Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
Subsidies.......................they pattern our world.
If not for the US Navy keeping shipping lanes free, little oil and or goods would make it to our shores, what do we add to the costs of such goods to establish a "true cost"?
Nuclear isn't viable as a private only venture, it gets subsides from the government, more so than even oil with it's crazy tax break schemes for dry wells and what not.
Green energy subsidies are rather transparent by comparison, we know why GE pays no taxes, they are green energy leaders.
My point: all of these energy schemes are subsidized and politicized at one level or another.
Want to kill one off, pull the plug - it's really that simple.
Most energy subsidies go not to renewables but to producing more of the dirty stuff.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-oil-subsidies
Pull the plug and see which one wins.
I dare you. |
Energy subsidy is a topic I'd like to be more educated on. It seems it's way too easy to misrepresent the facts. For instance, someone might say that something is subsidized when the operating costs for producing that thing are written off as an expense. That wouldn't be a subsidy then, as all business operating expenses are tax exempt.
A functioning navy is not something that is appropriate to consider a subsidy to business. Law enforcement isn't a subsidy to business either. It's a cost borne by citizens that wish to participate in various activities including business in a orderly way, where everyone is encouraged to play by the same rules (or discouraged to play by different rules).
Nuclear became orders of magnitude more expensive, mostly due to red tape that provided no benefit to the people or the environment. Technology shouldn't become more expensive over time, and yet it has due to regulatory BS.
Reasonable regulation is necessary, but absurd regulation is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Batteries are pricey and I'd rather my EV battery not be used and it's life shortened by the power grid. All my friends and family with EVs all feel the same way.
|
Sure, nobody wants to volunteer their battery for extra wear with no return, but people respond to incentives. If you were paid $0.15 / kWh of electricity from your EV, and the EV was never discharged more than say 50%, and only during a window of time which you specify, then perhaps you'd change your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
the regulations are so strict because the consequences of mishandling are so severe.
The term "playing with fire" comes to mind.
If you play'n with the fire and the spark goes in my eye and blinds me, you better have the cash to buy me a new eyeball. I'd rather keep the eyes I have if I have a say in it.
|
The regulations are so strict because humans are horrible at rationally approaching risk. Nuclear plants based on '50s technology have proven to be the lowest risk to health compared with any other major source of electricity generation, yet has the greatest opposition.
The only fatalities directly as a result of nuclear accident were a few suffered by crazy Russians. No other nuclear accidents have resulted in deaths. 3 notable accidents out of 450 nuclear power plants based on 50's technology is not too shabby. Just think how safe and efficient nuclear could be if we pursued it?
I'm telling you, 50 years from now we'll mostly be running nuclear, and that generation will wonder why we wasted so much time with other distractions.