When will it be ALL GONE?

[suspectnumber961]

I get some emails and see pages on various subjects...if something relates to post here...I might post a link and some info. I do "highlight" what I think are the most important points...but the link goes to the original....so anyone can check the source and it's links.

BBcode? If I knew for sure what it was.....

Originally Posted by freebeard

suspectnumber961 -- You put a lot of care into these posts. Are you mirroring writing you also post elsewhere? Is the Ecomodder forum a bigger soapbox than I realize?

Most importantly, do you do the BBcode manually or do you have scripts that do it or what?

[freebeard]

I do "highlight" what I think are the most important points...BBcode? If I knew for sure what it was.....

The vBulletin® software this site uses (see the bottom of any page) employs "Bulletin Board Code":

BBCode tags reference

I was being unobservant. I have been using the Link, Picture and Quote buttons, but hadn't noticed the ones for Bold Italic and Color.

And I see that Advanced mode has even more—alignment, lists and Fonts. Now I'm wondering what Undo and Redo do. I did an experiment in the Preview window and tables are incompletely supported; Table, Table Row and Content Cell are supported but Header Cell is not.

Another example of a lightweight markup language is John Gruber's Markdown.

[suspectnumber961]

Alternative energy...who wants it?


Will Congress Take the Wind out of Our Sails? | Catalyst Fall 2012 | Union of Concerned Scientists

Misplaced Priorities

In early August, the Senate Finance Committee voted 19-5 to extend the PTC for one year; the extension had bipartisan support in the committee and is supported by Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA). A similar bill in the House has 80 co-sponsors, including 18 Republicans. The extension even has the support of organizations that have opposed federal action on climate change, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So what’s holding it up? Despite the fact that the wind industry has contributed at least $60 billion to the national economy since 2005, House leaders say they are concerned about the cost of $3 billion to $4 billion a year in tax credits. The most vocal opponents of the PTC, including several groups funded by the oil industry’s billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, argue that the government is playing favorites by granting the wind industry the tax credit. In early September, Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and other groups sent a letter to Congress opposing the extension, arguing that it “continues the deplorable practice of using the tax code to favor certain groups over others.”

Neither the House leadership nor the Koch-affiliated groups, however, question the fact that fossil fuels and nuclear power have been feasting on federal subsidies for decades while renewables have been living on scraps.

For example:

The oil and gas industry has received an average of $4.86 billion in subsidies (in today’s dollars) every year for nearly 100 years—from 1918 to 2009

The nuclear industry—which would not be economically viable without government support—received an average of $3.5 billion every year from 1947 to 1999, and continues to benefit from similar amounts of support today

Coal received between $3.2 billion and $5.4 billion in 2008 alone, while renewables averaged only $370 million a year between 1994 and 2009

Time to Level the Playing Field

The question is not whether energy production should be subsidized. The federal government clearly has a role to play in helping promising technologies compete in the marketplace. The question is whether the government should continue to underwrite extremely profitable, mature industries—especially highly polluting ones—at the expense of cleaner, more efficient, low-carbon alternatives. The obvious answer is no.

Excluding hydropower, renewable energy currently accounts for only about 5 percent of U.S. electricity, but UCS research shows it has the potential to generate more than 40 percent by 2030, with as much as half coming from wind. That would replace the share currently generated by coal, which is responsible for more than 80 percent of the U.S. electricity sector’s carbon emissions.

Extending the PTC now, and enacting a national renewable electricity standard in the near future, would go a long way toward protecting us from the worst consequences of global warming and bolster the economy at the same time.

Continuing with business as usual, on the other hand, would waste taxpayer dollars while threatening our health and environment for generations to come.

......

[niky]

Oh, come on.



Saying Nuclear would not be viable without subsidy ignores the viability of wind and solar without subsidy. This is not to say we shouldn't be pursuing renewable, but subsidy money goes to whatever power source can supply the most electricity.

[Christ]

Inherent problem: Subsidy money shouldnt' be going anywhere. There shouldn't BE any subsidy money.

That money comes from Tax dollars.

Tax dollars come from consumers.

"But prices go up without subsidy!!!"

And consumers have their tax dollars to pay for the increased prices. Meanwhile, we have less Government/Corporate hand-holding and huggy stuff going on, and we're back closer to the liberty to which we, as Americans, (those of us who are) are entitled.

Whereas we will be then able to purchase the goods and supplies WE want, not what the third party feels should be financed.

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by Christ

Meanwhile, we have less Government/Corporate hand-holding and huggy stuff going on, and we're back closer to the liberty to which we, as Americans, (those of us who are) are entitled.

Whereas we will be then able to purchase the goods and supplies WE want, not what the third party feels should be financed.

If people got what they wanted they'd all be driving 2 story tall SUVs with 1000 HP engines and hot tubs on the back?

We did get SUVs (profits) and oil wars (profits) because certain parties like to pander to the lowest common denominator...big engines and sitting tall...and let's go get that oil from those evil people?

So you have to have mileage standards in a real world of people with little real sense? You need to regulate Wall Street? You have to protect the commons and use SOME common sense?

The corporate right likes to push the FREEDOM word...but what they are really talking about is THEIR freedom to exploit for profit. And they know if they use the right words and push the right buttons (so to speak) they can get their base to support it.

Wars.

It's all about big profits and jobs thrown at some....meanwhile the environment is trashed...and ALL of us pay big down the line.

[user removed]

If you want to borrow my money, then I need to see a rational plan to preserve my money and a potentially good return on my investment, which includes the risk of loosing the money I loaned to a company.

Maybe you can find some place on the planet, suspect, where people magically hand you money that you can waste and pay them back a fraction of their original loan to you.

That's the other side of profit, and when you think govt is better than greedy capitalists try explaining that to those retirement funds that had bonds issued from GM, with a clear legal definition of what those bond holders were entitled to recieve in the event of bankruptcy and liquidation of assets. In the last post you just about managed to eliminate all of the intelligent and carefully presented information in the rest of this thread.

regards
Mech

[user removed]

Never wanted to own a SUV. Never cared for driving automotive sludge. I actually enjoy driving a light sporty car, but the mass of automotive sludge that seems to dominate the roads lately makes driving enjoyment difficult to find.

regards
Mech

[niky]

Basically what Old Mech says. You are not paying taxes for nothing. You're paying them to subsxribe to government services. And the government has the responsibility to spend that money in a way that maximizes services rendered per dollar collected*.

And both in terms of volume and return-on-the-dollar, oil, coal and hydroelectric far outdo everything else. Even considering that two of three are non-renewable and the other destroys a lot of natural habitat and has limited applicability in many places.

I like how some wind proponents like to pretend that the electricity is free after installation. It is not. Wind turbines need lots of maintenance, and the amount of electricity generated per installayion is very limited. Hydro has bigger upfront costs and is also maintenance intensive, but is much more effective.

*not to say that dollars are always spent wisely... But the way people talk about subsidies, it's as if there is no benefit gained from it. The US has the lowest gasoline prices anywhere, and your electricity is pretty reaaonable, too.

[suspectnumber961]

Unearthing the True Cost of Fossil Fuels : TreeHugger

Mining, transporting, and burning oil, gas, and coal also inflicts major damage to the environment and public health—and we pick up the tab. A 2009 report from the National Research Council showed that fossil fuels impose $120 billion of annual costs on the public every year. Air pollution takes a massive toll on public health—it causes respiratory problems, widespread illness and death, and leads to a huge number of missed work days. The prognosis from a Harvard study, the first to analyze the full life-cycle impact of coal, is even bleaker.

That report’s lead author, the late Dr. Paul Epstein, told me in an interview that “Between the land disturbance, the mountaintop removal, the processing ... and the combustion, we estimate that this is costing the American public somewhere between a third to half a trillion dollars in health costs and deaths.”

Yes, that’s ‘trillion’ with a ‘T’. Every year.

In fact, coal is so economically disastrous that the mainstream journal American Economics Review found that the electricity generated from coal actually does more damage to the economy than the electricity is worth. Grist’s David Roberts notes that “Coal-fired power is a net value-subtracting industry. A parasite, you might say. A gigantic, blood-sucking parasite that’s enriching a few executives and shareholders at the public’s expense.”

...

According to Ratigan’s calculations, the price of gasoline is around $10 too cheap per gallon when all unaccounted-for costs are included. Other projections put the figure even larger.

And there are a wide range of estimates of the “true” cost of coal: Depending on how you factor in the costs of climate change, it could be between a few additional cents per kWh to a whopping ¢26.89 extra per kilowatt hour—the high-end estimate from the Harvard study. By way of comparison, the average American paid ¢11.54 per kWh on their residential electric bills last year. In other words, if prices accurately reflected all of the actual costs of burning coal, coal-fired power plants would be dead in the water.

...

Using the example of oil, Ratigan writes that such distortion results in a situation where “the free market can’t help [us] decide if it’s worth switching from gas to another fuel, because the market isn’t free, it’s rigged.” Similarly, investors, homeowners, and utilities can’t decide whether it will pay off to invest in clean energy and efficiency when the price of burning coal, which still supplies nearly half the nation with electricity, is so cheap.