GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[bloodman33 + 22]

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES  This is clearly some sort of typo.  It should read THE OIL INDUSTRY = BLIZZARD OF LIES.   But they are making me rich rich rich I say!

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

29 minutes ago, bloodman33 said:

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES  This is clearly some sort of typo.  It should read THE OIL INDUSTRY = BLIZZARD OF LIES.   But they are making me rich rich rich I say!

The oil industry is making it possible to survive on this planet. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes Eco but they didnt, energy prices soared because of the huge increase in NG prices due to the war in Ukraine!

Even the report you linked stated this, this isnt about any green revolution hiking energy costs. Re-read your own article you posted as it clearly states ""Energy-intensive industries have seen their energy costs soar over the past year after the Russian invasion of Ukraine sparked a rally in energy commodities and power prices." " which is all about NG prices as you already know!

You do not have enormous energy taxes on fossil fuels and gasoline?

https://www.uhy.com/european-companies-face-taxes-on-fuel-18-higher-than-world-average/

"The cost of filling a tank of a Ford Transit with diesel is 24% higher on average in European countries. As diesel is used in the majority of commercial vehicles, this heavy burden is borne primarily by businesses.

It is also 2% more expensive in Europe for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), a more environmentally-friendly alternative to petrol or diesel.

Bernard Fay, Chairman of UHY, comments: “Higher fuel taxes hit almost all businesses, and they can ultimately impede economic growth.”"

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63089222

"The European Union has agreed to impose emergency measures to charge energy firms on their record profits.

Ministers have agreed windfall taxes on certain energy companies as well as mandatory cuts in electricity use.

The plan includes a levy on fossil fuel firms' surplus profits and a levy on excess revenues made from surging electricity costs."

Edited February 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[bloodman33 + 22]

Ecocharger: Who is paying to say these profound statements? "The oil industry is making it possible to survive on this planet."  You do realize that when I hit the laughing smiley face, I a laughing at you, not with you.  I am mean.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 minutes ago, bloodman33 said:

Ecocharger: Who is paying to say these profound statements? "The oil industry is making it possible to survive on this planet."  You do realize that when I hit the laughing smiley face, I a laughing at you, not with you.  I am mean.

You have an unusual sense of humor. 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

No, the price of energy In America is elevated mainly because of the radical liberals that push ESG and demonize fossil fuels while subsidizing unproven "green" wind turbines and solar while hiding the total cost involved in them. The people will pay the higher prices and the wealthy globalists can make a lot of money by promoting wind and solar farms. They are careful to hide the true costs such as:

Interconnection and lengthening of power lines and towers.

The subsidies paid by the taxpayers.

The facts that the stated power depends on if and when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining through the atmosphere. 

That China provides many of the "rare earth minerals" because Western countries often don't want to mine anything because we have laws that can make them liable for polluting soil and water. We would rather have the Third World suffer the damage to their nation. China has polluted All of their rivers. The miners are paid very little and have a job that is dangerous to their health.

The expense involved in disposing of wind turbines, solar panels, electrical equipment used, and how these farms are sometimes abandoned by bankrupt companies. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonytellez/2023/02/23/what-is-esg-investing-and-why-these-republican-led-states-are-trying-to-ban-it-from-retirement-funds/?sh=1f4b896f4d7c

[turbguy + 1,544]

13 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

The subsidies paid by the taxpayers.

 

Since when does a subsidy take money directly out of a taxpayer's (or anyone else's) pocket?

FYI, here in my great state of Wyoming, my legislature just passed a law that requires utilities to install CCS on in-state plants.  Those generators are allowed to pass on associated costs (capital, O&M) to ratepayers, but only to in-state ratepayers.

In effect, my legislators actually took money out of my pocket by raising my electric rate!

Edited February 24, 2023 by turbguy

[Ron Wagner + 710]

Well, it takes a bit of my power bill every single month to support aged nuclear plant that have to be supported for renovations. It also takes money out to subsidize wind turbines and possibly solar. Ameren Illinois is who I pay my bills to. I also pay state and  federal tax that goes to whatever Illinois or liberals support along the ESG goals. Then I pay extra for the higher prices on natural gas and oil because they do not allow proper growth of pipeline networks. 

I can't believe that you even asked that question!

[turbguy + 1,544]

17 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Well, it takes a bit of my power bill every single month to support aged nuclear plant that have to be supported for renovations. It also takes money out to subsidize wind turbines and possibly solar. Ameren Illinois is who I pay my bills to. I also pay state and  federal tax that goes to whatever Illinois or liberals support along the ESG goals. Then I pay extra for the higher prices on natural gas and oil because they do not allow proper growth of pipeline networks.

A 'bit' of your power bill pays for O&M at ALL generators, no matter what source is used.  It also pays (slowly) for any new generation that passes muster though your Utilities Commission.

If you wanna see "support for aged nuc plants", go to FirstEnergy's political face-fall in Ohio.  There are people going to jail for that mess.

Show me the portion of your power bill that actually pays any subsidy.

My nat gas bill shows a distinct and separate charge for a "2021 Texas weather event", apparently in order to recover the INSANE market opportunities that priced nat gas to the moon for several days.  That "market subsidy" comes directly out of my pocket, and goes......where???

Where???  Hopefully to subsidize weatherization of the Texas Nat Gas system.  That said, I doubt it...

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

Well, it takes a bit of my power bill every single month to support aged nuclear plant that have to be supported for renovations.

 

Nuke is not a renewable green energy.   .

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

That China provides many of the "rare earth minerals" because Western countries often don't want to mine anything because we have laws that can make them liable for polluting soil and water. We would rather have the Third World suffer the damage to their nation. China has polluted All of their rivers. The miners are paid very little and have a job that is dangerous to their health.

 

It's like you realize there is pollution being made but want it here anyways.

Yeah, but bring back those sweet coal mine jobs and MAGA!

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ron Wagner + 710]

You have a legitimate complaint. We all have to fight our own battles though. Illinois has an abundance of untapped natural gas we should be using. That is my biggest complaint. 

Did you get a check when most people started using LED light bulbs throughout the house? Me neither, they came and changed my meter twice and wouldn't tell me why. 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

15 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

 

Did you get a check when most people started using LED light bulbs throughout the house? Me neither, they came and changed my meter twice and wouldn't tell me why. 

No, but I unfortunately missed out on a sweet program that saves people energy/money regardless of how the energy was made.

Yes, it was a government subsidy but it did not support any individual power producer, green or otherwise - it only focused on reduced consumption.

Too bad it went away in 2020.

 

https://energyrates.ca/alberta/residential-no-charge-energy-savings-program/

Products Covered By the Program

The products offered by the program may vary over time, but the program currently covers:

• Replacement of all incandescent lightbulbs, nightlights, and emergency exit signs with extremely energy-efficient LED lighting.
• Replacing any high-flow shower heads with new super-efficient shower heads that reduce water usage.
• Replacing old style power strips with new smart power strips, which can reduce or eliminate electricity used by TVs, media players, entertainment systems, and kitchen appliances while in standby mode.
• Replacing older “dumb” thermostats with new, programmable thermostats.
• Installing faucet aerators, which not only save water, but also save energy when using hot water.

Edited February 25, 2023 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,544]

40 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

No, but I unfortunately missed out on a sweet program that saves people energy/money regardless of how the energy was made.

Yes, it was a government subsidy but it did not support any individual power producer, green or otherwise - it only focused on reduced consumption.

Too bad it went away in 2020.

 

https://energyrates.ca/alberta/residential-no-charge-energy-savings-program/

Products Covered By the Program

The products offered by the program may vary over time, but the program currently covers:

• Replacement of all incandescent lightbulbs, nightlights, and emergency exit signs with extremely energy-efficient LED lighting.
• Replacing any high-flow shower heads with new super-efficient shower heads that reduce water usage.
• Replacing old style power strips with new smart power strips, which can reduce or eliminate electricity used by TVs, media players, entertainment systems, and kitchen appliances while in standby mode.
• Replacing older “dumb” thermostats with new, programmable thermostats.
• Installing faucet aerators, which not only save water, but also save energy when using hot water.

AH!  Types of demand-side management. 

A large resource yet to make serious penetration.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

AH!  Types of demand-side management. 

A large resource yet to make serious penetration.

I think of old Las Vegas where all those lights were short lived tungsten filament energy hogs.   What an amazing difference technology can make on efficiency and longevity.

We don't need anymore energy; we just need to use it better.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

AH!  Types of demand-side management. 

A large resource yet to make serious penetration.

There is so much low-lying fruit in the area.  A lot of grid management could be improved with just software code.

At first EV adoption will strain the grid but then later will actually stabilize the grid as you now have a huge number of batteries attached to the grid that could be drawn from.

The internet of things.

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by TailingsPond

[specinho + 470]

On 2/24/2023 at 10:32 AM, Ecocharger said:

Good article, these enormous subsidies are not sustainable and when they are abandoned will cause a catastrophe for average households. The Greenies are responsible for this state of affairs.

" According to the IEA, global spending on fossil fuel subsidies surpassed $1 trillion last year as governments across the globe sought to mitigate the impact of soaring commodity prices.

- As such, spending on fossil fuel subsidies was more than double the total global investment in renewable energy sources, with the most marked increase coming from the power sector.

- Arguably the most price-impacted region amidst the Russia-Ukraine war, the European Union alone spent $349 billion to reduce consumer energy bills.

- Emerging markets and developing economies spent a total of $114 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, highlighting the fact that advanced economies have played an oversized role in these expenditures."

 

 

11 hours ago, turbguy said:

Since when does a subsidy take money directly out of a taxpayer's (or anyone else's) pocket?

FYI, here in my great state of Wyoming, my legislature just passed a law that requires utilities to install CCS on in-state plants.  Those generators are allowed to pass on associated costs (capital, O&M) to ratepayers, but only to in-state ratepayers.

In effect, my legislators actually took money out of my pocket by raising my electric rate!

The calculation related to subsidy is a magical part... For example, if subsidy is 50%, due to half government owned, and the cost is $1 to produce a litre, then, common logic would be:

- oil company $0.50

- gov $0.50.

- public will pay the oil company i.e. $0.50 x quantity / size of population. This number is probably closed to $0.03 or lower....

There is a large margin to trade with. Hence, increment in price should not affect  consumers that much. But it is a responsibility of  governments to make sure subsidies are paid because of the income, share of profit, tax or such that they will receive. Yet often, governments transfer the costs onto consumers.

Let it be our consensus that we should not let them get away by transferring the costs onto consumers..... '~'

P/s: a small country somewhere just announced its budget yesterday. According to an analysts, 85% of the trillion would be spent as " costs of administration". Not so much on new construction, projects, but merely handling paper, and relavant things by government officers costing that much.....

We must raise objection, not to pay anything as consumers that the government should pay, due to the way they are spending money of a country/public co-own fund entrusted to or administered by them.... '-'

[turbguy + 1,544]

7 hours ago, specinho said:

 

The calculation related to subsidy is a magical part...

 

What magic?

In the US, there is no direct transfer of funds between the government and a for-profit entity receiving the subsidy.  To stimulate the deployment of renewable energy technologies, including wind energy, the federal government provides incentives for private investment, including tax credits and financing mechanisms such as tax-exempt bonds, loan guarantee programs, and low-interest loans.  Zero money flows "strings free": from the government to an entity.

There is a reduction of government tax to that entity.

In effect, the entity is provided "tax relief".

Say that an entity would have to pay a percentage tax on profits.  With the subsidy, they get to retain more profit.

If they happen make zero profit, for whatever reason, they get zero tax relief.

Edited February 25, 2023 by turbguy

[bloodman33 + 22]

The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

 

Venus' thick atmosphere traps heat creating a runaway greenhouse effect – making it the hottest planet in our solar system with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. The greenhouse effect makes Venus roughly 700°F (390°C) hotter than it would be without a greenhouse effect.

 

Ecocharger says carbon dioxide does not cause planets to heat up.  All Astrophysicists and Climatologists and Meteorologists say otherwise.  He is obviously correct and everyone else is incorrect.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Okay I am done posting TRUTH on this industry bought echo chambor message board for now. Your great grandchildren will be living in hell on earth if something is not done fast about the oil industries emissions.  It might already be too late.   Not so much my problem.  I have a couple of nieces and nephews, but they will be rich since I am rich from the oil industry stocks LOL. The rich can always move to a more pleasant place to live and hire private security.   I am guessing most who post on this board are right wing not rich people where some are getting paid by the oil industry.  I still do occasionally post, since I am Nouveau riche and posted when I was not rich.  I am happy to make money from stock from the industry but I am not a shill.  I cannot be bought for low amounts of money.  That said everyone can be bought.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Hmmm.  For 2 million dollars i will sell out and post pro oil industry posts and argue that the industry is not destroying earth.  That is my price.  It is high, but I have to take into account state and federal taxes!

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

What magic?

In the US, there is no direct transfer of funds between the government and a for-profit entity receiving the subsidy.  To stimulate the deployment of renewable energy technologies, including wind energy, the federal government provides incentives for private investment, including tax credits and financing mechanisms such as tax-exempt bonds, loan guarantee programs, and low-interest loans.  Zero money flows "strings free": from the government to an entity.

There is a reduction of government tax to that entity.

In effect, the entity is provided "tax relief".

Say that an entity would have to pay a percentage tax on profits.  With the subsidy, they get to retain more profit.

If they happen make zero profit, for whatever reason, they get zero tax relief.

Any subsidy to industry distorts the economy and frustrates the normal allocation of productive resources. This results in an economy which does not respond to the needs of consumers but rather to the philosophical dictates of an irresponsible elite class. End result is a disastrous reduction in the standard of living for the average Joe non-Biden.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

The Venusian atmosphere is mainly made up of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

 

Venus' thick atmosphere traps heat creating a runaway greenhouse effect – making it the hottest planet in our solar system with surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead. The greenhouse effect makes Venus roughly 700°F (390°C) hotter than it would be without a greenhouse effect.

 

Ecocharger says carbon dioxide does not cause planets to heat up.  All Astrophysicists and Climatologists and Meteorologists say otherwise.  He is obviously correct and everyone else is incorrect.

There is absolutely zero information on the historical series of CO2 on Venus, you are referencing data which is almost forty years old and does not relate to historical series. Completely worthless. Planet temperature is impacted by many factors. "All astrophysicists and meteorologists" do not have any firm ideas about Venus. You have been extremely gullible, as usual.

How many gas stations are there on Venus?

https://venuscloudlife.com/are-venus-cloud-layers-too-dry-for-life/#:~:text=(2021) (4) find,to form liquid water oceans.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,544]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Any subsidy to industry distorts the economy and frustrates the normal allocation of productive resources. This results in an economy which does not respond to the needs of consumers but rather to the philosophical dictates of an irresponsible elite class. End result is a disastrous reduction in the standard of living for the average Joe non-Biden.

What you note has some truth.

What people say here is that the subsidy is "paid for buy the taxpayers".

It is not.

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

There is absolutely zero information on the historical series of CO2 on Venus, you are referencing data which is almost forty years old and does not relate to historical series. Completely worthless. Planet temperature is impacted by many factors.

Remember this whenever you use geological records of earths climate history in an attempt to negate anthropogenic climate change.

"Forty years old" data is nothing in geological time.