DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Dems

It's just bizarre how people can fake outrage over the same things they're willing to embrace and shrug off whenever they see fit.

No, it's called hypocrisy. And it's absolute garbage. But he'll defend it over and over and over, because "I can haz winz"

Aw, I've insulted your sensibilities. Maybe you two should grab your pride flag to wipe your liberal tears. As I stated, English is not your strong suit.

Awww, you've used a marginalized group of people as an insult. You are disgusting

You only pretend to care.

No, I actually do care that people think they can use "gay" as an insult. You on the other hand don't seem tocare you are homophobic because "i Pwnz U!". Garbage is as garbage does.

How other than wind turbines do you think wind energy is produced on any large scale? And arch, you don't need to be a genius to have a basic grasp on things. You don't have to try and say stupid things like that just because you base what you think facts are only on what's going on in your back yard. That's a you problem.


Here's the DUH of it all. Yes coal plants are shuttering as wind energy is increasing. An intersection of old, dirty energy being replaced by new clean energy.


See, this is what happens when you don't pay attention and make claims I never stated. Nowhere did I state any state depended 100% on wind energy. However, over 62% of Iowa's is. It provides over 40% of Oklahoma's energy. Texas as well is while somewhat less, still heavily dependent on wind energy. It's an energy source that is on the rise.


I ask you to just think about this for a minute when you ask "at what cost?"

A natural gas power plant has to pay for natural gas. Nobody has to pay for wind. A natural gas power plant needs continued maintenance and so does a wind farm. Prices have continued to come down on wind power and is cheaper than coal power and comparable to natural gas. When your energy source is free that makes a huge difference.


Which of course is something I never did to begin with. But I will give you credit, you do have a vivid imagination. To claim I did so is well, dumb.

Wind will never be the soul energy source. Neither will solar. Both of which you've railed against on here as not a viable alternative.

But both are rising in production and the percentage of America's energy. Even major oil companies are some of the top investors in both wind and solar. Shell and Chevron being the leaders among oil companies investing in renewables.

https://climateinsider.com/2024/11/13/renewable-energy-investors/

What I'm saying is companies such as Shell and chevron aren't in business to lose money. Investment in wind energy and production of wind energy is still very much on the rise. As time goes on it will become a larger portion of our energy supply.

Some people go kicking and screaming into the future. Others see the trends, the direction things are headed and don't act like those "Get off my lawn!" guys.

Wind is not entirely "clean". The carbon footprint for startup is bigger than any other form of energy not named nuclear. "The wind blows free" starts with a 350ft tower and 50 trucks of concrete per windmill.

And now that inflation has driven start-up costs much higher, guess who the energy companies are turning to for more help?? That's right, taxpayers.

We've been paying large energy companies to compete with themselves for decades. Their response is always "We're getting closer, boss!"... I wonder why? American taxpayers provide about $17 billion annually in direct federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Wind and solar tax credits alone will cost taxpayers 1/4 TRILLION between 2022-2031.

In true inept government fashion, The Production Tax Credit (PTC) can incentivize wind farms to produce electricity even when it's not needed.


In even more lame-brain-can't-think-a-damned-thing-through fashion, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has poured more gas on the fire with even bigger handouts -- that have only served to raise costs higher and encourage more price-gouging. As soon as the faucet opened, the cost of offshore wind has risen significantly, from a projected $77 per megawatt hour two years ago to $114 per megawatt hour currently. I wonder why??

Now, wind developers argue that the IRA subsidies are inadequate to attract and retain investment, especially in light of rising inflation and borrowing costs. (Funny how large corps find a way to spend every dollar and still scream for more as the handouts increase, isn't it??)


The Bottom Line:



Wind has a role. We've been actively trying to push that role further past the point of "common sense" than it should ever be pushed. As long as it's not profitable, it becomes a shell game with multi-billion dollar corps bilking taxpayers, so they can slow-play the free money game to the point of "awe, shucks guys, we really tried out best".

"Nobody has to pay for wind" is beyond tongue-in-cheek and approaches flippant-amusing.


(And I didn't even discuss the elephant everyone keeps ignoring -- the grid's inability to manage traffic and multi-trillion dollar corps looking to taxpayers for the most expansive and expensive grid improvement since the Edison walked the streets -- oh wait, I just did.)

I wish Michelle would chime in. She knows a lot about these things if I remember right

And this only because it's related. This paints a vivid picture of how reeeediculous we are in our solutions to "saving the planet". Somewhere there's an alien reading this in his morning newspaper, and turns to tell the rest on the ship "not yet, they're definitely not ready".


how much does tesla make selling carbon credits?
Answer
Tesla generated $1.79 billion from selling carbon credits in 2023, marking its highest annual revenue from this source to date124. This figure represents a slight increase from the $1.78 billion earned in 20225. Since 2009, Tesla has accumulated nearly $9 billion in total earnings from carbon credit sales26.

In the fourth quarter of 2023, Tesla reported $433 million in income from carbon credit sales, which was a 7% decrease compared to the same period in 20221. Despite this quarterly decline, the annual revenue from carbon credits still reached a record high.

These carbon credit sales have become a significant source of income for Tesla, accounting for 11% of its overall gross margin in the fourth quarter of 2023. The company incurs minimal additional costs to earn these credits, making them almost pure profit16.

Tesla's continued success in selling carbon credits has surprised some, as it was initially expected that this revenue stream would decline as competitors increased their electric vehicle production2. However, the demand for carbon credits remains strong, driven by global efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change1.


If only we could figure a way to make a cow purchase a clean energy ETF every time it farts...

Man, that really makes me think whoever runs Tesla should stay far away from influencing government policies!

Me too. She’s awesome. Wish I saw her around here more. Caught her on Discord. She feels as though she’s not welcome around here anymore, from what I gathered. Sucks.

I wish I could touch base with her.
I'd quickly set her straight about how much she was appreciated... and how much she's missed.

I'm no expert - but did notice something that stood out in your post:

American taxpayers provide about $17 billion annually in direct federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Wind and solar tax credits alone will cost taxpayers 1/4 TRILLION between 2022-2031.

So 17 Billion annually compared to a TEN YEAR total for wind and solar? That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison - and obviously it looks like the disconnect is huge. 17 Billion vs 250 Billion - and who know what rounding up they used to get to 250. Sure there is a difference - a big difference. But let's comp the annual totals of 17 to 25 to make it more transparent? Maybe the source of that had something of an agenda (not you - the place wherever you read that) I can see of no other reason to quote a yearly cost for one and a ten year cost for the other.

And of course no energy source can be "clean" - units have to be manufactured, repaired, maintained, replaced. Whether its solar panels or wind turbines. Infrastucture has to be updated, created or replaced.

Of course - or most probably - the initial switch from carbon emmitting energy to cleaner energy is going to cost more. But even over the last 10 years those cost differentials have plummeted - they should continue to improve. And the reason for doing it? Less Carbon emmissions.... it seems that if the goal is less carbon emmissions, it's unliklely any change will be cost neutral. Especially early on in the transition.

In some parts of the world the change is and has taken place effectively even if there are still people on both sides of the debate. In the UK - 27% of all energy was produced by wind in 2022. 51% of all energy came from 'zero carbon power sources' .... I'd say that's significant. Although anyone could highlight that the concrete, the materials and manufacturing process for the infrastructure all produce carbon before the first Kwh of energy is ever produced.

I was talking with a friend the other day who made an interesting comment that I've never thouht of before - he was talking about the difference between China and western democracies. He said China is thinking "for the next 200 years" - where as we are all running our countries based on 4 or 5 year government terms. I wonder what decisions would be different if we were planning for the next 50-75 years instead of looking at the right now. Or in politics - how to get re-elected in 5 years?

As I started - I'll repeat. I'm no expert, just throwing out some thoughts.

I think you're latching on to the disparity between the numbers without seeing there are specific differences. My bad on making things confusion with the wording.

First, a little nuance though, subsidies and credits wouldn't necessarily be the same anyway. While all credits are subsidies, not all subsidies are credits. Credits could be anything taken directly off their tax bill while subsidies could include low interest loans, grants, rebates or a host of other things.

More pertinent to my conversation is the fact that the subsides I mentioned were specific to the fossil fuel industry, while the credits were across all industries. That could include a $10 consumer rebate for a solar powered attic fan, for all we know.

Food for more thought is the fact that all this info, much of which is way less translucent that what you're reading now, is very hard to find. The two sources I found were compliments of an AI search. If I searched for that on Giggle, I would either be on page 32 or asleep on my keyboard before I found those papers.

Anyway, one said $260B the other said as much as $434B, I figured "1/4 TRILLION" was fair enough to survive hyperbole yet vague enough to know to not get caught up in the enormity of the numbers lol.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/america-s-power-doc-1/6879834f06f3b364/full.pdf
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/windsolaralt-energy-subsidies-to

I saw that big 27% number while reading down in this rabbit hole. Read a bunch of different ways the approach seems much smarter as well. Particularly in how they handle subsidies and the when, where and how of firing up back-up sources to not only fill need, but regulate price. It gave me more hope for US, until I remembered that we could never have an efficient model here lol.

They are also in a position to forcibly raise subsidies again, to cover inflationary cost of parts and materials for maintenance, as well as the needed new start-ups. Just one way the corps always have a gun to the head of a government at the expense of taxpayers. They'll withdraw investment and upset the whole apple cart.

I see Germany is in a bit of a pickle: suffering through some rate spikes after a "bad wind year", worst wind output in 10 years. They say a cold winter could exacerbate things there. Then, of course, they have their stock market wagging the tail of the energy dog just like here in the US.

What decisions would be different?? The shorter list is what decisions wouldn't. The past two election cycles we've been split into: "all green vehicles and dishwashers run on fairy dust by 2035", on one side, and "drill baby drill until you drill straight through to the other side"... on the other.

Did you really think he was trying to make a "fair comparison"? You pointed out the discrepancy and he's still trying to cover up for it. The fact the fossil fuel industry has been getting billions for decades isn't the point he wanted brought forth. Only the evil renewable boogeyman matters.

What are you even talking about? I'm the one that brought forth the fact. And there never was a "discrepancy", those were two different stats.

You need help.

And I'm sure somewhere within your self appointed superiority complex you think you're just the one to help me.

No, I'm quite sure I can't. I'm not sure who can.

Dr Seuss?
Dick and Jane?

You need to expand your list of authors.