No. of Recommendations: 0
1. Nuclear - 5 votes
2. Coal - 3 votes
3. Nat gas, wind and solar power - 8 votes

The correct answer is number 3.

Surprising to see so many voters who are so uninformed about the economics of new utility scale facilities to be built in the next 2 years in the US. The cost and schedule problems of coal and nuclear power plants have been in the news for the last 10 years. Here are some recent cost and schedules that have been reported:

Cost & schedule of the Lordstown natural gas power plant is $900 million and two years:
https://boards.fool.com/why-natural-gas-killing-coal-3404487...

Cost and schedule of Votgle 3&4 nuclear power plant is more than $25 billion and more than 10 years:
https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/08/vogtle-cost-upgra...

Renewable energy (wind and solar) is saving Texas $ billions over last 10 years:
https://boards.fool.com/savings-billions-with-renewables-340...

Coal power plants: In 2008, Allied, which develops energy projects for clients in North and Central America and the Caribbean, filed a permit to build a new, $2.1 billion, 850-megawatt coal plant on behalf of a corporation called Power 4 Georgians.
https://content.coe.gatech.edu/last-new-coal-plant-us


The nuclear power and coal power voters did not offer any support for their position.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
jaagu has been removed from your Ignored Fools list.

1. Nuclear - 5 votes
2. Coal - 3 votes
3. Nat gas, wind and solar power - 8 votes

The correct answer is number 3.



No it's not, you rigged the poll by putting three choices as one voting option. Y'all have a long history of rigging elections. So the eight votes divided by three is less than 3 each leaving Nuclear as the clear winner?

Back to the bin.

Anymouse <can't resist peeking occasionally>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The nuclear power and coal power voters did not offer any support for their position.

Here's my position then. I didn't pick natural gas, wind and solar because I wanted to mess with your poll.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

...

Here's my position then. I didn't pick natural gas, wind and solar because I wanted to mess with your poll.

PSU


Yeah, rather tiresome and drips of hypocrisy since he brags about his diesel cars with hundreds of thousands of miles on them.

Pollution for the most part does not come from production of fuels but rather consumption of fuels.

A pretty good story on Canada Gen board.

Anymouse <drives a small car ~4000 Km a year.

https://boards.fool.com/etam8217s-letter-to-whistler-mayor-3...

Climate change is (mostly) caused by CONSUMPTION not production of fossil fuels.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Climate change is (mostly) caused by CONSUMPTION not production of fossil fuels.

==================================================

Terry Etam letter says: "Climate change is caused by CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels."

https://boereport.com/2018/12/12/terry-etams-letter-to-whist...

This statement disqualifies Etam as an expert on the subject and as a defender of Canadian Oil and Gas industry. Furthermore, as consumption of fossil fuels is a big factor in carbon emissions, then Terry Etam has fallen face first into a cow pie because Canada (fossil fuel producer) is the world's biggest consumer of fossil fuels per capita.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/booklet2017/EDGARv432_FT2016_C...

Tim continues to be a defender of the Canadian Oil and Gas industry.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The correct answer is number 3.


No it's not, you rigged the poll by putting three choices as one voting option. Y'all have a long history of rigging elections. So the eight votes divided by three is less than 3 each leaving Nuclear as the clear winner?

==============================================

Tim,

No matter how you want to twist the poll results, the correct answer is still 3. As I said before, the votes just show how ignorant people are about nuclear and coal power economics.

Anyone who voted for nuclear or coal power is ignorant. I have presented examples to show those facts. Utilities across the country are NOT interested in new nuclear or coal power plants. There are no plans in the US to build any new nuclear or coal power plants. Utilities across the country are building natural gas, wind and solar power plants because of economics.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's my position then. I didn't pick natural gas, wind and solar because I wanted to mess with your poll.

PSU

================================

So which one did you vote for?

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So which one did you vote for?

Why does it matter?

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So which one did you vote for?

Why does it matter?

PSU

===================================

So that people know how you voted, and I can subtract it from nuclear or coal and add it to nat gas, wind and solar!

But then people like you who make false votes can not be trusted anymore.

Probably there are several more people who voted falsely like you.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The correct answer is that you add the cost of the nuclear plants that you shut down and still have to be paid for to the cost of the coal plants that jaagu want to close and still have to pay for, add those costs to the cost of gas turben power plants to keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow and then add all that to the cost of wind mills and all the wiring needed to transmit low volumes of power around the country.

THAT is the cost of jaagu's windmills!

No onder power rates are going up everywhere his buddies get the chance to ruin our electrical energy supplies!


POWER to the PEOPLE!

No windmills!



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No windmills!

That may be going to far - to explicitly say that.

Now, "no subsidies or special privileges for windmills!" - absolutely. Which of course will shut down nearly-all windfarms currently in operation, construction, or planning. But there may be some special cases where windmills actually make sense today.

(And if we figure out how to make gasoline out of air and water at a competitive price, it's quite possible that such an operation can function on an intermittent basis and use windmills - without any substantive backup - as its power source.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
THAT is the cost of jaagu's windmills!

====================================================

SP,

We never read about the "fantasy costs" that you worry about. Utilities across the country are regularly monitored by state public utility commissions to ensure economic and reliable energy is provided to the public.

Wind turbines are being put up all over the world at fast rate in following countries:

China, India, US, Germany, Spain, UK, Denmark, Sweden, France, Brazil, Japan, Russia, Poland, Canada and many more countries.

None of these countries complain about these wind turbines. No one is These wind turbines are getting bigger and better every year.

Wind turbine generation has increased from almost nothing to 5% of the electricity in the world in 10 years.

Wind energy is cheap, clean and safe. Wind energy fuel cost is ZERO.

https://wwindea.org/blog/2018/02/12/2017-statistics/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The correct answer is that you add the cost of the nuclear plants that you shut down and still have to be paid for to the cost of the coal plants that jaagu want to close and still have to pay for, add those costs to the cost of gas turben power plants to keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow and then add all that to the cost of wind mills and all the wiring needed to transmit low volumes of power around the country.

THAT is the cost of jaagu's windmills!

No onder power rates are going up everywhere his buddies get the chance to ruin our electrical energy supplies!

POWER to the PEOPLE!


You say this almost every day, with plenty of exclamation points and liberal use of capital letters for emphasis.

However, your statements, no matter how often you make them, have no basis in reality. Electrical rates in the United States have remained more or less constant for decades, even declining over time.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.php?t=p...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<None of these countries complain about these wind turbines. No one is These wind turbines are getting bigger and better every year. >>


Oh, the Quebec government has been voted out in large measure because they foolishly followed environmentalist policies. Germany is in growing turmoil over the same thing.

Brits are angry at rapidly rising energy costs because of these policies.

The chickens are coming home to roost.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"no subsidies or special privileges for windmills!"

Which of course will shut down nearly-all windfarms currently in operation, construction, or planning.

=================================================

Your statement is not true. Wind farms are here to stay - even without subsidies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This thread is running a bit amok, so I stumbled on an article from late last year about "Germany’s shift to green power stalls, despite huge investments" then noticed they have a Utube version so you can take your pick.

The bold part was all I needed to see ... stupid, just plain stupid. Many years ago when I read there was a plan to get rid of both dirty lignite/coal while also shutting down clean nuclear I predicted failure. Not to worry though, it will all be fixed in 2050 along with every other problem of humanity.

Sort of funny really, one third of German electricity comes from clean renewable, we are a bit over 81% from clean (which is the objective) but we cheat by getting 15% from nuclear. Meanwhile a board member shows up on Canada Gen insulting us for our per capita energy use with our cold snowy winters?

https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country...

Per Capita Carbon Emissions Data By Country

Canada 14.67

United States 17.5


Amazing hypocrisy methinks?

Anymouse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj_znFnzLfI

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environme...

Germany’s Shift to Green Power Stalls, Despite Huge Investments

...

The benefits of the program have not been universally felt, however. A de facto class system has emerged, saddling a group of have-nots with higher electricity bills that help subsidize the installation of solar panels and wind turbines elsewhere.

Germany has spent an estimated 189 billion euros, or about $222 billion, since 2000 on renewable energy subsidies. But emissions have been stuck at roughly 2009 levels, and rose last year, as coal-fired plants fill a void left by Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear power. That has raised questions — and anger — over a program meant to make the country’s power sector greener.

...

Julian Hermneuwöhner is one such voter. Mr. Hermneuwöhner, a 27-year-old computer science student, said his family paid an additional €800 a year because of Energiewende.

...

... About one-third of German electricity now comes from renewable sources, a fivefold increase since 2000. In the United States, that figure was about 15 percent last year. Britain generates about a quarter of its power from renewables, and France about 19 percent.

But that progress has been undone somewhat by the government’s decision to accelerate its phase out of nuclear power after the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, Japan. That has made the country more reliant on its sizable fleet of coal-fired power stations, which account for the bulk of emissions from electricity generation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sort of funny really, one third of German electricity comes from clean renewable, we are a bit over 81% from clean (which is the objective) but we cheat by getting 15% from nuclear. Meanwhile a board member shows up on Canada Gen insulting us for our per capita energy use with our cold snowy winters?

Tim,

Your even-handed approach to thorny issues is one of the reasons you're among my favorite posters on METAR.

I looked at the linked rankings of countries and was not surprised to see that the countries most addicted to carbon-based fuels are those whose own natural resources include the largest or most accessible carbon deposits, oil, or natural gas. Petroleum-rich countries tend to use those resources with which they are endowed. In this respect, Canada stands out from the pack of oil-rich nations in its relatively low percentage of carbon per capita.

One country I was surprised by was Australia. In general, the Aussies tend to be fairly wise in their approach to public policy, including their healthcare system and gun laws. It seems a bit incongruous that their carbon footprint per capita should be almost as high as the United States.

Australia 16.75
United States 17.5


https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country...

The only other countries that tend to be so dependent upon fossil fuels are the Middle Eastern, Asian, and other nations with massive carbon deposits within their territory.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One country I was surprised by was Australia.

They get the vast majority of their electricity from Coal but also burn oil and Nat gas for the purpose.

Only 15% of their power comes from renewable sources and that actually declined from the previous year.

https://www.energy.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-sta...

Total electricity generation in Australia was estimated to be 259,446 gigawatt hours (GWh) in calendar year 2017, similar to 2016.

Non-renewable sources contributed 220,359 GWh (85 per cent) of total electricity generation in 2017, an increase of 1 per cent compared with 2016.

Coal accounted for the majority of electricity generation, at approximately 61 per cent of total generation in 2017.

Renewable sources contributed 39,087 GWh (15 per cent) of total electricity generation in 2017, a decrease of 7 per cent compared with 2016.

The largest source of renewable generation was hydro (5 per cent of total generation) followed by wind (5 per cent) and solar (3 per cent).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
warrl wrote:
"no subsidies or special privileges for windmills!"
Which of course will shut down nearly-all windfarms currently in operation, construction, or planning.


jaagu responded:
Your statement is not true. Wind farms are here to stay - even without subsidies.
-----------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Germany is facing the shutdown of thousands of windmills when 2020 arrives. The reason? Their subsidies are expiring.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germany-faces-a...

Germany could be facing a gigawatt-scale “decommissioning wave” in its onshore wind sector.

Writing earlier this month for the German-language magazine Top Agrar, Hinrich Neumann reported that many of Germany’s 28,000 onshore wind turbines could be decommissioned beginning in 2020.

Under Germany’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which took effect in 2000, renewable energy sources, including onshore wind turbines, secured priority grid access and guaranteed above-market payment for each kilowatt-hour delivered to the grid. These feed-in tariff (FIT) payments lasted for 20 years.

In 2020, the first of those feed-in tariff contracts expire.

------------------------------------

The Green Tech Media article predicts that 2.4 gigawatts of wind power capacity will lose its lucrative subsidies every year beginning in 2020. Other sources say as many as 14,000 MW will lose their subsidies by 2023. Germany currently has around 58,000 MW of wind power capacity in operation.

I predict the government will step in and reinstate the subsidies, or provide other financial incentives to keep the wind turbines in service. However, just don't tell me that wind power is competitive. It is only competitive with an uneven playing field that gives renewables an unfair advantage.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Meanwhile, in the real world...

Germany is facing the shutdown of thousands of windmills when 2020 arrives. The reason? Their subsidies are expiring.

...

However, just don't tell me that wind power is competitive. It is only competitive with an uneven playing field that gives renewables an unfair advantage.

- Pete


Or ... when you use conditions such as ....

https://energy.novascotia.ca/renewables/wind-energy

It’s affordable

The cost of commercial-scale, competitively-sourced wind energy has already been found to be competitive with traditional sources of energy, such as fossil fuels when those prices spike on global markets, and is less expensive than most other forms of renewable energy


Tim <still waiting for Lower Churchill hydro power now due in less than 12 months>

We in Nova Scotia are getting 23% of our power from wind today. We will shut down all but one standby coal plant as soon as hydro power arrives via the Maritime Link.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pete writes:

The Green Tech Media article predicts that 2.4 gigawatts of wind power capacity will lose its lucrative subsidies every year beginning in 2020. Other sources say as many as 14,000 MW will lose their subsidies by 2023. Germany currently has around 58,000 MW of wind power capacity in operation.

I predict the government will step in and reinstate the subsidies, or provide other financial incentives to keep the wind turbines in service. However, just don't tell me that wind power is competitive. It is only competitive with an uneven playing field that gives renewables an unfair advantage.

=========================================

Pete,

Your worries about wind farm economics are unfounded. Wind farms will do just fine without subsidies in Germany and the USA. Wind farms are here to stay - even without subsidies.

Wind gets less subsidies than nuclear, coal or natural gas in the US according to EIA report (see page 2 Overview section)
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd...

The unsubsidized levelized cost of energy for wind is less than for nuclear, coal or natural gas in the US as I have posted a dozen times with link.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wind farms will do just fine without subsidies in Germany and the USA.

Only few German wind turbines profitable after end of 20-year support payments
www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-surcharge-said-fall-...
Operating wind turbines in Germany will only be profitable for a small fraction of the installations once their 20-year support period via the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) has ended, consultancy Energy Brainpool says in a white paper.

The first turbines in Germany will lose eligibility for support from the renewables surcharge that customers pay with their power bill in 2021 and “at the current [wholesale power] price level, only a few installations can be operated at a profit” after that due to maintenance costs, the consultancy says....

“Yield rates are too low to operate the bulk of installations at a profit,” the consultancy says, but adds that “a continued operation can become economically viable quickly” by the middle of the 2020s if the prices for electricity and carbon emissions rise accordingly.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hound writes:

Canada stands out from the pack of oil-rich nations in its relatively low percentage of carbon per capita.

==========================================================


Where do you get that misinformation. You are posting old per capita data for 2011. Here is the per capita data for 2016:

Canada: 18.62

USA: 15.56

Australia: 17.22

Canada happens to be the worst nation in the world for per capita carbon emissions.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...

Canada production of oil and gas accounts for 26% of their emissions followed by transportation at 25%.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Per Capita Carbon Emissions Data By Country

Canada 14.67

United States 17.5

Amazing hypocrisy methinks?

Anymouse

==============================================

Tim does not know what he posts or he on purpose posts old data for 2011.

Here is the data for 2016:

Canada 18.62

USA 15.56

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...

Amazing hypocrisy methinks?

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tim writes:

Sort of funny really, one third of German electricity comes from clean renewable, we are a bit over 81% from clean (which is the objective) but we cheat by getting 15% from nuclear. Meanwhile a board member shows up on Canada Gen insulting us for our per capita energy use with our cold snowy winters?

=================================

You keep getting confused about carbon emissions. Above you discuss electrical generation emissions while the rest of us are discussing total per capita carbon emissions.

Canada may have low electrical generation emissions, but Canada has high oil and gas production carbon emissions. That is what make Canada the worst carbon emitter per capita 2016 (not your 2011).

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
“Yield rates are too low to operate the bulk of installations at a profit,” the consultancy says, but adds that “a continued operation can become economically viable quickly” by the middle of the 2020s if the prices for electricity and carbon emissions rise accordingly.

DB2


Translation: If 'normal' economic metrics can be suspended indefinitely, and economic subsidies be likewise extended indefinitely, THE WIND AND SOLAR ELECTRICITY SCAM CAN BE OPERATED INDEFINITELY.

How can that NOT be right???... after all, the wind and the sun are FREE!

It's gotta work! (Doesn't it???)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
One country I was surprised by was Australia. In general, the Aussies tend to be fairly wise in their approach to public policy, including their healthcare system and gun laws. It seems a bit incongruous that their carbon footprint per capita should be almost as high as the United States.

Australia 16.75
United States 17.5


Australia and the US are different from most other countries in that large amounts of internal commerce has to cross great distances with very low population densities.

(Other countries have great distances with low population densities, but there isn't much on the other side of them - so not so much commerce across them.)

I'm surprised the US doesn't do better in comparison to Europe, though: for freight movement trains are VASTLY more efficient than trucks, and the US does a MUCH higher percentage of it freight movement by railroad and a MUCH lower percentage by truck.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<< In this respect, Canada stands out from the pack of oil-rich nations in its relatively low percentage of carbon per capita.
>>


That's primarily because Canada exploits it's hydroelectric power assets instead of letting them flow unhindered to the sea in "wild and scenic rivers" and such.


In Washington State, we have a lot of hydro power too, which environmentalists are working like beavers to get dug up or torn out. They don't even consider hydroelectric to be "renewable" power. Not GREEN enough for their taste, you see.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Where do you get that misinformation. You are posting old per capita data for 2011.

Dear Jaagu,

Here's the link for the data I used:

https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country...

If the data is old, I apologize and stand corrected. I'm not that confident in carbon figures, anyway, since I think they may be more politics than science.

Even if Canada has higher figures today than in 2011, I give them an "A" for effort. Frankly, I would give them a huge allowance for carbon just for being willing to occupy the space above the 49th Parallel.

Until the US, Europe, Asia, and South America get serious about re-forestation (huge swaths of Europe and Asia were de-forested hundreds or a thousand years ago or more), I don't give any sort of carbon allotment scheme much chance of making any difference whatsoever in the makeup of the Earth's atmosphere.

Many of the carbon accounting schemes are aimed more at extracting transfer payments which, when deposited into the accounts of 3rd world dictators, are more likely spent for private jets and other heavy polluters, than in efforts to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

I like Canada and I like Canadians, so I ascribe to them good intentions - since that is all that many of the world's carbon reduction programs amount to, anyway.

'Hound [tree hugger first, carbon tax payer second]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<We in Nova Scotia are getting 23% of our power from wind today. We will shut down all but one standby coal plant as soon as hydro power arrives via the Maritime Link.>>



Germany and Quebec thought much the same thing.

They discovered it was a lot easier to predict the future they wanted than to live in it.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
trains are VASTLY more efficient than trucks, and the US does a MUCH higher percentage of it freight movement by railroad and a MUCH lower percentage by truck.

Amazingly well connected rivers and intercoastal waterways provided the USA with a huge advantage from its founding. Nothing in the world compares to the Mississippi Missouri Great Lakes water transport network. It is not quaint and pretty like the French canal system, but wow does it carry loads.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Until the US, Europe, Asia, and South America get serious about re-forestation (huge swaths of Europe and Asia were de-forested hundreds or a thousand years ago or more), I don't give any sort of carbon allotment scheme much chance of making any difference...

Some good news:

Using 35 years of satellite data, Song et al. examined global land use changes. They found that tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7% relative to the 1982 level). This overall gain is the result of a loss in the tropics being outweighed by gains outside the tropics.

Global land change from 1982 to 2016
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9/

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nothing in the world compares to the Mississippi Missouri Great Lakes water transport network. It is not quaint and pretty like the French canal system, but wow does it carry loads.

david fb


Adding to your citations... the Ohio and Illinois Rivers to the network.

America is truly blessed... in their inclusion, it would be useful if the ankle-biting naysayers could be subordinated...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Using 35 years of satellite data, Song et al. examined global land use changes. They found that tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7% relative to the 1982 level). This overall gain is the result of a loss in the tropics being outweighed by gains outside the tropics.

Global land change from 1982 to 2016
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9/

DB2>>


We need an intensive program of cutting down old growth forests, before they burn down or are killed by insects as the climate warms.


Once cut ----we can replant. Palm or coconut trees, perhaps.

But with the predictions of warming so confidently made by environmentalists, it's obviously bogus to imagine that those existing forests are going to survive.


Seattle Pioneer




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In Washington State, we have a lot of hydro power too, which environmentalists are working like beavers to get dug up or torn out. They don't even consider hydroelectric to be "renewable" power. Not GREEN enough for their taste, you see.

Please cite some sort of justification for this comment. Nobody is tearing out the Grand Coulee dam. That would be foolish.

We need an intensive program of cutting down old growth forests, before they burn down or are killed by insects as the climate warms. Once cut ---- we can replant. Palm or coconut trees, perhaps.

I think it's best for Mother Nature to decide what grows wild in America, and I think it's best for human beings to respect Mother Nature, and let her take care of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
jaagu claims:
Wind gets less subsidies than nuclear, coal or natural gas in the US according to EIA report (see page 2 Overview section)
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd...

= = = = = = = = =

No, that is not what it says at all. jaagu is either mistaken or being willfully dishonest.

Page 2 of the Overview section contains Table 1, which I assume jaagu is referring to. But the numbers given for the various energy sources are for the amount of energy produced, not the amount of subsidies provided! The subtitle specifically says the units are in trillions of British thermal units (BTU). BTU is a unit of energy, not a monetary measure! Only the first line of the table, which discusses Total Energy subsidies, is given in dollars.

Scroll down to Table 3 (page 9) to see the values of the subsidies and support given to the various energy sources. For FY2016, the values are:

Nuclear: $365 million (2% of total)
Renewables: $6,682 million (45% of total)

Scrolling down to Table 4, breaks down the Renewables further.
Solar: $2,231 million
Wind: $1,266 million

So, when jaagu says “wind gets less subsidies than nuclear”, what he really means is wind gets more subsidies than nuclear (3.5 times more).

= = = = = = = =

Here is proof that the lower section of Table 1 refers to the amount of energy produced for each energy source.

Table 1 lists the amount of energy produced by coal, nuclear and hydro (among others) in the US (FY2016) as:
Coal 14,807 trillion BTU
Nuclear 8,352 trillion BTU
Hydro 2,482 trillion BTU

Converting these BTU units to million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) units, gives the following values:
Coal 373 MTOE
Nuclear 210
Hydro 62.5

http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm

The BP Statistical Reivew of Energy lists the following for the US production of coal, nuclear and hydro in 2016:
Coal 348 MTOE
Nuclear 192
Hydro 59.7

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-ec...

As we can see, the converted EIA values match up pretty well with the BP numbers. The differences may be in fiscal year tabulations versus calendar year, or other calculational differences. Still, the values are within 10% or so. Note: It is not as easy to compare natural gas and crude oil, because the EIA numbers in Table 1 put natural gas liquids into the natural gas category, whereas the BP tables put nat gas liquids into the oil category.

Go to Tables 3 and 4 in jaagu’s link to see that renewables get far more in subsidies than nuclear, as of 2016.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Even if Canada has higher figures today than in 2011, I give them an "A" for effort. Frankly, I would give them a huge allowance for carbon just for being willing to occupy the space above the 49th Parallel.

===================================

Hound,

It is not just the per capita emissions that are a problem for Canada, the bigger problem is TOTAL greenhouse gas emissions by Canada and the highly insufficient actions being taken by Canada to reduce them as noted below:

The Climate Action Tracker, a project run by a group of three climate-research organizations, has been monitoring the progress of 32 countries in meeting the Paris accord goals. Taken together, those 32 countries account for 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A graphic from the Climate Action Tracker shows the efforts of the world's larger greenhouse gas producers to reduce those emissions in accord with the Paris climate agreement.

Climate Tracker gives Canada a "Highly Insufficient" rating - essentially a "D".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/11/few-countrie...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
jaagu claims:
Wind gets less subsidies than nuclear, coal or natural gas in the US according to EIA report (see page 2 Overview section)

Pete writes:
No, that is not what it says at all. jaagu is either mistaken or being willfully dishonest.

===========================================

Pete is correct. My mistake, I misread the EIA report Table 1 as the amount of subsidies provided. Tables 3 and 4 are the correct tables.

Table 3 (page 9) to see the values of the subsidies and support given to the various energy sources. For FY2016, the values are:

Coal: $1,262 million (Up from $1,094 million in 2013)
Nuclear: $365 million (Down from $1,390 million in 2013)
Renewables: $6,682 million (Down from $15,264 million in 2013)

Table 4, breaks down the Renewables further.
Solar: $2,231 million (Down from $5,756 million in 2013)
Wind: $1,266 million (Down from $6,187 million in 2013)

Nuclear, Solar and Wind took big cuts in subsidies from 2013 to 2016 while Coal had a small increase in subsidies.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
But then people like you who make false votes can not be trusted anymore.

I'm devastated that you don't trust me anymore. I don't know how I can go on living.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm devastated that you don't trust me anymore.

====================================================

I never did trust after you lied some years ago about me. But now other people will not trust you either. You have no integrity.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm devastated that you don't trust me anymore. I don't know how I can go on living.

PSU


This from the guy that fixed the poll to ensure his views win?

Shocking.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I never did trust after you lied some years ago about me. But now other people will not trust you either. You have no integrity.

I don't recall ever lying about you. As far as people trusting me, I'm not too concerned about what you think how others view my integrity. I have established my reputation over the years. Messing around with your poll is of no consequence.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't recall ever lying about you.

Reminds me of something.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9MIF8qzpIA
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't recall ever lying about you.

==========================

Of course you would say that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Of course you would say that.

Of course, you won't mention the situation so I can't find and review the thread to determine the accuracy of your reporting. Or you made it all up.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course, you won't mention the situation so I can't find and review the thread to determine the accuracy of your reporting. Or you made it all up.

PSU


After I pointed out his fraudulent poll he followed me over to the Canada Gen board and started using his cheery picked insulting stories to insult my country and fellow board members using []rumpian style attacks there to get back at me ... that is unforgivable and I will never again waste my time on his garbage posts nor even follow any thread he starts.

Anymouse
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
After I pointed out his fraudulent poll he followed me over to the Canada Gen board and started using his cheery picked insulting stories to insult my country and fellow board members using []rumpian style attacks there to get back at me ... that is unforgivable and I will never again waste my time on his garbage posts nor even follow any thread he starts.

By responding to you, I've now made 53,952 posts. Somehow he expects that I remember some post I may have made in the past. He think too highly of himself if he thinks I should remember every post I made. I have made it my policy to not lie on the boards so you don't have to keep a tally what is or is not true. Not to say that I'm perfect. There have been times I've either misinterpreted what someone said or I mixed up posters on who posted what. If someone points out my error, I'll say sorry for the mistake.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.

I have made it my policy to not lie on the boards so you don't have to keep a tally what is or is not true.


That has always been my perception as well, in truth it is impossible to remember lies, much easier to tell the truth ... someone else in your country hasn't learned yet that the truth matters. }};-@

Some big former FBI guy that he fired is ranting today ... wouldn't want that guy mad a me. }};-@

Regards Tim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Tim writes:

After I pointed out his fraudulent poll he followed me over to the Canada Gen board and started using his cheery picked insulting stories to insult my country and fellow board members using []rumpian style attacks there to get back at me ... that is unforgivable and I will never again waste my time on his garbage posts nor even follow any thread he starts.

====================================

Tim is a LIAR. I never insulted any board members on the Canadian General board. Here is a link to the whole thread. As you can see from the thread, the only one who made any insulting remarks is Tim.

https://boards.fool.com/etam8217s-letter-to-whistler-mayor-3...

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top