Posted by z on April 8, 2011, 2:45 am
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:23:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5%
>>>>>>>>> is a reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is
>>>>>>>>> will it still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th
>>>>>>> of the price?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
>>>>>
>>>>> So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will
>>>>> explode given a bit of a nudge IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and doing
>>>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
>>>>>> electricity prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to
>>>>>> be considered when deciding to install them; like wind turbines,
>>>>>> without generous Feed in tariffs working alongside the Renewables
>>>>>> Obligation they would never pay their way. Currently these
>>>>>> measures are adding around 15% to all fuel bills
>>>>>> and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>>>>>> increase.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why
>>>>> everyone else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has
>>>>>> said it will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million
>>>>>> of savings (around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is
>>>>>> anyone's guess. Reducing the
>>>>>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be
>>>>>> completed by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged
>>>>>> until April 2012" but add
>>>>>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>>>> amount to around £5 billion in 2020
>>>>>
>>>>> Good, could be more though!
>>>>
>>>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
>>>> from one group by force and giving to another.
>>>>
>>>> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it
>>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>> One of the unappreciated and perhaps unintended consequences of
>>> subsidies is the destabilizing positive feedback it causes. Those
>>> who get subsidies constitute a special interest group, who then
>>> reinvest some of the subsidies in buying politicians who will
>>> increase the subsidies in exchange for campaign donations. Look
>>> what's happened to corn ethanol.
>>
>> That is true, there are often unintended consequences.
>>
>>
>>> If it needs subsidies, why do it? Private investors are savvy
>>> enough to make a buck or two on new businesses, since when are
>>> bureaucrats better investors than the private sector?
>>>
>> To do with speeding up that process.
>
> Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
> experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
> private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In turn,
> that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
> seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.
That's exactly what is going on with oil. The USA hides the true cost of
oil through corporate welfare and all number of polices designed to keep
gas and oil cheap for US consumers.
If we paid the true price of oil at the pump things would change right
quick.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 8, 2011, 3:09 am
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:45:21 -0500, z wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:23:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is
>>>>>>>>>> a reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will
>>>>>>>>>> it still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of
>>>>>>>> the price?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will
>>>>>> explode given a bit of a nudge IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and doing
>>>>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
>>>>>>> electricity prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be
>>>>>>> considered when deciding to install them; like wind turbines,
>>>>>>> without generous Feed in tariffs working alongside the Renewables
>>>>>>> Obligation they would never pay their way. Currently these
>>>>>>> measures are adding around 15% to all fuel bills and that's
>>>>>>> expected to rise significantly as penetration levels increase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why
>>>>>> everyone else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has
>>>>>>> said it will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of
>>>>>>> savings (around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is
>>>>>>> anyone's guess. Reducing the
>>>>>>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be
>>>>>>> completed by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged
>>>>>>> until April 2012" but add
>>>>>>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>>>>> amount to around £5 billion in 2020
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good, could be more though!
>>>>>
>>>>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
>>>>> from one group by force and giving to another.
>>>>>
>>>>> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it
>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> One of the unappreciated and perhaps unintended consequences of
>>>> subsidies is the destabilizing positive feedback it causes. Those
>>>> who get subsidies constitute a special interest group, who then
>>>> reinvest some of the subsidies in buying politicians who will
>>>> increase the subsidies in exchange for campaign donations. Look
>>>> what's happened to corn ethanol.
>>>
>>> That is true, there are often unintended consequences.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it needs subsidies, why do it? Private investors are savvy enough
>>>> to make a buck or two on new businesses, since when are bureaucrats
>>>> better investors than the private sector?
>>>>
>>> To do with speeding up that process.
>>
>> Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
>> experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
>> private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In turn,
>> that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
>> seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.
>
> That's exactly what is going on with oil. The USA hides the true cost
> of oil through corporate welfare and all number of polices designed to
> keep gas and oil cheap for US consumers.
>
> If we paid the true price of oil at the pump things would change right
> quick.
Exactly what is the "true price of oil", and how is it determined? Who
makes it up?
Posted by z on April 8, 2011, 3:41 am
>>>
>>> Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
>>> experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
>>> private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In
turn,
>>> that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
>>> seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.
>>
>> That's exactly what is going on with oil. The USA hides the true cost
>> of oil through corporate welfare and all number of polices designed to
>> keep gas and oil cheap for US consumers.
>>
>> If we paid the true price of oil at the pump things would change right
>> quick.
>
> Exactly what is the "true price of oil", and how is it determined? Who
> makes it up?
>
I don't know the true cost. But you have all the tax breaks to the likes
of Exxon Mobile (paid zero federal income tax in 2009 despite billions of
profit), BP etc as a cost. Then you have stuff like massive oil spills
(people are still paying for the Valdez spill that has been in litigation
for what.. 20 years?
see
http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/portfolio/2009/03/23/Exxon-Valdez-
Lawsuit-History
I guess some checks finally went out but give me a break. 20+ years
late.
)
Then factor in our continued involvement in the Middle East -- various
military actions, sending billions to oil friendly governments, proping
up dicators who then eventually turn on us and so on. It all costs a
HELL OF A LOT to keep the gas prices under $.
I'm sure you can come up with more examples of tax payer dollars going to
support cheap (ish), stable supply of oil for the USA. If every dime of
that effort was paid in the form of a tax at the pump people would shit
bricks.
As it is we're just borrowing that money from the Chinese so it's no
biggie I guess
-z
Posted by Bill Ward on April 8, 2011, 7:50 am
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:41:45 -0500, z wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
>>>> experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
>>>> private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In
> turn,
>>>> that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
>>>> seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what is going on with oil. The USA hides the true cost
>>> of oil through corporate welfare and all number of polices designed to
>>> keep gas and oil cheap for US consumers.
>>>
>>> If we paid the true price of oil at the pump things would change right
>>> quick.
>>
>> Exactly what is the "true price of oil", and how is it determined? Who
>> makes it up?
>>
>>
> I don't know the true cost.
Then why did you make your claim? Are you subtracting all the royalties
and taxes already paid on oil both by oil companies and drivers from your
"subsidies"? If you have no actual numbers, you have no claim.
> But you have all the tax breaks to the
> likes of Exxon Mobile (paid zero federal income tax in 2009 despite
> billions of profit), BP etc as a cost. Then you have stuff like massive
> oil spills (people are still paying for the Valdez spill that has been
> in litigation for what.. 20 years?
> see
> http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/portfolio/2009/03/23/Exxon-
Valdez-
> Lawsuit-History
>
> I guess some checks finally went out but give me a break. 20+ years
> late.
> )
>
> Then factor in our continued involvement in the Middle East -- various
> military actions, sending billions to oil friendly governments, proping
> up dicators who then eventually turn on us and so on. It all costs a
> HELL OF A LOT to keep the gas prices under $.
>
>
> I'm sure you can come up with more examples of tax payer dollars going
> to support cheap (ish), stable supply of oil for the USA. If every dime
> of that effort was paid in the form of a tax at the pump people would
> shit bricks.
>
> As it is we're just borrowing that money from the Chinese so it's no
> biggie I guess
>
> -z
Posted by Dawlish on April 8, 2011, 8:12 am
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:41:45 -0500, z wrote:
> >>>> Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
> >>>> experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
> >>>> private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In
> > turn,
> >>>> that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
> >>>> seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.
> >>> That's exactly what is going on with oil. The USA hides the true cost
> >>> of oil through corporate welfare and all number of polices designed to
> >>> keep gas and oil cheap for US consumers.
> >>> If we paid the true price of oil at the pump things would change right
> >>> quick.
> >> Exactly what is the "true price of oil", and how is it determined? Who
> >> makes it up?
> > I don't know the true cost.
> Then why did you make your claim? Are you subtracting all the royalties
> and taxes already paid on oil both by oil companies and drivers from your
> "subsidies"? If you have no actual numbers, you have no claim.
> > But you have all the tax breaks to the
> > likes of Exxon Mobile (paid zero federal income tax in 2009 despite
> > billions of profit), BP etc as a cost. Then you have stuff like massive
> > oil spills (people are still paying for the Valdez spill that has been
> > in litigation for what.. 20 years?
> > see
> >http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/portfolio/2009/03/23/Exxon-
> Valdez-
> > Lawsuit-History
> > I guess some checks finally went out but give me a break. 20+ years
> > late.
> > )
> > Then factor in our continued involvement in the Middle East -- various
> > military actions, sending billions to oil friendly governments, proping
> > up dicators who then eventually turn on us and so on. It all costs a
> > HELL OF A LOT to keep the gas prices under $.
> > I'm sure you can come up with more examples of tax payer dollars going
> > to support cheap (ish), stable supply of oil for the USA. If every dime
> > of that effort was paid in the form of a tax at the pump people would
> > shit bricks.
> > As it is we're just borrowing that money from the Chinese so it's no
> > biggie I guess
> > -z- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
On a personal level, what do you try to do to preserve resources
bilbo? Or do you feel that we don't need to preserve any resouces and
we'll be fine, really? You are quick to criticise and we know that
your major denier-driver is looking after the contents of your own
wallet, but surely, this is win-win.
If you reduce your own dependency on the earth's resources, surely you
will save money in the long-run, as well as helping everyone else, in
your own, small, way.
XML site map
>
>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:23:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>> Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5%
>>>>>>>>> is a reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is
>>>>>>>>> will it still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th
>>>>>>> of the price?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
>>>>>
>>>>> So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will
>>>>> explode given a bit of a nudge IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and doing
>>>>>> so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher
>>>>>> electricity prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to
>>>>>> be considered when deciding to install them; like wind turbines,
>>>>>> without generous Feed in tariffs working alongside the Renewables
>>>>>> Obligation they would never pay their way. Currently these
>>>>>> measures are adding around 15% to all fuel bills
>>>>>> and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
>>>>>> increase.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why
>>>>> everyone else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> These are tough times for many people though. The government has
>>>>>> said it will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million
>>>>>> of savings (around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is
>>>>>> anyone's guess. Reducing the
>>>>>> guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be
>>>>>> completed by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged
>>>>>> until April 2012" but add
>>>>>> ... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
>>>>>> amount to around £5 billion in 2020
>>>>>
>>>>> Good, could be more though!
>>>>
>>>> (Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
>>>> from one group by force and giving to another.
>>>>
>>>> There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it
>>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>> One of the unappreciated and perhaps unintended consequences of
>>> subsidies is the destabilizing positive feedback it causes. Those
>>> who get subsidies constitute a special interest group, who then
>>> reinvest some of the subsidies in buying politicians who will
>>> increase the subsidies in exchange for campaign donations. Look
>>> what's happened to corn ethanol.
>>
>> That is true, there are often unintended consequences.
>>
>>
>>> If it needs subsidies, why do it? Private investors are savvy
>>> enough to make a buck or two on new businesses, since when are
>>> bureaucrats better investors than the private sector?
>>>
>> To do with speeding up that process.
>
> Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
> experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
> private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In turn,
> that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
> seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.