I could not agree more. Stop all subsidies for intermittent energy. Big companies are spending money on projects ONLY for purposes of receiving subsidies which is to say that we might as well be shoveling trillions of taxpayer dollars into a blast furnace.
Thank you, gentlemen! Well written and insightful, but (my apologies) incomplete. While I agree that full repeal of the IRA is necessary, to do so without an alternative that would replace it in the business sector would appear vindictive and reckless. That is why I say, “incomplete.” A full repeal of the IRA must be accompanied by a national energy policy that acknowledges the fact that our economy is a derivative of energy, not the other way around.
Mr. Trump, House Republicans, and those enlightened House Democrats who recognize this must ensure the American economy will have sufficient energy supplies to meet and exceed growth expectations. The IRA, with its emphasis on renewables and immature technologies (CCS, e.g.) does not do this. Energy policy must be founded on reliability, affordability, and responsibility. As a compromise with those democrats who believe climate is an issue, redirect some of those subsidies for unreliable energy sources to accelerate the replacement of high-emission coal plants with combined cycle gas plants, and into technologies that will reduce methane and CO2 emissions from gas turbines. Meaningful reduction in emissions can be achieved in a few years without sacrificing grid stability and reliability. This action will continue the natural, market-driven process of decarbonization. Redirect the remainder of those subsidies into nuclear power. By the time those plants come on line (10-12 years), those remaining coal plants who have added technology to reduce emissions will be nearing retirement, and the grid stability and energy reliability can remain unaffected.
A key word in my diatribe is “accelerate.” We have, in essence, a two-year window to prove to the voters that this direction in policy is better for the economy, the environment, and the climate, than are irresponsible programs to fund renewables.
Talk is cheap, as they say, and whiskey costs money! I abhor subsidies. But Congress is addicted to programs that give away taxpayer’s money, and the Democrats won’t be happy unless we keep a few branches of Bernie’s Free Shit Tree. Let’s subsidize energy based on criteria of reliability, grid stability, and resource sustainability. But do so with a coherent and stated energy plan and policy, one that truly advances all sectors of our economy.
Thanks again for your work and efforts to keep us informed. It is greatly appreciated.
The reasons not to invest in wind or solar are that they are both parasitic to the existing grid, require full capacity backup, and are thus redundant. Redundancy costs.
I could not agree more. Stop all subsidies for intermittent energy. Big companies are spending money on projects ONLY for purposes of receiving subsidies which is to say that we might as well be shoveling trillions of taxpayer dollars into a blast furnace.
Thank you, gentlemen! Well written and insightful, but (my apologies) incomplete. While I agree that full repeal of the IRA is necessary, to do so without an alternative that would replace it in the business sector would appear vindictive and reckless. That is why I say, “incomplete.” A full repeal of the IRA must be accompanied by a national energy policy that acknowledges the fact that our economy is a derivative of energy, not the other way around.
Mr. Trump, House Republicans, and those enlightened House Democrats who recognize this must ensure the American economy will have sufficient energy supplies to meet and exceed growth expectations. The IRA, with its emphasis on renewables and immature technologies (CCS, e.g.) does not do this. Energy policy must be founded on reliability, affordability, and responsibility. As a compromise with those democrats who believe climate is an issue, redirect some of those subsidies for unreliable energy sources to accelerate the replacement of high-emission coal plants with combined cycle gas plants, and into technologies that will reduce methane and CO2 emissions from gas turbines. Meaningful reduction in emissions can be achieved in a few years without sacrificing grid stability and reliability. This action will continue the natural, market-driven process of decarbonization. Redirect the remainder of those subsidies into nuclear power. By the time those plants come on line (10-12 years), those remaining coal plants who have added technology to reduce emissions will be nearing retirement, and the grid stability and energy reliability can remain unaffected.
A key word in my diatribe is “accelerate.” We have, in essence, a two-year window to prove to the voters that this direction in policy is better for the economy, the environment, and the climate, than are irresponsible programs to fund renewables.
Talk is cheap, as they say, and whiskey costs money! I abhor subsidies. But Congress is addicted to programs that give away taxpayer’s money, and the Democrats won’t be happy unless we keep a few branches of Bernie’s Free Shit Tree. Let’s subsidize energy based on criteria of reliability, grid stability, and resource sustainability. But do so with a coherent and stated energy plan and policy, one that truly advances all sectors of our economy.
Thanks again for your work and efforts to keep us informed. It is greatly appreciated.
TANSTAAFL - There is no "free shit tree" either.
Let's not subsidize energy. Subsidies distort markets.
Subsidies are currently paid from borrowed funds, thus contributing to inflation, of which we already have enough.
As Warren Buffet said about wind energy- the only reason to invest in it is for the tax credits, otherwise it doesn’t make sense.
The reasons not to invest in wind or solar are that they are both parasitic to the existing grid, require full capacity backup, and are thus redundant. Redundancy costs.