A bad week for moneygrubbers

[EternalOptimist]

What has Stern got to do with anything? About as relevant as bringing in Lubos Motl.


The IMF define a subsidy on Page 5 of their report. Which is free, online, and available by clicking on the link I just provided.

If you really want people to follow your link-fests, please do them the curtesy of reading them yourself.
The first link relied heavily and quoted Stern heavily.

I say again, please try to find out what a subsidy is. don't try to redefine it to suit a political agenda

[pjclarke]

If you really want people to follow your link-fests, please do them the curtesy of reading them yourself.
The first link relied heavily and quoted Stern heavily.

I say again, please try to find out what a subsidy is. don't try to redefine it to suit a political agenda

You provide a single example of the report's 'heavy' reliance on Stern and I'll be only too pleased to explain the IMF's working paper use of the word to you. Not that it will change their conclusions one jot. Fact is the IMF paper does not rely on Stern 2006, nor quote his report heavily, Stern is one of over 30 papers given in the references.

[d000hg]

I say again, please try to find out what a subsidy is. don't try to redefine it to suit a political agenda

While I agree it's a subsidy in the same way we have a "bedroom tax" (not at all), and dislike this kind of soundbite-friendly redefinition of terms, that's still not an excuse to evade discussion of the underlying topic.

My understanding of the "subsidy" - assuming it's the same thing I read about a while ago -is that the significant, unavoidable cost of mitigating unpleasant by-products of oil/coal power are conveniently not taken into account when comparing the cost of different energy sources? Or is it that the energy suppliers are not being made to pay to clean up their 'mess'?

Can anyone clarify this without hyperbole or ridicule? You're welcome to either afterwards, but can we agree what the argument is before having it?

[EternalOptimist]

While I agree it's a subsidy in the same way we have a "bedroom tax" (not at all), and dislike this kind of soundbite-friendly redefinition of terms, that's still not an excuse to evade discussion of the underlying topic.

My understanding of the "subsidy" - assuming it's the same thing I read about a while ago -is that the significant, unavoidable cost of mitigating unpleasant by-products of oil/coal power are conveniently not taken into account when comparing the cost of different energy sources? Or is it that the energy suppliers are not being made to pay to clean up their 'mess'?

Can anyone clarify this without hyperbole or ridicule? You're welcome to either afterwards, but can we agree what the argument is before having it?

you are correct.
The green schemes were lightly taxed and subsidised(less so now, after Amber Rudd came along)
Fossil fuels are heavily taxed and not subsidised.

The greens argue that fossil fuels will cause massive future costs (based upon Stern) and that the fossil fuel industry should pay that now. Because they are not paying, it's a subsidy.

[pjclarke]

G20 governments propping up fossil fuel exploration | Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

[DodgyAgent]

Some sense from Carly Fiorina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ6t...ature=youtu.be

[minestrone]

I stay close to what was and will be again Europe's largest wind farm, the size of it is breath taking, 55 square KM, 130km of internal roads.

The output however is miserable, about 18% efficient in just about the windiest location in Europe which gives 40mw. 5% the output of the 50 year old Hunterston B nuclear power station which they run at 50% due to its age.

Build. another. nuclear. power. station.

[EternalOptimist]

I stay close to what was and will be again Europe's largest wind farm, the size of it is breath taking, 55 square KM, 130km of internal roads.

The output however is miserable, about 18% efficient in just about the windiest location in Europe which gives 40mw. 5% the output of the 50 year old Hunterston B nuclear power station which they run at 50% due to its age.

Build. another. nuclear. power. station.

Commiserations. Here is a little factoid for you
earlier this year, solar were bragging about supplying 15% of demand on one particularly sunny day.
But...the unpredictable ramping up causes problems for the grid. which had to ramp up 2 conventional power stations to manage the voltage
they had to switch OFF 2.5GW of wind (paying them half a million in constraints fees) and they had to put a lot of wind onto response

that's eco-loonacy for you

[minestrone]

Aye, the eco warriors do like to wield the 'theoretical output' and 'powering x thousand homes' vague stats.

[minestrone]

Going by the size of Whitelee ( 40mw output on average , 55km^2 land size ) which theoretically produces 1% of Scotland's energy requirements at 18% efficiency we have to cover .8% of Scotland (78,387 km² ) in wind farms, I note that the efficiency can sometimes drop to 6% so we have to cover a 2.5% of Scotland in this...



Scotland is also one of the windiest and also sparkly populated places in Europe.

Ladies and Gentleman I give you the SNP policy on energy.