This Manchin-Barrasso permitting reform bill was instantly and unanimously disdained by 350 'environmental' groups, who have no idea of what they are doing to the energy economy and by implication the US economy.
The best way to eliminate resource favoritism would be to stop all subsidies. Then we'd see who's swimming naked - wind and solar would go down the tubes, as they should. However, I realize that subsidies, once started, are almost impossible to stop. So your idea to at least level the playing field, not favoring renewables over other energy sources, is more practical. I sure hope it happens.
I agree with you in principle, but the government trough, once established, is nigh impossible to dismantle. So I would suggest that the present system of arbitrarily choosing winners or losers be scrapped, and a system of subsidies based entirely on the physics of energy production be implemented. The greater the energy or power density, the greater the subsidy. Production and investment tax credits would be renamed "flourishment tax credits."
Consider this - as they now exist, subsidies are a poor investment of taxpayer dollars. They are furthering an unreliable system that needs more resources and is less secure than fossil fuels. But they are made in pursuit of a foolish goal (nut-zero), so that makes them OK.
Subsidies based on energy or power density would be a far better investment of taxpayer dollars simply because they would bring wider economic benefits over a greater period of time, used less natural resources to produce equivalent energy, and be far more secure (less imported minerals).
It would be an interesting thesis or dissertation.
Repealing the Jones Act won't really help New England, "because we'll be getting a pipeline real soon". Foreign owners won't want to pay their crews enough to stay in the US on a long-term basis.
And if New England wants to run everyone else into the ground in the name of Climate, LET THEM FREEZE.
Consider the potential benefits of such a policy - climate would force New Englanders to move to more welcoming climates, hence reduced population, hence reduced traffic. Its a win for the Malthusians
The fragility of our transmission grid is exacerbated by the proliferation of intermittent resources. How do we get this knowledge out more widely? Energy is the base layer of all economic activity.
Responding to Brettbaker: I am a New England resident (VT) and I support your advocacy of LET THEM (us) FREEZE. Severe hardship especially in winter may be the only outcome that will finally convince enough voters here (especially in Vermont) to vote out the Democrats and Progressives who have supported these insane climate-centric programs that are immiserating everyone here save the 1%. As an aside, there are a number of one-percenters here, trust fund babies, populating the radical Vermont Legislature and they are arrogant ideologues contemptuous of the citizens they pretend to represent.
This Manchin-Barrasso permitting reform bill was instantly and unanimously disdained by 350 'environmental' groups, who have no idea of what they are doing to the energy economy and by implication the US economy.
There is occasionally a horseshoe effect where I dislike the same policies as radical environmentalists
The best way to eliminate resource favoritism would be to stop all subsidies. Then we'd see who's swimming naked - wind and solar would go down the tubes, as they should. However, I realize that subsidies, once started, are almost impossible to stop. So your idea to at least level the playing field, not favoring renewables over other energy sources, is more practical. I sure hope it happens.
I agree with you in principle, but the government trough, once established, is nigh impossible to dismantle. So I would suggest that the present system of arbitrarily choosing winners or losers be scrapped, and a system of subsidies based entirely on the physics of energy production be implemented. The greater the energy or power density, the greater the subsidy. Production and investment tax credits would be renamed "flourishment tax credits."
Consider this - as they now exist, subsidies are a poor investment of taxpayer dollars. They are furthering an unreliable system that needs more resources and is less secure than fossil fuels. But they are made in pursuit of a foolish goal (nut-zero), so that makes them OK.
Subsidies based on energy or power density would be a far better investment of taxpayer dollars simply because they would bring wider economic benefits over a greater period of time, used less natural resources to produce equivalent energy, and be far more secure (less imported minerals).
It would be an interesting thesis or dissertation.
Great idea. Now if we could just get some politicians elected that would have enough sense and integrity to do it…
Repealing the Jones Act won't really help New England, "because we'll be getting a pipeline real soon". Foreign owners won't want to pay their crews enough to stay in the US on a long-term basis.
And if New England wants to run everyone else into the ground in the name of Climate, LET THEM FREEZE.
Consider the potential benefits of such a policy - climate would force New Englanders to move to more welcoming climates, hence reduced population, hence reduced traffic. Its a win for the Malthusians
The fragility of our transmission grid is exacerbated by the proliferation of intermittent resources. How do we get this knowledge out more widely? Energy is the base layer of all economic activity.
Responding to Brettbaker: I am a New England resident (VT) and I support your advocacy of LET THEM (us) FREEZE. Severe hardship especially in winter may be the only outcome that will finally convince enough voters here (especially in Vermont) to vote out the Democrats and Progressives who have supported these insane climate-centric programs that are immiserating everyone here save the 1%. As an aside, there are a number of one-percenters here, trust fund babies, populating the radical Vermont Legislature and they are arrogant ideologues contemptuous of the citizens they pretend to represent.