"Um, yes. Wind power is renewable and the backbone of the renewable grid. Why wouldn't we be talking about utility scale wind?"
Because we have been talking about solar energy specifically within the realm of renewable energy.
"And the health and environmental costs are not at all "subjective" but are very well documented and demonstrated epidemiologically. They exits and are calculable so you can't just wave your hands and pretend PM 10 doesn't make people sick and coal ash doesn't pollute. Give me a freaking break. More "alternative facts."
If they are not at all subjective and very well documented, could you provide a source please? I'd be interested in seeing that.
"You're reading the table wrong. Coal with CCs comes in at $139! And cc gas with CCs is regionally weighted at 84.8. You have to look at the total system cost. Again you can't just ignore costs."
No no no, I'm readign the table correctly. You, sir, are reading the wrong table. You are reading table 4b. This table shows the costs for plants enetering service in 2022, five years from now. It also reduces the cost of renewables by factoring IN subsidies, making them much lower than they should be. The table you should be looking at is table A1b. This table shows the costs of plants entering service in 2018, next year. These estimates are much more reliable and accurate than the ones from the table you were looking at. Plus, table A1b removes the effect of subsides on all of the energy sources, showing their true cost.
"Not following the complaint that a carbon tax would drive some companies out of business. So what? Right now, those companies only survive because they can pollute and cause millions (billions?) of health damage to the US population and not have to pay for it. A carbon tax attempts to make those companies account for the cost they currently dump on others. If they can't afford it, they should go out of business. And it's ridiculous to say that we suddenly will be without power. If power supply drops and becomes scarce, remaining power will be in demand and the price for power will increase, which will be enough to keep power companies in business as long as they can break even (or make a small profit) at the marginal power price point. It's a market-based solution, which appeals to people in both parties.
It's not quite an ideal distribution of the tax monies received, as the benefits of the tax go to everyone, as opposed to just those harmed by the pollution in proportion to the harm they receive, but it's a good effort anyway. However, the legal system is probably worse, as the lawyers end up with a healthy chunk of those funds so the damaged parties get less than their fair share that way too. The legal system gives a more proportional distribution to those harmed, but skims a large amount off the top for providing this proportionality. A tax system gives back more, but many people who were never harmed receive benefits. Since pollution affects a large portion of the populace, though, the tax system may be the better approach to the problem.
The part I disagree with about the plan, if I'm understanding it correctly, is giving polluters immunity from lawsuits for carbon pollution. I'm ok with this going forward (effectively the tax is a lawsuit settlement they are paying in advance), but people should still be able to sue for pollution harm that occurred before the tax goes into effect. There is no reason why polluting power companies should get away with profiting at the expense of harm to others in the past - they should be held to account for that. Hopefully this is how the plan will work, although I'm pretty sure immunity from past suit is exactly what power companies are asking for in exchange for agreeing to a carbon tax (as if they are entitled to get away with earlier theft).
As an analogy, imagine a shoplifter was coming to your store daily and stealing some of your merchandise each day. One day, you say, this has to end, and you somehow manage to automatically charge him for anything he takes going forward (and he actually pays). That should not give shoplifter immunity for you suing for the value of everything he took in the past."
Those companies have survived and existed because they were the only way we could have electricity and still are. Creating electricity from non-polluting sources is very new technology and not developed to the degree where it can provide electricity for the entire population of the planet at a reasonable cost right now. One day it will be, but until then, you need those coal and natural gas plants to have affordable electricity. The public values electricity over any negative health effects that may come from creating it. Just as it values being able to get from point A to point B quickly over all of the deaths and damage caused by automobiles every year.
They can't afford a carbon tax, unless it would reduce the cost of complying with other regulations. They are going out of business without it right now. And you are right about the process that will occur when they go out of business, you are just wrong about the conclusion because you are failing to pay attention to one main metric, quantity. When supply shifts to the left, price increases AND quantity decreases for that reason. So, just as I said, prices will go up to where only a fraction of the population can actually afford electricity and receive it. I don't want that. It just follows from common sense that if supply is reduced, the amount of consumption MUST be reduced as well. Price is what causes that to happen.
"@Manwe
my credit card number is a picture of an otter hugging a beanie baby stuffed otter"
Thank you, Sir. Expect a debit of $1000 to appear on your next statement.
"Manwe Sulimo: Several news websites have put up pay walls for quite some time that you can get around with all sorts of tricks. One of them is just to Google the relevant article and click on the link, since these websites like to draw you in with a free article if you were referred from another website like Google or Twitter. For example, if you click on the Twitter URL that LeonWalras shared on the first page you will be able to read the Wall Street Journal article. Hope this helps your research efforts and you make a 180°."
This is what I attempt to do, and yet it only works a portion of the times I try it. Most news that they try to paywall is also available for free elsewhere though, so it's not usually a problem. Though, I will and do pay for access to a select few choice publishers.
"the gov't used to openly support and subsidize some fossil fuel companies"
"Used to, my foot.
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-increase-dramatically-despite-climate-change-pledge-2180918
Admittedly everyone seems to have their own numbers for this, what a surprise."
The fossil fuel industries are not subisidized in any meaningful way in the traditional sense of the term. The government does not make cash payments to these companies expecting nothing in return generally. The vast majority of the so called "subsides" received by the fossil fuel companies are in the form of having to pay less taxes than they otherwise might have to for various reasons. AKA they get to take deductions on their tax bills just like every other business/tax payer in America gets to do and the government claims the money saved from the deductions as "subsidies" given to them. I think it is misleading to claim they are subsidized.
Rule Hypocrisy
)
)
)
)