Shifting Subsidies to Renewable Energy Instead of Propping Up Fossil Fuel Giants Would Prompt 'Clean Energy Revolution', Study Shows
The clear rational avenue to more sustainable energy alternatives is to fund them, NOT bailout decrepit, dangerous nuke plants!
Corrupt politicians tho make deals to save dangerous plants diverting more money from the public and sustainable projects to gift wealthy corporations.
The upstate NY nuke “bailout” of three plants by Andy Cuomo for $7.6 Billion a case in point - the plants owned by Exelon Corp of Chicago - why were they bailed-out at public expense? Cuomo’s claims of “preserving jobs and fighting climate change” is myopic BS (or corruption) that makes no sense, only delays sustainable energy alternatives!
With DINO “leadership” like Cuomo’s, who needs R’Cons to screw us and sabotage green energy!?
“Energy too cheap to meter…”
It’s not as though people aren’t trying. They just keep getting shot down. Like Carters solar panels being removed before they were out of the driveway.
The lack of alternative energy is really because of capitalism. Even when alt. energy devices were expensive in the 70’s, and most of us had never heard of climate change it would have made economic sense. After the equipment is paid for, the only thing left is maintenance, but of course the greedy capitalists wouldn’t have made as much money off of the people.
A problem Nikola Tesla discovered a century ago when he tried to bring the world free energy.
Ever since he launched his never ending campaign in 2015 the coal miner has proven to be a very successful poster child for the Trump campaign.
This has pleased the GOP to the extent that red states keep upping the fossil fuel subsidy ante that will halt renewable energy progress. Ohio’s HB6 is the most recent example.
I’m glad Jay Inslee, at least, keeps making the point that public lands and subsidies shouldn’t go to fossil fools. He’s not my choice (looks like too much of a public/private partnership kind of a guy for my confidence), but it’s very good that someone out there is saying this. Thank you, Jay!
Those who have faith in capitalism emphasize how cheap and quick a financial fix would be. The like of the Bank of England governor trusts in capitalism solving the problem.
The more skeptical us however discover that others determine that there need to be a deeper fundamental society change rather than changing investment portfolios.
The Institute for Public Policy Research says “A new model is needed to rapidly create societies that are more sustainable, just and prepared: bringing human activity to within environmentally sustainable limits while narrowing inequality, improving quality of life, and becoming better prepared for the accelerating consequences of environmental breakdown”
Laurie Laybourn-Langton, the lead author of the report, acknowledges that the current trend in global politics is in the opposite direction, towards a nationalist race to run-down what is left of the world’s resources…"Running down what we have leads to a horrendous, suicidal, self defeating spiral. A good life is where we benefit from a strong commons and not destroy those common resources.”
For sure they mention the need for sustainability legislation, but they do recognize that the capitalist business-as-usual is dooming us all.
They’d better hurry up:
Defo…life has nothing to do with profit what profit is there if our lives are irrevocably damaged.
The model is dysfunctional it comes from our cultural story’s about what we believe is true about life .
Change the story to change everything as beliefs create behaviours.
True change is always made at the level of being not doing .We cannot solve our problems at the doingness level this we have been trying for a long long time .
We must raise conciousness to change conciousness.
Link to Subsidies Report
Imho, we do not need to quit subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, rather; we need to nationalize it. Read on: Economic pressure will undoubtably be placed on local officials to drill, baby, drill, as always. Tax revenues and jobs, jobs, jobs will be the issues while “safer”, “cleaner” drilling will be the cover and distraction. In reality there can be no safe, clean fossil fuel extraction and resulting use when the climate change variable is factored into the equation. However, my question is can fossil fuels help dig us out of the hole and desperate situation we are now in; and, have known about at least since the Carter Presidency. Like a rafter approaching the cataclysmic drop at the top of the drop at Niagra falls, we could have easily pulled over a mile above it; but, the exhilaration of the ever faster current kept us mid-river until just yards upstream from certain disaster. Now we frantically row trying our best to make it over to shore. The question now is can we make it in time! And will our unwitting passengers and their young children survive their trusted raft guide’s recklessness.
Is there a solution to our dilemma? Very briefly, here is mine. We “nationalize” all fossil fuel resources and use all profits from their sale to fund renewable energy research and development and to subsidize their costs to low income people. In addition we put a special use tax on fossil fuel derived energy to be used as stated above and a tax break on renewable energy use. As all of us know, we cannot immediately stop using fossil fuels, but, we can stop allowing individuals and corporate entities from getting wealthy at the expense of all life on Earth. Not only can we, but, we must! This is a race for survival. While the recent passage of the Colorado bill and the so-called “Green New Deal” bring much needed attention to our desperate plight, they in no way will even slightly bring the necessary solutions that might have been helpful four decades ago; but, that time has long since been wasted on what I call lackluster political leadership at best and outright criminal negligence at worst. Our kids have taken the lead in the streets it is now time for the adults in the room to join them.
I suggest a third possibility: No subsidies either way.
Perhaps, when faced with the true* cost of energy, people will decide to not use energy at all many times. No gas-powered cars, no electric vehicles, people walk or bicycle instead. Etc.
(“true” is asterisked because 1) there is the issue of accounting for externalities. and 2) many here would rather straight prohibit fossil fuel use. and 2a) that includes burning firewood.)
Now a specific remark
That is the narrative people like you want to believe now-a-days. I heard that the truth took a bit longer. At some point during Reagan’s first term the solar panels (primitive heat-water kind of solar panels) needed repair, and Reagan decided to remove them instead of repair them.
And how are we going to replace 81,654 GWh of nuclear in less than 3 years without increasing CO2 emissions drastically?
|Ohio||MW||Hours of Direct Operation||Days/Yr||MWh||GWh||Nuclear GWh||% of Nuclear||Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement||Likely Ntrl Gas GWh||CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr)||CO2 Emissions @ 10yr|
|Wind||400.00||9.00||365.00||1,314,000.00||Ems til full REW|
|New York||MW||Hours of Direct Operation||Days/Yr||MWh||GWh||Nuclear GWh||% of Nuclear||Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement||Likely Ntrl Gas GWh||CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr)||CO2 Emissions @ 10yr|
|EE||300,000.00||5.2 billion||Ems til full REW|
|New Jersey||MW||Hours of Direct Operation||Days/Yr||MWh||GWh||Nuclear GWh||% of Nuclear||Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement||Likely Ntrl Gas GWh||CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr)||CO2 Emissions @ 10yr|
|Wind||250.00||7.00||365.00||638,750.00||Ems til full REW|
|Michigan||MW||Hours of Direct Operation||Days/Yr||MWh||GWh||Nuclear GWh||% of Nuclear||Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement||Likely Ntrl Gas GWh||CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr)||CO2 Emissions @ 10yr|
|Wind||500.00||10.00||365.00||1,825,000.00||Ems til full REW|
|Iowa||MW||Hours of Direct Operation||Days/Yr||MWh||GWh||Nuclear GWh||% of Nuclear||Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement||Likely Ntrl Gas GWh||CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr)||CO2 Emissions @ 10yr|
|Wind||360.00||7.00||365.00||919,800.00||Ems til full REW|
|Massachusetts||MW||Hours of Direct Operation||Days/Yr||MWh||GWh||Nuclear GWh||% of Nuclear||Likely Ntrl Gas Replacement||Likely Ntrl Gas GWh||CO2 Emissions (MT/Yr)||CO2 Emissions @ 10yr|
|Wind||600.00||7.00||365.00||1,533,000.00||Ems til full REW|
Even with an additional 7,700 MW of projected renewable generation in these six states we are on track to increase CO2 emissions by 370.49 million metric tons if we chose to decommission 10 nuclear plants. That’s over two times as many emissions that the Clean Air Act prevented over 30 years…
But everyone is complaining about the bailouts, so why don’t we look at it from an economic perspective.
Cost of Carbon Emissions:
2017 Energy Reserve Cost ($2.27/MT): $852,366,579,88
2016 SEE Cost Analysis ($16/MT): $6,007,870,166,57
2017 LCOE Cost Assessment ($22/MT): $8,260,821,479.03
2016 US EPA Study ($37/MT): $13,893,199,760.18
CCS Current Mean Cost ($110/MT): $41,304,107,395.14
2015 Stanford Cost of CO2 in Climate Change Study ($220/MT): $82,608,214,790.29
2016 EWG Cost of Climate Change Study ($320/MT): $120,157,403,331.33
Now the above information is a cost comparison between 7 sources on CO2/MT multipled by each corresponding state’s projected net emissions til full renewable replacement of decommissioned nuclear. NOTE- This cost analysis does NOT include the cost of capital expenses from renewables, natural gas, energy efficiency, additional transmission, storage or load distribution management.
If we focus just on capital of natural gas and renewable units I conservatively estimeate that full renewable replacement would be approximately $12 billion and natural gas til replacement with renewables would be approximately $25 billion with a net additional cost of $37 billion added to each of the corresponding studies.
This means that youre looking at a range of $37.85 billion ($2.27/MT) to $157.16 billion ($320/MT).
So my question is: Are the costs of maintenance, repairs and bailouts greater or less than this range of potential cost?
If Ya can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bullshit!
Instead of banning known deadly carcinogens, defend them or change the subject.
Instead of investing in new sustainable non-deadly energy sources, evade the problems and enormous costs, dealing with the deadly “waste” products and clean-ups, the water, air, soil food pollution and contamination of unchecked, unregulated, chemical terrorists driving cancer and other disease and condition epidemics.
Instead of choosing life-sustaining technologies and non-poisonous methods, support and defend the polluters, chemical poison conglomerate & Monsatan, coal ash dumps, nuclear terror “industry” and confuse the subject with mind-numbing lists of diversionary cherry-picked rubbish - with false-narratives & propaganda intended to maintain the status quo of deadly-industry exploitation and pollution un-affordable to a sustainable healthy society of wisdom, scientific turth,
and concern/care for the natural world. GFYS
“baffle them with BS”
If you call annual generation amounts from the EIA, LCA CO2 estimates from the NREL, and state analysis plans for renewable development through 2030 to be BS then perhaps you need a refresher in what credible sources are.
I see multiple sources where you continuously post the same articles over and over again as if you have some concrete proof that this your sources are the bible on this information. Perhaps Im doing the same except unlike you I actually have mathematics and multiple scientific studies on my side.
You don’t like nuclear - fine, Im not going to try to convert you. However, Im going to continue posting credible data until you provide an ounce of evidence that my math is wrong and you have some plan to prove my conclusion inaccurate.
(Side Note, the data you keep seeing on my posts are from an excel spreadsheet where Im literally inputting data from multiple studies and reports. If you have more credible data then by all means enlighten me and Ill add it to my spreadsheet and find out if my conclusions are wrong. Im honestly on your side, because I hope to god my conclusion is inaccurate. Inaccuracy means that our country will survive and not dramatically increase CO2 emissions).
Your source continues to state that natural gas is not needed according to the NYISO report, yet when I actually read the real NYISO report it literally states that without Cricket Valley, CPV, and Bayonne Energy Center Extension that the New York Grid would face significant loses of capacity by 2021 when Indian Point faces decommission. The report also states that the losses of capacity could be much greater if additional deactivations occur, which according to the New York State Government and Utility owners of additional nuclear plants is expected given the projected closures of Three Mile Island Unit 3, Nine Mile Point, and James A Fitzpatrick. My sources are from primary documents, whereas yours are from Riverkeeper - a biased anti-nuclear firm whose conclusions directly contradict with the primary documents written by NYISO.
Im giving you hard data and you call that BS? What real evidence do you have to prove that my conclusions are inaccurate, because regardless if you hate nuclear or not we are on track to kill any CO2 targets this country has made in the last 20 years and make this climate transition scientifically improbable - that’s not BS, that’s just science and mathematics.