This is great and cogent and unfortunately I fear there are precious few in either the House or Senate who would agree to any of these cut backs. of course, the best question that is never answered is if wind and solar are cost competitive, why do they need subsidies?
Very nicely done, sir. Thank you. Renewable advocates with whom I've argued "defend" their subsidies by saying, well, the fossil industry is far more subsidized. Of course, it isn't, and I argue fossil subsidies are a form of a mea culpa to utilities for enacting emission controls on operating plants which were never designed or financed for such controls. Wind and solar cannot make that argument.
It would be interesting to see what happens to IRA spending if the formula for subsidies were changed to account primarily for energy density and capacity factor, and a life-cycle (and unbiased) comparison of emissions. By life cycle, I mean mining-processing- construction-decommissioning and demolition-waste disposal. While I have no doubt coal would still be pretty bad, it's successors in fossil production, natural gas and nuclear, would result in a far more robust economy.
Agree that current policies are inefficient, costly and will not achieve the desired outcome (except of course for those whose pockets are being lined). So, if we can agree on the need to reduce GHGs, what is the best approach to make sensible progress? Not sure the free market can do it on it's own. Should more support go for nuclear? What is the right mix? Energy infrastructure is expensive/capital intensive. Problems are well documented - what we need are thoughtful proposals for a the best path forward.
This video perfectly dovetails with your post…if there was any doubt that we are sliding straight into dystopia, what Angela Small has uncovered removes all illusions.
This is great and cogent and unfortunately I fear there are precious few in either the House or Senate who would agree to any of these cut backs. of course, the best question that is never answered is if wind and solar are cost competitive, why do they need subsidies?
It’s a valid question and I’ve been asking it for about a decade
Very nicely done, sir. Thank you. Renewable advocates with whom I've argued "defend" their subsidies by saying, well, the fossil industry is far more subsidized. Of course, it isn't, and I argue fossil subsidies are a form of a mea culpa to utilities for enacting emission controls on operating plants which were never designed or financed for such controls. Wind and solar cannot make that argument.
It would be interesting to see what happens to IRA spending if the formula for subsidies were changed to account primarily for energy density and capacity factor, and a life-cycle (and unbiased) comparison of emissions. By life cycle, I mean mining-processing- construction-decommissioning and demolition-waste disposal. While I have no doubt coal would still be pretty bad, it's successors in fossil production, natural gas and nuclear, would result in a far more robust economy.
Very good! Keep sharing
Agree that current policies are inefficient, costly and will not achieve the desired outcome (except of course for those whose pockets are being lined). So, if we can agree on the need to reduce GHGs, what is the best approach to make sensible progress? Not sure the free market can do it on it's own. Should more support go for nuclear? What is the right mix? Energy infrastructure is expensive/capital intensive. Problems are well documented - what we need are thoughtful proposals for a the best path forward.
This video perfectly dovetails with your post…if there was any doubt that we are sliding straight into dystopia, what Angela Small has uncovered removes all illusions.
https://rumble.com/v5b35pt-united-nations-land-grab.html
thank you very much for sharing this link! It is important that people know about this.
Share it far and wide!