You didn't read the article.
You need to reconsider your use of the word "supports". You have a preconceived notion and you just look for anything that agrees with it. You're nothing special in that regard. Thousands of internet forums have several just like you who act as conduits for link repository posting. Good to know that's where you settled mentally.
As Demand For Electricity Falls, Utilities Look To Electric Cars To Save Them
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02...eanTechnica%29
Not at all. Plenty of good information out there.
Do you think that all "material" to support opposing viewpoints is always equally valid?
The material supporting flat earth is equally valid as sphere earth?
Is there NO way to figure out the truth?
By all means then, educate me as to what you meant by "support", then maybe you can answer my critical thinking question?
Skimmed it briefly. Sum up what government intervention supports this company. In your own words.
Tesla relies on subsidies. Even so they have been making headlines for failing to meet expectations on sales. Do you want to regurgitate all the articles in a less polished version? Because you CLEARLY know aboiut the subsidies and mandates, or if you don't theres a pile of articles about it.
I just wanted to be clear what you were talking about.
Here is a good analysis:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/18...ist-subsidies/
Not sure what EV subsidies have to do with coal and nuclear being unprofitable, though.
Seems like a whataboutism to me.
and WHAT ABOUT tax breaks, subsidies, etc the Feds have been, and are, giving BigOil for 100 years?
And what about Pruitt encouraging fuel consumption by killing auto pollution rules?
Yeah I read alot about Tesla since I think the world of Elon. That 200k limit has talked about being extended. The mandate is what's selling the cars.
You continue to disappoint me RG. My response was in regards to got picking the winners and losers.
So NOW you admit the big oil has been well taken care of for years?
I've never said anything other than that.
It's you rightwingnutjobs who adore BigOil, or even work for them, who deny BigCarbon gets any corporate welfare.
The subsidies merely push along the development curve to the point where it is more compe ive sooner.
Governments should be fostering new technologies and industries. "picking winners and losers" is an empty, vacuous deepity. All countries, everywhere foster industries and companies to some extent. The only REAL question is how much do we support innovation, and reward risk.
Given my research, I am happy with this. 100%. The subsidies should be scaled back over time, which is what they appear to be structured to do.
Moving on, what the do EVs have to do with wind and solar becoming more cheaper and more compe ive with coal and nuclear?
Connect the dots. You disappoint me in that regard.
then your expectations are too high.
I don't think the Repugs will extend the EV purchase rebate, since, eg, Tesla is CA company, and Trash/Repugs hate CA.
And for the Repugs is All Politics, All The Time, the more vindictive, the better.
Repugs don't GAF about the environment, and certainly no s given for EVs that reduce the fuel sales of their paymaster BigOil.
Already replied to that. The RG and Bou show is in full force here. The irony is that the loony left, such as yourself, can't see the forest for the trees. If someone isn't slobbing all over every Democrat they HAVE to be a repug, right wing nut job, etc.
Question directly to bou.
What is your occupation? How much do you pay for health insurance? What general area do you live?I'm questioning how much real world experience you have.
You two have just justified ethanol btw with your comments.
Command economy good now. MAGA!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...lants-jhv94ghlTrump administration officials are making plans to order grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear plants in an effort to extend their life, a move that could represent an unprecedented intervention into U.S. energy markets.
The Energy Department would exercise emergency authority under a pair of federal laws to direct the operators to purchase electricity or electric generation capacity from at-risk facilities, according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News. The agency also is making plans to establish a "Strategic Electric Generation Reserve" with the aim of promoting the national defense and maximizing domestic energy supplies.
“Federal action is necessary to stop the further premature retirements of fuel-secure generation capacity,” says a 41-page draft memo circulated before a National Security Council meeting on the subject Friday.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-01-2018 at 09:30 AM.
"order grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear plants"
yep, command economy, just like Communists
Freedom!
Free Markets!
Small Government!
Death to Government and Regulations and The Administrative State!
A spokesperson for the American Petroleum Ins ute said propping up coal and nuclear plants “that are struggling to be profitable under the guise of national security would be unprecedented and misguided.
"The federal government should not use the pretext of 'national security' to pick winners and losers in the energy markets and it must certainly not treat U.S. manufacturing jobs as inferior to the jobs at uneconomic power plants,” said John P. Hughes, CEO and President of the Electricity Consumers Resource Counsel, a national association of large industrial users of electricity.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Tru...d-Nuclear.htmlEven grid operators are dumfounded by the thesis that the grid needs the government’s assistance. “There is no need for any such drastic action,” PJM Interconnection, a grid operator that oversees electricity markets in the mid-Atlantic, said in a statement. “Any federal intervention in the market to order customers to buy electricity from specific power plants would be damaging to the markets and therefore costly to consumers.”
PJM ensures the reliability of electricity in 13 states plus DC, serving over 65 million people. “The PJM electrical grid is more reliable than ever, with 23 percent reserve margins and billions of dollars of new investment.” Despite the wave of coal plant retirements, there is little evidence of a threat to the grid.
Sure for a period of time. Either it is profitable over the long run or it isn't.
I am all for nurturing industries, and slowly weaning them after they have developed, or if they don't pan out.
that is the nature of investments. Not all work, but you gain from making them overall.
New report examines coal’s future outlook, and it isn’t pretty
New Bloomberg forecast sees 17-fold rise in solar by 2050, and an $8.4 trillion investment in renewables.
The era of fossil fuel dominance in power generation “is coming to an end,” concludes Bloomberg NEF in its new forecast:
“Cheap renewable energy and batteries fundamentally remake electricity systems around the world.”
“Coal is the biggest loser,” notes Bloomberg in the new forecast
https://thinkprogress.org/coal-is-th...-eef1ae527108/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-21-2018 at 06:22 PM.
Trump plan to bail out coal industry punishes red states the most
Trump plans to enrich his rich crony friends at the expense of American consumers.
President Trump has ordered Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to take “immediate steps” to bailout unprofitable coal and nuclear plants.
Those hardest hit by Trump’s order will be the states where the most money-losing power plants reside. And, ironically, the most uneconomic coal plants are in the Southeastern states, which overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a detailed analysis of the most unprofitable plants, which “paints a particularly bleak picture for coal plants in the regulated Southeast”. As the chart below demonstrates, the biggest money losers are represented by the large, dark red dots.
Invoking the laws, however, requires some sort of national security emergency — so any such ruling is expected to be challenged in court. After all, there is no security threat posed by replacing expensive dirty energy plants with cheaper cleaner ones.
the bailout of coal and nuclear plants is needed for national security purposes: “Impending retirements of fuel-secure power facilities are leading to a rapid depletion of a critical part of our nation’s energy mix, and impacting the resilience of our power grid.”
there is no evidence whatsoever that the retirement of money-losing coal and nuclear plants makes the electric grid less reliable and resilient.
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — which oversees the U.S. grid — unanimously rejected a very similar plan by Perry to raise consumer energy bills in order to bail out coal and nuclear power plants.
The unanimous vote was especially notable since 3 of the 5 commissioners are Trump appointees, including the new chair.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-to-b...-25ba2b473c53/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-02-2018 at 03:34 PM.
Bouton's does a good job of representing the Democrats message to coal country "you're going to lose your jobs and be poor haha screw you, oh but you have to keep voting for us because we can't win without you"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
