gullible_guy t1_iryut8y wrote
Reply to comment by crbatey22 in Solar Rollout Rouses Resistance in Europe’s Countryside: Regulations meant to protect green space block the installation of solar panels despite soaring energy prices by CannoliIntoPussy
Tax break is not a subsidy.
Not taking peoples money is not the same as taking money from someone and giving it to others.
RE Europe: Trump LITERALLY told them not to do what they did.
crbatey22 t1_irzkxmm wrote
Understood. It’s my fault for not being clear in my language.
‘Receiving subsidies’ does require the subject in question to be given money, or another object of recompense.
Both fossil fuel production and renewable production receive subsidies.
‘Being subsidized’ is a catch all term to indicate a subject is supported in their actions, not only through direct capital, but also through reduction in CAPEX via tax breaks, advantageous loan terms, cheap land usage rates etc…
Both fossil fuel and renewables are being subsidized in this manner.
Concerning Trump. If he did say it, He was right to tell Europe (and let’s be clear here, in this case it is mostly German industry that is dependent on this) not to hitch their wagon to Russian oil.
But it is a comment that is two decades out of date. German industrialist have been in close ties with Russia since the 90s. Maybe Clinton have the same advice?
Again. The whole point is that fossil fuels, renewables, and most major industries to a greater or lesser degree, are subsidized in one fashion or another.
At the moment, fossil fuels tend to receive vast more subsidization when compared to renewables, and by virtue of them being a long established technology, have received huge amounts of cumulative subsidization.
The fact that renewables are now receiving significant subsidized support, even if the $ to KWh is lower than for fossil fuels, is still a good thing in my opinion. Renewable sources, particularly wind and solar, are a relatively new tech and are making annual leaps in efficiency and cost per KWh.
Offshore wind is a huge EU industry, which is now able to supply almost all of some EU countries energy needs (Denmark). In addition it creates manufacturing jobs, installation jobs, jobs for shipping and doc workers, and it is helping to transition fishing workers to a more sustainable model.
Right now for cheap solar, globally china is king of production. Here is where I see a familiar problem looming. Having one country produce the majority of solar capacity, starts to look familiar to oil and gas monopolies (OPEC). It could certainly use some diversity.
The negatives of all this (aside from lack of baseline capacity without investment in Nuclear energy, not a problem for me in France) is that any energy production requiers a degree of environmental damage and CO2 production. Wind turbines are heavy concrete, copper and plastic users. Particularly off shore. Solar panels are less problematic as they are almost entirely silicone from sand to make the glass. They do use rare earth minerals which can be destructive to mine and politically difficult depending on where they are. However, spent solar panel recycling has already started at small scale.
The key takeaway is that, as a species, we have to get off the oil and gas eventually. For several reasons.
- It produces CO2 which will change the climate. Probably creating mass migration from central latitudes and a socioeconomic crisis.
- It is inherently polluting. Aside from CO2, burning fossil fuels creates atmospheric Polly that harms health and stresses medical infrastructure.
- It’s a finite resource that will not be created again and cannot be recycled. It will run out. Maybe not for us. But for our children. Or children’s children.
- Local energy independence. Being dependent on hostile neighbors to keep the lights on is inherently bad.
gullible_guy t1_is0zuyn wrote
Giving money to a company to support its product and bring down costs, is not the same as not taking money from that company. PERIOD.
crbatey22 t1_is1g0mo wrote
Fine. Then call the tax break side of things ‘incentives’. It really doesn’t make a difference and is just semantics.
Both fossil fuel providers and renewable providers receive both ‘subsidies’ and ‘incentives’.
Do you not think that, knowing what we know now, and considering the global situation, those ‘incentives’ and ‘subsidies’ should go to renewables (and in my opinion, nuclear) rather than fossil fuels?
gullible_guy t1_is1hqpo wrote
No, it isn't just "semantics"
What "global situation"?
Again, not taxing someone, is not the same as taking tax dollars from other people and giving them to another person.
I do agree we should be pushing Nuclear tech, its the only 100% thing that both sides should agree on as its the cleanest and safest form of energy we have right now.
Renewables are not real yet. Tech is getting closer, but i drive though somerset daily, and 50% of the days the shit ain't even spinning.
"renewables" are not cleaner when you look at the overall contribution to negative environmental impacts.
Its honestly just a way to funnel money into peoples pockets.
aka Solyndra.(google it you might be too young)
crbatey22 t1_is1ouwm wrote
I was not aware of Solyndra, but probably because it was a US firm. I am in France. Also I’m 37?!
The global situation I’m talking about is the effect that human CO2 emissions are having on the climate, alongside the unstable geopolitical situation faced by many countries being beholden to the Petrodollar and the whims of OPEC, or relying on mafias masquerading as national gouvernements (aka Russia) for your energy supply.
With regards to renewables not being ready. Quite honestly that’s just incorrect. Countries that have invested heavily in offshore wind, solar and hydro are regularly able to cover all of their energy needs using only renewables.
Where renewables are lacking is in energy storage. But this is a well known problem, hence the need for nuclear to bridge the gaps.
Your comment concerning wind turbines not turning is really indicative of your lack of knowledge of energy grids. When turbines are not turning, generally it is because there is a lack of energy demand in an area that has coal or gas plants as their main source of power. These types of plants cannot be shut down and restarted quickly to deal with fluctuations in demand, so the wind turbines get shut off in their place.
Your comment about CO2 emissions in construction is correct. Particularly for offshore wind, which uses around 10 times more concrete than a coal plant to construct. But the efficiency and output of wind turbines in particular are increasing year on year, resulting in a shorter and shorter CO2 payback/break even period. Where’s coal/gas plants only have increasing emissions throughout their life, and are even worse when mining and materials transport for the life of the plant is accounted for.
Surprisingly, nuclear plants have the lowest concrete usage on average for new construction, and their only ongoing CO2 emissions are due to transport of materials, which is minuscule.
The problem French nuclear plants increasingly face at the moment (aside from maintenance worker strikes and unexpected shutdowns due to inspection findings) is cooling issues during summer months. We have had record summer heat waves year on year for the past decade, resulting in severe drought and hotter rivers. The cooling capacity of the rivers that cool the plants is getting closer and closer to the delta limit every year.
Your comment about ‘both sides’ getting behind nuclear is specifically a US issue. EU politics is far less binary.
Saying all of this. If you want to criticize subsidies. Criticize those fed to the automotive industry. In 2008 it was bailouts for US car manufacturers who were fiscally irresponsible. Following that, it was the extent the German government propped up VW/Audi before/during/after the emission scandale. Now it’s the push for electric cars, financed by subsidies and tax incentives. Take all of this money. Invest it in public transport infrastructure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments