startup phases (e.g. nuclear to the tune of 70 cents per kWh in germany. Yes. Seventy."

But yet greenies want to eliminate all nuclear and replace it with renewables. Cost be dammed only sun and wind can insure the survival of mankind!
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
So why not accord renewables such a boost in the beginning?


I would grant them such a boost if there was a clear roadmap to economic self-sustainablity, but there isn't one.

As long as the supporting infrastructure isn't there, and nobody is seriously trying to build it, renewables like wind power are completely dependent on the price-fixing subsidies to exist, because the market mechanism punishes fluctuating output with unsustainably low sales prices.

Put simply: wind power is a second-rate product that the electricity market doesn't want to buy because they don't have the means to deal with it properly.

The problem is, the subsidy money isn't going towards building the infrastructure that would allow these things to operate unsupported - such as batteries and grid energy storage systems - but simply to line the pockets of private corporations who don't care about saving the environment any more than the oil barons do.
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
How exactly were those 'investments' paid back with interest? If they are government owned/operated it's tax-payer money.


Export of energy and technology, and by selling the shares.

If it's tax payer money it's tax payer money.


In some cases it isn't money at all, which is why I brought up loan guarantees and sometimes insurances where the government promises to pay in case of accident. They are given a monetary value, but no actual money has changed hands.

Critics of nuclear power very often make the fallacy of counting them as subsidy, which greatly inflates the apparent amount of money paid when in reality not such thing has taken place.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how much was paid at the start because nuclear power eventually ended up providing enough output for the money to be neglible, whereas wind power has no such promise because they aren't even trying. That's why the subsidies should be diverted elsewhere.

Eikka
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Furthermore, a thing like a nuclear power station may be a good investment for a government because it supports heavy industry which relies on cheap and stable supply of energy on a large scale. That means jobs, which means economic prosperity, which generates more tax revenue than the cost of the investment.

A wind farm doesn't attract industry because it's intermittent. It requires extra investment to deal with, so the industry goes elsewhere - where there's nuclear power, or hydroelectric power, or cheap coal power - anything you can buy in the gigawatt-hour scale and expect to get it when you need it.

greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
No answer eh!!! That is because there is no reasonable answer to crony capitalism.
So is there a point in that comment MR? There is crony capitalism everywhere we look. The renewable industries do not come close to having a monopoly on crony capitalism. Why don't you google - government incentives for natural gas. Here I will do it for you - http://www.afdc.e...ws/NG/US
https://www.ngvam...entives/
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
While you guys fight it out, my solar PV is carrying the whole house, plus most of my transportation. And it is early February, with low Sun angles. The grid connection pays off for both me and the utility, since my mostly off-peak use is countered by on-peak generation, so we both win.

It's an investment, Eikka. What have you done besides criticize?
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
Yup onions you will support any government agendas that you approve of. Costs be dammed, just as long as the are politically correct. They can do no wrong providing that they support the green agenda.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
166, your fixation is on money.

Mine is on long-term survival and Quality of Life.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Eikka
Wind power has been in its "startup phase" for over 20 years now.
How about nuclear - how long has that been in its "startup phase? Do we need to link you to the sites that will explain the gvt money going into Hinkley Point? How about CNG - https://www.ngvam...entives/
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
MR166
Yup onions you will support any government agendas that you approve of.
What I support or don't support is meaningless - they just wont listen to me. What I speak against on this site is hypocrites like you and Eikka - who whine about crony capitalism - but only for renewables - at the same time as giving fossil fuels a pass. Yes - I do believe that government has a legitimate role in running our world. That is a political issue - but I am also excited about getting away from the pollution, and environmental destruction being caused by fossil fuels. My problem is with your hypocrisy. I guess the point I was making in my last response was too complex for you.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
The renewable industries do not come close to having a monopoly on crony capitalism.


But it's still the last place where such is needed.

How about nuclear - how long has that been in its "startup phase?


The problems with nuclear power are almost solely political, not technical or practical. Nuclear power is currently in its third generation, turning over to fourth generation plants with the latest being built.

And you're still making a tu-quoque fallacy by trying to excuse poor monetary policy on renewables by poor monetary policy on nuclear power. It simply makes no sense to make the same mistakes twice.

The additional problem with UK is that it's a small island with weak interties to the European grid. There's already so much wind power that the utilities are paying hundreds of millions of pounds a year for them to NOT produce power because it's often too much. Building more is just idiotic.

They should spend the money on an undersea cable.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
And you're still making a tu-quoque fallacy by trying to excuse poor monetary policy on renewables by poor monetary policy on nuclear power.
No I am not. I am telling you and MR and Willie to stop being fricking hypocrites. You whine and whine about renewables - but don't acknowledge the other energy industries that are feeding at the trough of government. Why is that such a hard point for you to understand?
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
If governments across Europe put their money not into wind and solar power subsidies, but on building a pan-european HVDC grid, then the renewables problem would largely solve itself: it would become possible to sell power across larger distances so the local power prices wouldn't dip down every time it's windy or sunny.

That would make selling wind/solar power possible on the free market without never-ending subsidies.

There are several things that prevent it:
1) lack of long term planning,
2) massive lobby from renewables produces because the subsides are a far better business for them, since they effectively negate any need for competition between producers,
3) lack of public understanding and support for large public projects,
4) EU-mandates that force governments to build a certain portion of renewable energy by year X before without anyone knowing what to do with it.

Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
You whine and whine about renewables - but don't acknowledge the other energy industries that are feeding at the trough of government. Why is that such a hard point for you to understand?


Because it's completely besides the point.

If they're doing something wrong, that has absolutely no bearing on this issue at hand. You can't excuse wrongdoing with wrongdoing.

I don't need to complain about subsidies granted to coal in order to point out that the subsidiies granted to wind power are absolutely pointless and idiotic. They are two separate issues that have nothing to do with one another, and trying to muddle the two issues together is just disingenuous and misleading.

I am NOT ignoring fossil fuel subsidies, I am simply not talking about them because it is not the topic.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
"The problems with nuclear power are almost solely political, not technical or practical."
-----------------------------------------

Go to Fukushima and tell them their problems are only political!
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
Besides, what relevance is there to complain about subsidies paid to things like nuclear power, or fossil fuels some 50 years ago when nobody even knew about the climate change and people were so ignorant they were putting lead in the gasoline and arguing that it's healthy?

Hindsight is always 20/20.
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Go to Fukushima and tell them their problems are only political!


Haven't we talked about this several times already?

They ARE to a great extent political problems. For example, that thousands of people are living in exile from their homes due to an arbitrary and scientifically unsupported radiation safety limit that is less than the natural background radiation in places where millions of people already live without ill effect.

The exaggeration, fearmongering, and hysteria induced by people like you is costing more loss of lives and property than the nuclear accident itself by preventing the people from reclaiming the land and cleaning it up.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
What you, greenonions and gkam, don't seem to comprehend is this:

Suppose wind power costs 5 cents to make. That's cool, it's not cheap but it's not too expensive either.

But whenever the wind does blow, the spot price on the grid drops to 4 cents because of oversupply, and 4 is less than 5, which means the turbine is making 1 cents loss. The more wind turbines there are, the further down the price dips whenever they turn on, and the more loss each makes because the selling price goes down to 3 cents, 2 cents, -1 cents... and that is ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the nordic grid right now.

That's not economically sustainable, and never will be as long as the grid isn't re-built to deal with such surges of random supply without the price drops.

However, no such thing is being done. Instead, the wind power industry has built a huge lobby which milks the governments for 10-20 cents per kWh guaranteed prices and forces everyone to buy it.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
But yet greenies want to eliminate all nuclear and replace it with renewables. Cost be dammed only sun and wind can insure the survival of mankind!

Whatever gave you the idea that the drive to get rid of nukes is one of cost? Did you ever look at the protestors against nukes? Ever notice the slogan "Costs Too Much" on there? No? Me neither. So stop getting sham-angry about an argument you made up yourself.

Though if you honestly appraise the long term economic situation:
- cost of waste storage (for how long exactly?)
- insurance cost (note that currently NO insurance company is willing to insure a nuclear power plant against accidents. That is an insurance cost that is therefore 100% YOUR tax dollar in case of an accident)
- geopolitical cost (militaries) for the countries that don't have the ores themselves

Yeah..I think one could make an economic argument pretty easily.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
Eikka
but on building a pan-european HVDC grid


Well that is happening. Rome was not built in a day was it?
https://www.entso...ult.aspx
http://www.renewa...20160202
http://www.abb.co...3c9.aspx

Fact is Eikka - wind and solar are coming in as the cheapest forms of electricity - so we are now entering a new era. If you know better than all the experts making decisions on these projects - maybe you should get a job advising the decision makers on the right way to birth this new energy system.
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Well that is happening. Rome was not built in a day was it?


What I am saying is, it would happen a lot sooner if we diverted the money from the renewable subsidies to the infrastructure, and it can't be done soon enough.

The renewables industry isn't planning to do anything to the situation - quite the opposite - because they're planning to keep getting 10-20 cent subsidies essentially forever as far as they're concerned. They're not interested in providing cheap clean energy to you, they're interested solely in the subsidies.

Somebody else has to re-build the grid, install the batteries, and tune up the load-following smart-features to match the wind power output - while the wind industry is busy draining away the funds necessary to do so by building ever-more wind turbines and lobbying themselves ever more subsidies.

They're holding everything back, deliberately!
Eikka
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
There's one thing to say about large corporations which is obviously true: if there's lots of money in it, and it's not strictly illegal, they're doing it.

That is not cynicism, just a fact of life.

Fact is Eikka - wind and solar are coming in as the cheapest forms of electricity


I do believe wind power is fundamentally quite reasonable, but solar power is still too far off to be called "cheap".
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
"What I am saying is, it would happen a lot sooner if we diverted the money from the renewable subsidies to the infrastructure, . . "
--------------------------------------------

Renewable power IS the infrastructure.

I just built mine, and integrated it into the existing grid for mutual benefit. Where's yours?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Ei
What I am saying is, it would happen a lot sooner if we diverted the money from the renewable subsidies to the infrastructure, and it can't be done soon enough
OK! Then get on it Eikka - make it happen. You could take the supports going to the fossil fuel and nuke industries too - no argument from me there.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
It makes no sense to build up the grid BEFORE you have the renewables in place to make use of it. Itr would just be sitting around idily costing a lot of maiontenance that could then not go to building up the renewables that make use of it.

Think, people. It's not rocket science. You don't build autobahns before you build cars that can take advantage of them.

The sensible thing is to build up renewables until they stress the current grid. Then build up the grid and the renewables in step until the changeover is complete

And lo and behold: That is exactly what we are seeing is happening in the countries that go renewable.

But I'm all for getting rid of ALL energy subsidies (while according renewables the same subsidies that were given the other energy forms during their startup phase to make it fair. You cannot expect a new form to go from zero to cheapest without some up-front investment)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2016
*and by ALL subsidies I also mean: "no free waste disposal"
i.e. all nuclear power plant operators must pay for all waste disposal and ssafety issues. Forever
AND
all fossil fuel powerplant operators must pay for removal of every molecule of CO2 that is put out during the burning of their product

Let's see how coal/oil/nuclear prices look THEN.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
I just built mine, and integrated it into the existing grid for mutual benefit.
Intermittent energy, instability to electric grid, compensated by fossil fuels; in fact, mutually benefic (solar/wind and fossil fuels).
billpress11
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Well stated AP, just like the interstate highway system wasn't constructed until there was need for it.

In Ohio the electric companies want renewable and newer electric power sources to subsidize the coal and nuclear power plants.

http://www.rtoins...ize-gen/
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2016
Eikka
but solar power is still too far off to be called "cheap".
Many tenders are coming in around the world at 5 cents Kwh. http://www.pv-tec...hourEven after subsidies - that translates to around 8 cents - and the prices keep falling.

http://cleantechn...q3-2015/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
- insurance cost (note that currently NO insurance company is willing to insure a nuclear power plant against accidents
Yeah they do.

"Owners of nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for $375 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit. This primary or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident, causes damages in excess of $375 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess up to $111.9 million. With 104 reactors currently licensed to operate, this secondary tier of funds contains about $12 billion.

"The Price-Anderson Act motivated the private insurance industry to develop a means by which nuclear power plant operators could meet their financial protection responsibilities."

-Why assume you know what you are talking about?

You could have googled that yourself in less time [than] it took you to write your stupid post.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2016
While you guys fight it out, my solar PV is carrying the whole house, plus most of my transportation. And it is early February, with low Sun angles. The grid connection pays off for both me and the utility, since my mostly off-peak use is countered by on-peak generation, so we both win.

I'm curious, G. Do you own it outright or does someone else?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2016
https://en.wikipe...ociation

quote
" In 1998 the Atomic Energy Act established the maximum insurance liability of nuclear insurer at about €2.5 billion; for damages above that cap the Federal Government is liable"

Now consider that the estimated damage from something like Fukushima is on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. And they are lucky because Fukushima is out-of-the-way. No such place exists in Europe. If you have an accident of that kind it's in the middle of EVERYTHING. So you can easily multiply those hundreds of billions by a big factor to get the real cost.

Yeah. Powerplant operators will pay 2.5bn of that. Big deal. For the rest we have "above that cap the Federal Government is liable". Which means. Taxes. All of it.

You could have googled that yourself in less time it took you to write your stupid post.
(if you read the act YOU posted: it doesn't even cover damages up to 10bn)
gkam
2.4 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
WG, we bought it, same time we bought the EV. Cashed in non-taxed savings and used the car and solar tax credits to cover those taxes. We do not use much electricity, but with the car included, it looks like we save about $3k/year. My car had 271,000 miles on it, so we needed another one, anyway.
kaf
3 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2016
gkam--

You seem positively giddy that you've found a way to reach into everyone else's wallet to subsidize your electric car and PVs. I'm curious if you would have made those purchases without my help.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
Oh, stop it. What have you done? I've invested my money into this, and it pays off. Yeah, if you want to get rid of subsidies, we can start with those for petroleum and nukes.

I did it to be a good citizen. BTW, I "invested" in EVs long ago (mid 1980's), when I was on an electric vehicle committee at EPRI, and we funded the real losers to get where we are today. I have a degree (MS) in energy and the environment and was a utility engineer. It is both my interest and in my field.

What's your excuse for not doing it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2016
Dear aa,

So when you say
In 1998 the Atomic Energy Act established the maximum insurance liability
-You actually mean
NO insurance company is willing to insure a nuclear power plant
-??

Or did I get that backwards?

And when we read things like
According to Eric Epstein, chair of Three Mile Island Alert, the TMI plant operator and its insurers paid at least $82 million in publicly documented compensation to residents
-We can assume that 'operator/insurers' and 'the taxpayer' are the same thing?

Aa - "Well of course costs are passed onto the consumer and blah"

-which does not mitigate your original statement, that
NO insurance company is willing to insure a nuclear power plant
regardless of scale or percentage, is sort of kind of completely wrong?

Biß immer,
Otto
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2016
No insurance company insures for the damage done (no...less than 1% of the needed sum does not count as 'insured' in any way shape or form. That is just a legal trick because a business has to be insured or it isn't legal)
And that 1% doesn't even cover the cost to clean up the site itself. If you think that counts as "adequate insurance" then you're living in lala-land. (Do you know what the price of nuclear would be if they had to be FULLY insured? Nuclear powerplants would be nowhere near economical to run)

Sorry I took you off ignore. Today was my "look at the last post of everyone on my ignore list"-day...which I do once a month.
(you know: that thing scientific thinking people do to double check their results?). Yep. You go back on for another month.
kaf
3 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
gkam--

You say you've invested your money... but you've invested MY money, too--and without my consent. I'm happy if it's paid off for you and all that, but you haven't actually said if it would have paid off for you if you weren't able to reach into my pocket to make it happen.

What have I done, you ask? As a retired, fixed-income guy, who can't afford a $30k+ plus electric car and God-knows-how-many dollar PV array--why, I've turned my thermostat down. That's what I've done.

And do please explain to me how I've reached into YOUR pocket to help me pay for my propane, gasoline, and the natural-gas-fueled electricity I use. Because unlike your electric car and PV array, I can't see how you're helping me pay for any of my energy needs.

You're just completely full of shit, and your virtue-signalling is unimpressive.

kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
I just built mine, and integrated it into the existing grid for mutual benefit.
Intermittent energy, instability to electric grid, compensated by fossil fuels; in fact, mutually benefic (solar/wind and fossil fuels).
Grid energy is also intermittent. Many grid outages in your USA during the snowstorms and El Nino
@Eikka I do believe wind power is fundamentally quite reasonable, but solar power is still too far off to be called "cheap".
Your beliefs contradict the facts
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2016
kaf
You're just completely full of shit, and your virtue-signalling is unimpressive.
Nice rant kaf Do you take a mortgage deduction? Then others help you pay for your house. If you have kids - others help pay for them. Our tax code is a mess - and I would totally support a flat tax - and elimination of ALL subsidies and deductions. Of course - that is not going to happen - as our political/economic system is so vile and sick. Mean time - we have the mess we have - and you can't blame people for taking all the deductions available. I also have a Leaf. The government is trying to help a nascent industry get going. I do support the government being involved in things like pollution. They should be looking out for the well being of all. Of course that is a tough needle to thread. Do you want to drink mercury - with no regs to protect you.? I know - Flint was caused by the gvt. What a mess we have - right?
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
@kaf You didn't factor in the $trillion your USA spends hammering foreign people into submission to your energy policies. You could put ever one of your citizens on full, autonomous renewable power in ONE YEAR with that money, instead of spreading global terrorism with your ISIS
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2016
kaf, whine away. I paid for your pathetic Bush Wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit.

$30k car? Nope. I bought a car with 40 miles on it, a demo and saved $9,200. Final price was under $20k. I used my life savings (I am 71, and live on Social Security), to do it, to reduce my monthly nut.

As I said, this is my professional field, but you can do it, too, I promise.

I can tell you how, . . .
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
I decided to make kaf whole again. We do not want him to subsidize me. How much money did you pay in federal taxes last year, kaf? What percentage of the total tax revenue of the United States is that? Apply that percentage to my tax bennies for the PV and car, and I will send it to you, . . . if I can cut a penny legally.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
Here is good news. http://www.utilit.../413023/

This transition in the utility sector is bigger and more upsetting than many of you imagine. We are finding our way here, and developing the state-of-the-art as we go.
kaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2016
greenonions/gkam (ignoring crazy kochevnik guy):

I see we've veered from trying to figure out why I should help you guys pay for your cars and PVs to Bush Wars, Corporate profit, mortgage interest and child credit deductions, and lead poisoning. Wow. Still no answer, though.

If it's all about just trying to get an industry off the ground, when would you end the subsidies and mandates?

My electricity bill is about $100-150/month and I might spend $75/month on gasoline. Even with the subsidies and mandates for an electric car and the PVs, what would the payback time be?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
Payback? Do you have to make money for doing good? The social payback is immediate: Your neighbors do not breathe the exhaust of your ICE, nor the stacks of the powerplant.

We can live without money, as we did for a million years or so, but not without a viable and protective and nourishing environment to clean our water, make our Oxygen, and provide us with food.

It is time to clean up your act.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
kaf had some good questions, and I gave him a five for them. He says: "If it's all about just trying to get an industry off the ground, when would you end the subsidies and mandates?"

Good question. It can really be posed to the nuclear industry at the IAEA. See what they have to say about it. Or the petroleum industry. Or the American auto industry. Or corporate "farmers". Or Wall Street.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2016
kaf
I see we've veered from trying to figure out why I should help you guys pay for your cars and PVs to Bush Wars, Corporate profit, mortgage interest and child credit deductions, and lead poisoning. Wow. Still no answer, though
The logic I laid out was very straightforward kaf. We have deductions, and subsidies in our tax code all over the place. Why should I help you pay for your children? The answer is - that is the way the code is written. I did not write it - did I? The renewables haters complain about subsidies to wind/solar/ev's - but have no problem with subsidies to nukes/fossil fuels etc.. Goggle - 'subsidies to cng' and see what you find. If I should help Mary pay for her cng car, why should you not help pay for my electric car?
kaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2016
gkam--

Whatever. Do all the good you can afford, but just realize it's not all that charitable if the taxpayers are helping you pay for it.

And can someone please explain what subsidies the oil industry is getting?
MR166
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
"And can someone please explain what subsidies the oil industry is getting? "

They will point you to all kinds of links that purport Trillions of unwarranted tax breaks. Meanwhile, 99% of the breaks are available to all companies due to normal IRS rules. Also, they confuse an income tax deduction with a renewable energy government subsidy. In the first case a company pays less tax on their income but still pays the government something. In the later case the company pays no taxes and receives money from the rate or tax payers.

Meanwhile politically correct companies like GE or Apple have not paid US taxes for years and are never used as an example of government tax inequalities.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
Even if the site is trying to do a fair and balanced report about the oil industry and the tax code vs. other industries is it almost impossible to explain the complexities of the system to anyone other than a tax lawyer. My own thoughts on corporate taxes will raise a lot of hackles here. No corporation should have to pay income tax or even file an income tax return. They should have to pay SS payroll taxes as they do now and of course dividends should continue to be taxed. This would help end business flight from the US. The rise in employment and individual income tax revenue would more than make up the difference.
kaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2016
mr166--

Ah, it becomes clear to me. And that's just genius equating a normal accounting rule to a subsidy. My hat's off.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
If you think that counts as "adequate insurance" then you're living in lala-land
Okay, so now you're saying that (in German at least), 'inadequate' equates to 'no' -?

I'm still confused.
Sorry I took you off ignore. Today was my "look at the last post of everyone on my ignore list"-day...which I do once a month
I know I know - It's easier for some people than actually admitting you're wrong.

-And as far as the price tag goes, we can debate relativity when a mag 9 earthquake hits tokyo.
tschüß

-Hey for all those who hate those ugly windmills and who think the cosmos might still have some surprises up its sleeve, here is Randall Mill's latest demo of his hydrino/dark matter engine.

He's up to 2000 cycles per second.
https://youtu.be/R0PYe-4090g

-And he doesn't care whether you're laughing at him or not.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
kaf - if you can't use google - then you are in the same boat as idiot stick MR166 - and will not get much sympathy around physorg. http://www.thegua...ompanies
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
but you've invested MY money, too--and without my consent.
Well that's what psychopaths do isn't it? They will steal you blind if you let them. Just because they can.

Best to can their ass at first sign.

Say george, how many jobs have you had? 2 dozen was it?

Good thing your wife kept her job or you'd be driving a maverick.

Just speculating based on the bragging evidence you so generously provide.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
"Do all the good you can afford, but just realize it's not all that charitable if the taxpayers are helping you pay for it."
---------------------------------------

I didn't do it for charity. And I would have done even without subsidies. It was my interest and my business, and I want the ability to have power in emergencies, living in earthquake country.

I live on a fixed and small income, and want to pay for power and transportation in advance, so I do not have that worry later, as costs increase.

And you get less noise and cleaner air.
kaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2016
greenonions

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was your website. I suppose you can just ban me if my opinions diverge too greatly from phys.org/greenonions dogma.

But help me out here--are you for subsidies, or against them? Subsidies are okay if it's for green but not for oil? You've lost me. I'm personally against any type of subsidy, which keeps the cognitive dissonance to a minimum.

As to the article you linked,we could do some real apples-to-apples comparisons if you'll just send me the link to that Guardian article that explores the green energy industry political donations vs. the oil industry donations, instead of just the latter.

I'll wait.

MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
I looked at the first three items in the Guardian article. All three were not unique to the oil industry but were part of job incentive plans inducing oil majors to create or expand operations in a particular area. You can see by the biased headline where the Guardian stands in regards to fossil fuels. If these same tax breaks were given to almost any other industry they would not be criticized. BTW the headline stated it was a subsidy, but it is not. It is a tax break. There is a big difference between the 2. This just proved my prior post. Thanks Onions!
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2016
kaf says my tax benefit is a subsidy, and you say it is not.

Let us see the fight.
jwilcos
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2016
It is very funny how conservatives develop a sudden concern for birds and fish habitats when clean energy wind farms are mentioned. They couldn't care less about birds and fish as long as they get their cheap oil and coal.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2016
It is very funny how conservatives develop a sudden concern for birds and fish habitats when clean energy wind farms are mentioned. They couldn't care less about birds and fish as long as they get their cheap oil and coal.

Yeah. It's a completely absurd/hypocritical argument.

But if they really want to make it they should start researching how many fish get killed due to being minced in the turbines of oil tankers or ships laden with coal on the high seas and in rivers (or outright collisions. Whales, especially, are endangered by that)
...Or how the wildlife is affected by spills on land and sea. And I'm not just talking big oil spills. ANY oil spill.

Ok, the big oil spills are particularly easy to check up on like here:
http://www.scienc...2807.htm
which has effects still 15 years on on survival of valuable fish.

If anyone thinks oil and coal are "animal friendlier" than renewables they are kidding themselves.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
When an oiled seabird appears, the bogus-environmentalists make sonorous scandals promoting enormous public commotions, but where are all the defenders of endangered wildlife when wind farms, supposedly "eco-friendly" energy source, are slaughtering millions of birds and bats? And solar power arrays that are vaporizing birds in mid-flight? Why aren't they out there protesting beneath huge solar/wind farms to shut down these bird killers?
"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
http://dailycalle...l-spill/
http://capitolhil...bles.jpg
http://www.family...ARGE.jpg
https://worldcoun...erzo.jpg
http://blog.heart...-claims/
kaf
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2016
You anti-civilization guys are wearing me slick.

Here's an idea: If fossil fuels are so bad, just pull the plug. It's not cheap or convenient, but it's doable. Fill your garage with batteries for your PVs and windmills, sell your IC car, and just go for it.

It's pretty easy to drive a Leaf or throw some PVs on the roof and then crow about how you're saving the world, but none of you guys have pulled your electric meter.

Think of the moral authority you'll have at that point!
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2016
Now this is interesting. This is the first I have ever head of such a hazard.

http://www.zerohe...r-materi
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2016
@kaf I see we've veered from trying to figure out why I should help you guys pay for your cars and PVs to Bush Wars, Corporate profit, mortgage interest and child credit deductions, and lead poisoning. Wow. Still no answer, though.
The answer to to start being self-reliant and stop paying your masters to seal resources worldwide. Or tell us exactly what that $trillion is spent upon yearly? You don't want to be reliant you want to be a warmongering stain on humanity

Your position is akin to a houseowner complaining about the cost of insurance when his house is burning behind him

It's pretty easy to drive a Leaf or throw some PVs on the roof and then crow about how you're saving the world, but none of you guys have pulled your electric meter.
Wrong
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2016
" Fill your garage with batteries for your PVs and windmills, sell your IC car, and just go for it. "
---------------------------------------------
I already have the moral authority, Toots. I supply most of my electricity for heat, light, power, and transportation, almost fully. When the Sun gets higher, I can do it completely. Can you?

Without a battery, I use the grid as a battery, pumping in high-quality juice on peak, but using most of my own power off-peak, being a good citizen. I offset the kWh one-for-one. I invested in clean power for not just me, but the rest of society, too.

I put my money where it needs to be, while you just blabber on, complaining about others.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2016
My old ICE-powered car was given to a single mother who needed one to get to work. The PV panels are almost invisible from the street, and cover only a small part of the house.

We are doing what you SHOULD be doing. Your ignorance of the present technology and your political prejudice is keeping you from benefiting yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
I invested in clean power for not just me, but the rest of society, too.

I put my money where it needs to be, while you just blabber on, complaining about others.
"Oh, indeed, [psychopaths] can imitate feelings, but the only real feelings they seem to have - the thing that drives them and causes them to act out different dramas for effect - is a sort of "predatorial hunger" for what they want."

-George wants attention. George wants you to listen while he talks about himself.
"Manipulation is the key to the psychopath's conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique."
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
Broken Promises:

The green movement has a habit of promising more than it can deliver. A prime example is energy efficient bulbs. In my limited experience both CFLs and LED household bulbs have a MUCH shorter life span than promised! Perhaps in theory they can meet their expected failure rate sitting on a bench in the lab but not on real everyday applications. As an example, I put 3 60 watt LED equivalent bulbs in a glass enclosed kitchen ceiling fixture 6 months ago. So far 2 have failed. CFLs regularly fail because I turn them on an off a lot as I enter and exit rooms. Here in CT both are sold at a reduced cost to consumers because the electric company is required to subsidize them. Of course this subsidy gets added onto my electric bill. We have some of the highest rates in the nation. This is one of the reasons that industry is leaving our state as fast as they can.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2016
166 is right: We should go back to fires in caves.

Quit whining and do something about it. Start a "Back to Coal" club or something, but give us some decent alternative to "Whaaaaa!".
Lord_jag
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2016
I have replaced every single bulb in my house with CFL's in 2008. By 2013 most of them had failed, so I replaced every single one of them with LED's. I haven't replaced a single bulb since.

An I mean every bulb. There's 5 in the fridge/freezer, 40W output each. All that waste heat then had to be refrigerated, so replacing them with 4W LED's saves far more than 40W each.
kaf
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
gkam

I don't even know what to say. The "grid" is not a battery. It's that evil thing you've been railing against.

Just because your local utility is required to buy your electricity doesn't mean they can shut off the power plant, even if everybody had PVs on their roofs. And if your local plant is running on coal it's going to have to be at right around full power all the time, just in case a cloud shows up.

You spend your dough however you want but for God's sake quit the preaching.

Pull the plug, dude. Then I'll be impressed.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2016
And if your local plant is running on coal it's going to have to be at right around full power all the time, just in case a cloud shows up.

I dunno if you've heard about this newfangled technology called a 'weather report'? There's absolutely no reason to run a backup powerplant at anything above bare minimum for most of the time.

I'm not agreeing with gkam (don't know what he's writing as he's on the infamous ignore list)
https://docs.goog...=sharing
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
kaf, I was a Senior Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E beck in the 1980's when it was the biggest non-governmental power company in the world. No coal.

I do not view it as "that evil thing", but as a societal infrastructure, and my contribution now is providing clean energy to my neighborhood when it is most needed, and when it is most costly and when it replaces the most polluting sources. I have paid up front for what I will use for at least 20 years. The power company does not have to buy it, they want it, on-peak, while offsetting it with cheap baseload power at off-peak, when we charge the car.

It makes no sense for anyone in this situation if I went completely off-grid. I would lose the protection of the 24-hour grid, and they would lose my contribution of clean on-peak power directly into the distribution circuits using it.
kaf
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2016
gkam

Can you tell me how much your PVs cost (to include subsidies) and their expected lifespan?
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2016
I was a Senior Engineer in Technical Services for PG&E beck in the 1980's


@ kaf-Skippy. He was not a very good one either. Otherwise he would not say silly things like this,,,,,,

No coal.


,,,,, Google-Skippy will tell you in about 5 seconds that PG & the E did does and will own coal plants,,,,

Plant Name State County Year(s) Built Capacity CO2 Emissions SO2 Emissions
Indiantown FL Martin 1995 395 MW 2,406,000 tons N/A
Cedar Bay FL Duval 1994 292 MW 2,355,000 tons N/A
Carneys Point NJ Salem 1993 285 MW N/A N/A
Logan NJ Gloucester 1994 242 MW 1,674,000 tons N/A
Northampton PA Northampton 1995 134 MW 981,000 tons N/A
Scrubgrass PA Venango 1993 95 MW 966,000 tons N/A


But he is going to pretend he was only talking about California.But that is not what he said is it?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. He does not think he gets any power from nukes or coal either because PG & the E buys it from other states.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
I invested in clean power for not just me, but the rest of society, too.

Tell us gkam, how long ago did your neighbours invest in their PV panels?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2016
My neighbor next door and the one across the street have had theirs for about 18 months. The other next-door neighbor gets his soon.

When does anti get his? Too cheap? Too selfish?

How about poor little Ira, who thinks I am not aware of Diablo Canyon, . . . just like him?.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
My neighbor next door and the one across the street have had theirs for about 18 months. The other next-door neighbor gets his soon.

When does anti get his? Too cheap? Too selfish?

As I've told you before, I rent and what we've done is reduce our power consumption to less than a 1/3 the average for the building.
Now, how many of those neighbours berated and belittled you about saving the environment?
How long have you known about the benefits of PV panels and why did it take you so long to get them?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2016
anti, what you did was lower the temperature of your own place, letting the neighbors in the building do your heating for you. It's an old trick of penny-counters.

Why so long? Before now, they were too expensive, and the range of options was slim.

But I did it. And you are still part of the problem.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2016
No you pathological liar. The apartments are heated with hot water radiators and I'm referring to our electricity use.
18 months ago it wasn't too expensive for your neighbours. So, who is the penny-counter? Tell us now many pennies did you save?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2016
anti, did that little discussion get to you?

Feel free to come apart.

Your nasty tone and words will not be missed.
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2016
anti, did that little discussion get to you?

Feel free to come apart.

Your nasty tone and words will not be missed.

You are one to talk. Take a look back from the start of our little discussion.
You are truly a psychopath.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2016
No, I am one who actually invested in the future, and you resent it.

You have painted yourself into a corner with political prejudice, and now are stuck in it.

The rest of us will continue to develop our society.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2016
MR166
As an example, I put 3 60 watt LED equivalent bulbs in a glass enclosed kitchen ceiling fixture 6 months ago. So far 2 have failed.


Wow - great example of a scientific piece of research.

I have been replacing cfl's as they blow - with led's. So far have about half the house converted. Bought my first led several years back - when they were $40 a pop. Led's are now less than $3 a pop. Wow - progress happens. I have never had to replace an led. I guess my anecdote beats your anecdote. (you probably don't get the last point).
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2016
MR166
There is a big difference between the 2. This just proved my prior post. Thanks Onions!
Yes MR - there is a difference between a tax subsidy, and a tax deductions (I assume that is what you meant when you used the word 'break'). The difference is the magnitude. They both reduce your taxable income - one by more than the other on a percentage basis. In other words - you will approve of a tax 'break', because it reduces your taxable income by a smaller percentage than a tax subsidy. In other words you are a hypocrite - with no values. Kind of very Trumpian in nature.
kaf
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
Hey, gkam, are we going to get those dollar numbers on the PVs?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
As an example, I put 3 60 watt LED equivalent bulbs in a glass enclosed kitchen ceiling fixture 6 months ago.

If you always buy the cheapest stuff (as I'm sure you do based on what you post) - what did you expect?

I tend to invest in these things (not out of some greeny impulse but because I really can't be arsed to change light bulbs). Haven't had one burn out in the entire appartment in over a decade.
tscati
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
Continuing nuclear subsidies in the UK.
The UK government is committed to covering the costs of decommissioning the assorted UK nuclear reactors. This is estimated to be some £66 billion - that's quite a subsidy for nuclear. Why shouldn't renewables get a similar deal?
tscati
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
"
An I mean every bulb. There's 5 in the fridge/freezer, 40W output each. All that waste heat then had to be refrigerated, so replacing them with 4W LED's saves far more than 40W each.

Can I make a suggestion? Take a small child, stuff them in the fridge and the freezer and shut the door. If they scream and complain that "It's dark in here" then that means the lights go off when the door is shut, and generate 0W in waste heat most of the time. If they don't complain then you have a faulty light switch.

You may have alternative ways of testing this hypothesis.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
"Hey, gkam, are we going to get those dollar numbers on the PVs?"
---------------------------------------

If you ask nicely.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
"If you always buy the cheapest stuff (as I'm sure you do based on what you post) - what did you expect?"

Anti I bought the bulbs at Costco. I have always found their products to be of reasonable quality. I know why they failed, high temperatures. Enclosed fixtures are very hot by nature. Yea, you will save TONS of money by switching to "Green" bulbs. Oh, by the way, you have to change your light fixtures in order to obtain the advertised life on which part of the "Savings" are based.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
"Yes MR - there is a difference between a tax subsidy, and a tax deductions (I assume that is what you meant when you used the word 'break'). The difference is the magnitude."

No Onions you do not understand the difference between a subsidy, tax credit and a tax deduction. A subsidy gives you government money even if you have no chance of ever paying taxes. A credit reduces your taxes by the entire amount of of the credit but you need to have taxable income in order to take advantage of it. A tax deduction just reduces your net income that your tax is based on. There is a HUGE difference between the three.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
MR166 - semantics. Here is a quick definition of subsidy.
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
http://www.invest...sidy.asp My point is that you are a hypocrite. You have no problem with crony capitalism for industries that you support - but whine and cry when crony capitalism favors renewables.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
tscati
Why shouldn't renewables get a similar deal?
They should, and are. Problem with people like MR166 is the hypocrisy of hating on renewables - but having no problem with other industries being in bed with their government. Here in Oklahoma - the benefit of wind is really being felt now. The subsidies are being phased out - and the industry is starting to stand on it's feet. Seems to be working out really well. Cheap - clean power - and taxes to help local economies. http://www.okstat...-schools
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
When the Guardian used the word "Subsidy" in the headline their plan was to purposely deceive. That is the definition of propaganda. Just as a carpenter knows which nails to use for every application, a journalist knows which words to use to convey the desired meaning.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
"A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction."

So let me get this straight, when I get to deduct my state and local taxes from my federal income tax the federal government is "Subsidizing" me. Thus any income that I get to keep is through the largess of the government.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
By the logic of your definition the progressive income tax is really a subsidy to everyone not paying at the highest rate.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
By the logic of your definition
It is not MY definition - it was taken from a pretty legit web site. However - stop with the semantics. You are so good at pedantry, and so poor at actually understanding the point being made. You are a hypocrite. You are fine with government supports of certain industries - but then a total hater when it comes to renewables. You don't mind oil and gas feeding at the trough of government - but hate on renewables.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016

MR166
When the Guardian used the word "Subsidy"


Once again MR goes to pedantry - rather than understanding the point. Is it your position that the oil and gas industry do not receive government subsidies? If so - please support your position.
http://www.politi...lly.html
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
No, I am one who actually invested in the future, and you resent it.

You have painted yourself into a corner with political prejudice, and now are stuck in it.

The rest of us will continue to develop our society.

gskam, the pathological liar, psychopath and narcissist.
You said you would have bought those PV panels even without the subsidy and then claimed you waited for 18 months for the price to drop. Tell us gskam, how much did the price drop in those 18 months and how does it compare to the subsidy?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
Wow, you're down to that? Having lost the argument, he now says I did not do what he opposes hard enough.

Instead of whining about others being cleaner, go clean up your own act.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
"Once again MR goes to pedantry - rather than understanding the point. Is it your position that the oil and gas industry do not receive government subsidies? If so - please support your position.
http://www.politi...lly.html"

Again a liberal site is using the term in a purposely incorrect manner. If I purchase a drill press for my manufacturing company is the tax deduction that I get for the purchase a "Subsidy"? Until these sites differentiate between normal business tax deductions and true subsidies they are little more than green propaganda mills.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
Wow, you're down to that? Having lost the argument, he now says I did not do what he opposes hard enough.

Instead of whining about others being cleaner, go clean up your own act.

Well, it is certainly too late to clean up your pathological lying ways.
Tell me which is better. Conservation, as I did by reducing my electricity use or as you did.
greenonions
3 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
MR166 You can't answer simple questions can you? - always jump into your own little world of accusations - everyone is a liberal, blah blah blah.

There are two questions on the table.

1. Do you assert that the oil and gas industry does not receive any subsidies (please support).

2. Why do you approve of certain industries feeding at the trough of government - but not others?
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
First of all when I see a breakdown of "$Trillions" clearly showing normal deductions vs the cost of mandates and grants. I will be able to make a rational decision on the cost benefit ratio of both. Then it is merely doing the simple math of dividing the total subsidies or mandates by the total energy supplied by each industry.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
"Tell me which is better. Conservation, as I did by reducing my electricity use or as you did."
--------------------

I did it professional-style. I did the conservation first, then the retrofits. I added more sheathing to the shearwalls, and insulation in the ceiling and walls. Along with earthquake improvements, I changed out the old water storage for an instantaneous water heater, and replaced the furnace with one which is so efficient it condenses the vapor in the exhaust.

All our lighting is LED with a few CFL still around. Our washer and dryer are new and efficient, but my wife likes to use a clothesline in the back often.

And now, I make my own electricity in a fashion, not relying on polluting powerplants. Did you "forget" my MS is in Environmental Management? It is not about a way to make a living but a way to live.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
My calculations might not include some of the most prevalent green coefficients.

For instance the CB (cost/benefit) ratio of renewables needs to be multiplied by the Hopeium constant which is always greater than one. Where as the CB ratio of fossil needs to be divided by Disasterium coefficient which somewhat close to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in PPM.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
Gkam to tell you the truth I really like your energy plan. The cost effectiveness of it depends a lot on how much of the work you can do yourself. Just please don't mandate, by the power of law, that everyone do it. And don't expect to get paid back by increases in my electric rates or taxes.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
The cost-effectiveness of the system was enhanced significantly with the EV. I did none of it myself, but hired the technicians to do it for me.

I will tell you what is ahead: The owners of electrics will start to resent the ICE polluters dumping their exhaust gases right ahead of them. We will get an entire spectrum of new names and phrases from this soon-to-be concern. Be the first to popularize your own entry.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
MR166
I will be able to make a rational decision on the cost benefit ratio of both.
Ahhh - so you are the evaluator of the cost benefit analysis. So what is the cut off ratio - above which you will not approve a government support? How do you adjust for the fact that new industries often get higher supports - but then over time - those supports tend to reduce. For example the PTC and ITC in the U.S. are being phased out. So - if a government support does not meet your criteria for cost/benefit analysis - do you like call up the President - and demand that it be rescinded?
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
"So - if a government support does not meet your criteria for cost/benefit analysis - do you like call up the President - and demand that it be rescinded?"

YUP, you finally get it Onions. IT IS MY MONEY and I deserve a say in how the government spends it.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
" I deserve a say in how the government spends it."
--------------------------------------

Yup, it's called elections. Other than that, no favoritism for the non-rich.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
IT IS MY MONEY and I deserve a say in how the government spends it.

Um...no? Taxes are money you give to the governement at which point you have lost all control over it.
That's the thing about a democracy: We vote who gets into power,. We then agree that those in power should use the resources allotted (our taxes) for purposes they see fit. And this includes that they use those taxes for purposes a particular individual DOESN'T see fit (democracy - remember?). You don't get to opt out of paying taxes just because you don't agree on how they are spent.
(You do get the option of punishing those that 'misspent' your money by voting for some other party next time - but that's about it)
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
IT IS MY MONEY and I deserve a say in how the government spends it.


I will see what I can do about that for you. While I am at it - we will be cutting the defense budget to about 10% of current levels - and re-purposing that money for science/medical research, and education. Also - religious groups will lose their tax exempt status - and no personal deductions for religious charities. IT IS MY MONEY and I deserve a say in how the government spends it.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
"Um...no? Taxes are money you give to the governement at which point you have lost all control over it.
That's the thing about a democracy: We vote who gets into power,. We then agree that those in power should use the resources allotted (our taxes) for purposes they see fit."

Anti you and I both agree that you are a lot smarter than that. The right to protest is an integral part of freedom!
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
Onions most people who give to Religious or any other charities do so irregardless of tax deductions. In fact I am all for a flat tax for individuals. Since employment tax and SS taxes comprise almost 90% of all US tax revenues I am also in favor of 0% as in do not even file a return corporate tax rates. The gains in employment will more than make up for the loss in revenue. At some point in time these corporations will have to pay dividends which will be taxed. I would also place limit on executive stock plans so that more of their compensation is subject regular income taxes.
antigoracle
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
Did you "forget" my MS is in Environmental Management?
--gkam
Wow, an MS and yet you confuse conservation with efficiency as there is only a single mention of the former.
Tell me what's your undergraduate degree is in?
You keep bragging about your MS as if it qualifies you to speak with authority, so I'm curious as to what you imagine that is?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
The right to protest is an integral part of freedom!

Sure. The right to not listen on the part of the ruling classes is also a part of the whole democracy deal.

I spent quite sometime at anti-nuclear and pro renewables protests. and yes: they work,

But for some reason I don't see you (or anyone for that matter) at pro oil protests? Why do you think that is?
Lord_jag
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2016
Onions most people who give to Religious or any other charities do so irregardless of tax deductions.

Most people don't say irregardless.

It's not a word.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
"Most people don't say irregardless.
It's not a word."

Well bravo to you LJ, that little bit of wisdom makes you quite the man.
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2016
"Most people don't say irregardless.
It's not a word."

Well bravo to you LJ, that little bit of wisdom makes you quite the man.

No. But it does make him right and you wrong. And you raging about this inoffensive remark, shows your lack of social skills.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
"Wow, an MS and yet you confuse conservation with efficiency as there is only a single mention of the former."
--------------------------------------

Hey Mister Semantics, apparently you do not understand conservation does not mean shutting it off, but using scheduling, efficacy improvements, restoration, replacement and other methods to generate greater efficiency.

kaf
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
So, back to my question about how much gkam's PVs cost, (the answer to which I did not get) I saw a guy on the internet offering 15kw-whole-house-unplug-type-system for $35k. Does that sound about right to everybody? Because I honestly don't know.

At any rate, if I do some back-of-the-napkin math at my average electricity bill of $125/month, I'm looking at a payoff of 23 point something years-- without considering present values and future values and all that jake. You guys with me so far?

Twenty years into it, my PVs are done and I've got to replace my panels, right? Because they don't last forever. Not to mention hail storms, which we get in my part of the world.

Now I'm looking at it and it's not even a wash. And, holy shit, if I had to borrow the dough to do this.... Or is my math completely off?

What's that upside, here, fellas?


gkam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
My system is 4.59kW, and cost $12,350 installed with inverter and hookups, permits, and so on. It saves about $100/month house power, and about $150/month in car "gas".

You may live in an area or a situation where it does not pay off.
kaf
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
gkam,

Thanks for posting your numbers.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2016
kaf, that included the tax credit, which can be spread over a few years, I think. It was $5400 bringing the sum before correction to $18k.

I did not do it for the payback, but because it is my field, and I like to be independent. It is not appropriate for many, such as antigore, who lives in a multi-unit dwelling and probably has done all he can there. Ira's place is ripe for it, but you do not see much PV in the South yet.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
Most psychopaths are conservatives
kochevnik
4 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2016
@kal What's that upside, here, fellas?
The upside is that you have electricity, since you are off-grid. On-grid you can use the grid in place of batteries, which are the greatest expense and the shortest lived. Also panels are not dead at 20 years. Typically they are at 80%. Many panels made 20 years ago are still fully operational
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2016
kaf
But help me out here--are you for subsidies, or against them? Subsidies are okay if it's for green but not for oil? You've lost me. I'm personally against any type of subsidy, which keeps the cognitive dissonance to a minimum.


I don't see any reason why you would be confused. Please show any situation where I have been contradictory. I don't hold a singular position - where I would say 'I always support government supports (I prefer to use an all embracing term - rather than engage in MR166 pedantic arguments). What I object to is the hypocrisy of MR166 et al - hating on supports given to renewable energy, but saying nothing about oil and gas supports. I see our government as hideously complex and corrupt (talking about the U.S.) - and I think it is impossible to try to sort out all of the threads at this point. I would support a flat tax, with no deductions at all. But I don't believe that will ever happen - due to the mess we have now created. (cont.)
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2016
cont. - I absolutely see a role for government in being involved in guiding things like our energy policy. Climate change and pollution dictate that we transition to no carbon energy sources. I support the government using economic policies to steer that process. Renewables offer us a win/win/win. We get cheaper, cleaner, better, power. If it was up to me - right now I would pull all supports off fossil fuels - and use economic policy to promote renewables. The faster we transition, the better. Hope that clears up my view.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
I see a role for the USA government to stop funding terrorists and spend that $trillion improving their rotting infrastructure, which needs $4trillion. Moreover dropping 132% duties on monocrystalline panels would spurt the nascent USA solar industry and make jobs. Morons here are bitching about solar subsidies while USA taxes more at the border than they subsidize, the only developed nation to do so
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2016
Kaf,

Gkam/george kamburoff is a pathological liar and likely psychopath who has been making spurious claims about his past for months now. He has provided ample evidence which has proven these claims false.

He has no MS in EM. It was an honorary degree with no coursework. He wrote a pop-sci-style paper about a dairy farm in order to get it.

He has no education or experience as an engineer.

He has been fired from at least a dozen jobs.

He consistently makes up his own facts and then uses these phoney claims about his past in order to justify them.

You might want to keep these things in mind when you converse with him or ask him for info.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.