Clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in most US states

So your point is the jobs attributed to the oil patch are incorrect

 

Not paying is just following law. But you did not explain a dollar of subsidies. Want to try to explain again? Also, if you mean deep sea lands, I have wondered if that stands up in court given this country has the 12 mile limit they use as international law. Obama was dealing with rigs 40 miles off shore from Louisiana.

 

That is an interesting spin.

 

OK, check out The Deep Hot Biosphere. It presents a very interesting concept. This deals with the question of will we really run out of crude. Fuels have been made by past scientists and though expensive, are pretty well known. Germans did it during WW2.

 

I think the word you meant is logic

 

Sorry but the logic simply is not there.

 

I believe based on things I saw today that for the Left, it is only about money to be made from a carbon tax.

First is it warming? Sure. Alarming enough to pass laws? Not one bit.

What took place is the left tried to use fuel as politics. And they want their brand of fuel to take over. What a waste of their effort.

Surveys of Americans shows that climate is at the bottom of the list for things to worry about. And to get this carbon tax, you must have American support. I doubt you will get it.

 

How did I know you would say something like that your predictable

 

Thank you very much. I do want to be consistent and use flawless logic.

 

Does this mean anything more than 41 states do not have large enough amounts of fossil fuel resources to have it be a significant part of their economy???

Most Americans would love an oil and gas industry salary. Accounting majors are being hired at $80k a year. Engineers are getting $120k fresh out of college. From a pay standpoint, renewables don't even come close.

 

Years ago, I had a client that inspected nuclear energy sites. I quipped that I did not see nuclear energy as dangerous. He said it was dangerous. I don't recall details since this was in 1973. I sold his home and he went to an Eastern State. Today things could be so much better. Back in those days, talking olf such things was next to being a state secret so he did not really say much.

I would hazard that if they settled on one design, we would see prices fall a lot. But even two designs would probably also work.

This is a troubling area since I know little more than what we see in the press. Often the press is definitely biased.

 

That's simply not true. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, give the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) responsibility for oil and gas leasing on about 564 million acres of BLM, national forest, and other Federal lands, as well as State and private surface lands where mineral rights have been retained by the Federal Government. The 1987 Reform Act stipulates the price of the leases. In addition, as is customary for private lands as well, the ONRR collects 12.5% royalties on production and tax on profits.

 

Oh no, not the abiotic oil hypothesis again. We've heard this many times before.

Even IF the abiotic oil hpothesis were true, fact is that oil wells are running dry. So, if abiotic oil is regenerated, regeneration occurs on a FAR slower timescale than our use of oil. So, nothing is gained.

 

Fukushima already has 1,000 tanks holding 800,000 tons of contaminates water from cooling the fuel rods and the famous ice wall preventing the ground water from leeching into the ocean. They are still adding two of those large building sized tanks per day. The effort going into this cleanup is just flabbergasting. Of course, all this cost is socialized, after the gains are privatized. Do you think this risk and cleanup costs are built into nuclear energy prices? No, they are not. Otherwise nuclear energy would be truly un-competitive.

 

I earned a bachelors, masters and all but my dissertation toward a PhD (quit in 1979 after TMI2) in nuclear engineering and worked for the nuclear division of Babcock & Wilcox. I worked in the nuclear field from 1973 until 1985, mostly developing methods to establish compliance with 10CFR50.46, proving the core would not melt after the worst postulated accident.. That accident was/is a double ended guillotine break in the largest pipe in the system, blowing the primary system down from 2000 psi to atmospheric. Yep, computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer --- modeling transient two-phase, multi-component flows --- almost like AGW analysis only more violent.

Like Three Mile Island, most nuclear plants are PWRs, the primary system, spent fuel pool, and all components exposed to radiation completely housed under containment. The secondary system, turbines, condensers, etc. are isolated by a steam generator. The containments are phallic looking, with a steel liner and 6-8 ft of reinforced concrete. Even with the hydrogen explosion at TMI2, there was no significant release of radiation. Fukushima were GE designed plants with MarkII containments. GE plants are BWRs. They only have a primary system, so the steam created by boiling water through the core is the same steam that is sucked through the turbines by the condensers. Only the vessel containing the core is under heavy containment. Thus, the side of the building blowing out by the hydrogen explosion, hydrogen produced by similar metal water reaction that occurred at TMI2, was a shock.

I always thought nuclear to be safe, even after Three Mile Island ,,, since I only dealt with PWRs. After watching the side blow off the building in Fukushima, I wouldn't live anywhere near a GE plant. The real issue, aside from GE being able to license their plants, was that so much time was spent on an accident that wouldn't happen, Double Ended Break per 10 CFR 50.46, that too little time was spent on human factors that led to TMI2, a minor feedwater pump trip followed by 8 operator errors.

Thorium Reactors ,, modular reactors are all feasible, but the reality is that the cost in dealing with environmentalists and insurance costs put nuclear out of reach. I mean we still store spent fuel on site at nuclear plants as far as I know because sane storage / reprocessing strategies were met with protests and law suits.

Me, I placed a bet on geothermal recently. We'll see how that plays out.

 

It's good to set goals

 

Nice try!

Table ES2. Quantified energy-specific subsidies and support by type, FY 2010 and FY 2013 (million 2013 dollars)

Beneficiary Direct Expenditures Tax Expenditures Research & Development DOE Loan Guarantee Program Federal & RUS Electricity Total ARRA Related
2013
Coal 74 769 202 - 30 1,075 129
Refined coal - 10 - - - 10 -
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 62 2,250 34 - - 2,346 4
Nuclear 37 1,109 406 - 109 1,660 29
Biomass 332 46 251 - - 629 369
Geothermal 312 31 2 - - 345 312
Hydropower 197 17 10 - 171 395 216
Solar 2,969 2,076 284 - - 5,328 3,137
Wind 4,274 1,614 49 - - 5,936 4,334
Other 209 - 380 - 5 594 229

 

Let's take your tractor example. Presume no one in the world ever heard of tractors. Your country builds a couple of tractors - this build cost is going to be huge because it is so advanced compared to what is known in the world. People in your country says that it is cheaper to carry on using humans. Do you (a) scrap plans of developing tractors even though you have the most expertise in the field (b) put more money into building and developing tractors reducing cost of manufactured and become a world leader in exporting tractors (c) scrap plans on building and developing tractors and let other countries take the lead and buying from them in the future?

 

ie you weren't actually interested in finding out the answer to your question that you've asked many times

 

I was all optimistic about this thread ... as the news that green energy was succeeding in our free market economy, and then you interjected your bias. Fossil fuel and clean energy can co-exist, Energy sustainability will continue to push the industry to make further investments, and encourage advancements in clean energy without gov't mandates. Everything, isn't always, all about Donald Trump.

 

uh, it was an example to prove a point. I thought that much was obvious and didn't need to be stated. Oops.

 

Take away the oil, gas and coal industry's subsidies and see how they fair.

 

Again?

Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I was pretty clear. I precisely said, " specific regulations which are allegedly unneccessary", but of course, you tried to characterize my argument as saying that the regulations in general are unnecessary. Please, tell me what specific nuclear regulation on the building of new plants would have prevented a catastrophe on a 50 year old plant that lacked modern fail-safes.

 

I'm aware - but that was such a specific situation that it seems extraneous. The costs of synthetic fuel were enormous, and the Germans were still unable to create anywhere near enough of it. And it's not like they had "electric tank" alternatives in the works. XD

 

oh geez, again? You really need to stop doing this

Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I never said, "I think there is no special tax on green energy". It's really, really, really simple - the taxes exist on green energy that *don't* exist on other industries are far outweighed by green subsidies. The subsidies that exist for oil are far outweighed by the taxes on oil that *don't* exist on other industries. It's non-sensical to say that you're "taxing [something] out of existence" when you subsidize it a lot and tax it a little.

I mean, does it even need to be pointed out that Wyoming represents less than even a half a percent of the population? And even there, the taxes on fossil fuel production are greater, which was the (supposed) rationale for the recent proposal to increase their wind tax.