@fallot basically, most subsidies to renewables are offered through what are referred to as federal tax credits. a certain amount of the investment in qualified residential, commercial, or utility-scale solar systems. This was established in the energy policy act of 2005. It's a subsidy because it's tax money on investments the feds OTHERWISE would have taken from investors. It's not money that comes out of a general tax pool and goes TO renewable generators.

which is what Heartiste is implying.

so renewable energy providers get tax breaks

that's the subsidy

is this what you are saying

yes

should they get tax breaks?

I'm getting there.

okay

I bet he smells horrible

who, heartiste?

The 2005 EPAct I mentioned is an expansion of a 1978 statute called PURPA, which was implemented following the oil crises of the late 70s

for national security reasons

Fartiste

Congress on a bipartisan basis decided that it would be sensible to expand our energy portfolio into small-scale and decentralized renewable generation to avoid what happened under Carter during the OPEC crises

At that time, small-scale renewable generation was MUCH more expensive that fossil fuel generated power, but the national security reasons for having it (at least on a small scale) were important enough to both subsidize it through tax credits and to force utilities to buy from small generators under PURPA

Who cares? Tell him that on his blog. Damn..

fallot asked

you have a really bad attitude about this stuff @say

Was this post made in relation to Trump and Paris Agreement?

@fallot the discussion went offtopic

The other part of the story is that prices on renewables have dropped significantly in the intervening time thanks to the incentivized investment, and the possibility exists going forward that renewables might become not only a good national security bet but also a reasonably cheap source of power, which would allow them to expand their role in our national energy portfolio.

I am interested too

a debateable proposition

Definitely

thank you

As we discussed before, renewables face several currently unsolved problems

can burning gays for energy qualify for a subsidy

Jevons paradox

I'm not sure about the tax credit availability on that, but you can definitely force a utility to purchase power from your gay-burning plant under PURPA since it would be a "bio-mass fuel"

by 2050 africa population will be 2.5billion. How much fuel would you create by burning 2.5 billion bodies?

Another important consideration related to the "energy portfolio" concept is that renewables function as a hedge against price uncertainty. Both for reasons that any diversified portfolio is generally more stable, and because the fundamental shifts that affect market price of fossil fuels are different than the fundamental shifts that affect renewable production.

Would it be better to put them in "human batteries" were them by simply moving in distress would create energy like a hamster?

What is all this energy spent on? IIRC far less of it was by private households than by industry, although household expenditure is easily double what it should be

Industry and infrastructure. Household expenditure is high, but efficiency solutions applied there can't solve the problem

if a problem exists

I unplug appliances/electronics/lamps when not in use

my da thinks it saves money

but it's a pain in the ass when youre only gonna be busy for half an hour tops

I barely own anything and have no electronics but phone and computer

It does over time but it depends on the draw of the appliance. It's probably not worth your effort for an hour and a half. But if I leave town I unplug my amp and stuff because that draws a lot of power.