"Drill, baby, drill"

[billvon 3,116]

>Not really. The development of alternative energy sources is currently being driven
>by ideology not by economics, thus the need for subsidies.

Hmm. I guess that means oil is being driven by ideologies as well, since oil companies are heavily subsidized as well. (And on the whole I prefer the "leave the place no worse than you found it" ideology over the "fuck it, I'll be retired by then" ideology.)

Perhaps the best solution is to remove ALL subsidies, and just hold all vehicles/power plants to the same pollution standards. Then let the market decide.

[The111 1]

brenthutch

Not really. The development of alternative energy sources is currently being driven by ideology not by economics, thus the need for subsidies.

There is no need for subsidies. They are incentives, but I agree with billvon's idea of removing subsidies for all sides of the energy industry.

I'd like to nail down your position though. A few posts ago you believed oil was practically inexhaustible which implied no need to move to smarter energy sources. Now you seem to acknowledge that need, but only have a problem with the government incentivizing people for making that move. Is this accurate? Surprise me and give a straight answer.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 444]

I never said anything about "smarter" energy sources. When and if oil becomes economically unviable, we will transition to another sorce. This will happen long before we "run out of oil".

[The111 1]

brenthutch

I never said anything about "smarter" energy sources. When and if oil becomes economically unviable, we will transition to another sorce. This will happen long before we "run out of oil".

Now is long before. And why is "run out" in quotes? You seem to be acknowledging it is a real thing that will happen, while simultaneously treating it as a ridiculous hypothetical. Which is it?

And since you failed to give me a straight answer as predicted, here's a more straight question: if all government subsidies were dropped, would you have an issue with companies and consumers pursuing renewable energy? And a corollary: do you think subsidies should be dropped for oil companies too?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[quade 4]

The111

***I never said anything about "smarter" energy sources. When and if oil becomes economically unviable, we will transition to another sorce. This will happen long before we "run out of oil".

Now is long before. And why is "run out" in quotes? You seem to be acknowledging it is a real thing that will happen, while simultaneously treating it as a ridiculous hypothetical. Which is it?

And since you failed to give me a straight answer as predicted, here's a more straight question: if all government subsidies were dropped, would you have an issue with companies and consumers pursuing renewable energy? And a corollary: do you think subsidies should be dropped for oil companies too?

This would also have to include the artificial lowering of the price of a barrel of oil by OPEC in their attempts to kill the US frackers.

I believe they're currently taking a hit, JUST to drive the US back into dependency. They'll jack up the prices again once the US has discovered they can be played like violins.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Not really. The development of alternative energy sources is currently being driven
>by ideology not by economics, thus the need for subsidies.

Hmm. I guess that means oil is being driven by ideologies as well, since oil companies are heavily subsidized as well. (And on the whole I prefer the "leave the place no worse than you found it" ideology over the "fuck it, I'll be retired by then" ideology.)

Perhaps the best solution is to remove ALL subsidies, and just hold all vehicles/power plants to the same pollution standards. Then let the market decide.

WRONG!
http://dailysignal.com/2012/03/07/cbo-debunks-myth-that-tax-code-favors-oil-over-renewables/

[billvon 3,116]

>WRONG!

I wanted to remove all subsidies. You said "WRONG!" So you support subsidies? Or do you just support subsidies for oil?

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>WRONG!

I wanted to remove all subsidies. You said "WRONG!" So you support subsidies?

A subsidy is not the same as a deduction, take a class.

[The111 1]

brenthutch

***>WRONG!

I wanted to remove all subsidies. You said "WRONG!" So you support subsidies?

A subsidy is not the same as a deduction, take a class.

It boggles the mind that a person can have such strong opinions on a topic and simultaneously dodge simple questions on that same topic.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 444]

Do you understand the accounting principles of depreciation and depletion? These are a far cry from a billions in loan guarantees, grants and handouts bestowed upon the wind and solar crowd.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi brent,

Quote

A subsidy is not the same as a deduction

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rose_by_any_other_name_would_smell_as_sweet

And, back in the 80's, Pres. Reagon lowered taxes, but he increased all types of fees and reduced deductions to makeup the money.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 444]

Yeah I get it, if I pay less in taxes it is a handout and if someone has their benefits cut it is a tax increase. I think George Orwell had something to say about it.

[brenthutch 444]

The111

******>WRONG!

I wanted to remove all subsidies. You said "WRONG!" So you support subsidies?

A subsidy is not the same as a deduction, take a class.

It boggles the mind that a person can have such strong opinions on a topic and simultaneously dodge simple questions on that same topic.
Then one must have an easily boggled mind.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

quade

******I never said anything about "smarter" energy sources. When and if oil becomes economically unviable, we will transition to another sorce. This will happen long before we "run out of oil".

Now is long before. And why is "run out" in quotes? You seem to be acknowledging it is a real thing that will happen, while simultaneously treating it as a ridiculous hypothetical. Which is it?

And since you failed to give me a straight answer as predicted, here's a more straight question: if all government subsidies were dropped, would you have an issue with companies and consumers pursuing renewable energy? And a corollary: do you think subsidies should be dropped for oil companies too?

This would also have to include the artificial lowering of the price of a barrel of oil by OPEC in their attempts to kill the US frackers.

I believe they're currently taking a hit, JUST to drive the US back into dependency. They'll jack up the prices again once the US has discovered they can be played like violins.
What is artificial about the lowering of oil prices? The Saudis are playing bare knuckle capitalism and the the consumer benefits. "Invisible Hand" read about it.

[quade 4]

brenthutch

What is artificial about the lowering of oil prices? The Saudis are playing bare knuckle capitalism and the the consumer benefits. "Invisible Hand" read about it.

Conspiracy, collusion, price fixing is not capitalism. It's criminal. At least in the US.

Your business and my business can't get together and say we're going to drive a third business out of business.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>A subsidy is not the same as a deduction, take a class.

Simple question - do you support energy subsidies? Yes or no? Or do you need a class on that?

[jakee 1,595]

brenthutch

I never said anything about "smarter" energy sources. When and if oil becomes economically unviable, we will transition to another sorce. This will happen long before we "run out of oil".

You just said Earth's oil was 'practically inexhaustible'. If oil becomes completely economically unviable we will have, in practice, exhausted it.

Looks like everyone was right about your weasel wording. What a surprise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,595]

quade

Conspiracy, collusion, price fixing is not capitalism. It's criminal. At least in the US.

Your business and my business can't get together and say we're going to drive a third business out of business.

Yeah, but that's only because the US is a pinko socialist republic. Brenthutch is a real republican, and if he was in charge he'd get rid of all of those bleeding-heart-liberal restrictions and make capitalism great again. After all, the free market is infallible.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>A subsidy is not the same as a deduction, take a class.

Simple question - do you support energy subsidies? Yes or no? Or do you need a class on that?

No, let the free market work.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

I never said anything about "smarter" energy sources. When and if oil becomes economically unviable, we will transition to another sorce. This will happen long before we "run out of oil".

Your plan is to wait until oil is not economically viable and THEN transition to other energy sources. But you indicate that we should continue to just use oil right now and not develop alternatives until then because they can't survive yet on their own.

You seem to have not accounted for development time.

What happens during the time when the new tech is being developed and oil is priced at far too high to be usable? Or is this transition going to happen over night?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 444]

Just like we made the transition from whale oil to kerosene

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Just like we made the transition from whale oil to kerosene

That was not really an answer, but let's go with it.

Is the level of technology that relies on oil analogous to how whale oil was used? What was the impact of a gap between the time whale oil became too expensive and kerosene became cheap?

I feel like you are greatly underestimating the impact of energy usage as compared to the time of whale oil.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 444]

To be clear, the technology to replace oil already exists. We have biofuels, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, fuel cells, natural gas, electricity etc. they just can't compete with petroleum when oil is less than $100 a barrel. The moment they can, they will.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

To be clear, the technology to replace oil already exists. We have biofuels, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, natural gas, electricity etc. they just can't compete with petroleum when oil is less than $100 a barrel. The moment they can, they will.

That we have a lot of these alternatives has, in no small part, depended on the fact that subsidies exist. If the market were simply to fight it out, we would not have the progress we do. The goal is not, and should not be, to have alternates that fight with oil at 100 dollars a barrel. We should strive for a lower cost than that.

That being said, we are quite far from alternatives being viable on the level that oil is used, from a capacity and availability standpoint. If we wait until it is absolutely critical, there WILL be a gap where we have an energy crisis.

We need to start now so by the time the shit hits the fan, we can have the infrastructure in place and the costs down. You spend now to save later. It just makes economic sense. That is, if you think in the long term instead of purely on profits now.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 444]

There will be no "shit hits the fan" moment. Take a look at the shift from coal to natural gas.