DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Dems

It's just bizarre how people can fake outrage over the same things they're willing to embrace and shrug off whenever they see fit.

No, it's called hypocrisy. And it's absolute garbage. But he'll defend it over and over and over, because "I can haz winz"

Aw, I've insulted your sensibilities. Maybe you two should grab your pride flag to wipe your liberal tears. As I stated, English is not your strong suit.

Awww, you've used a marginalized group of people as an insult. You are disgusting

You only pretend to care.

No, I actually do care that people think they can use "gay" as an insult. You on the other hand don't seem tocare you are homophobic because "i Pwnz U!". Garbage is as garbage does.

How other than wind turbines do you think wind energy is produced on any large scale? And arch, you don't need to be a genius to have a basic grasp on things. You don't have to try and say stupid things like that just because you base what you think facts are only on what's going on in your back yard. That's a you problem.


Here's the DUH of it all. Yes coal plants are shuttering as wind energy is increasing. An intersection of old, dirty energy being replaced by new clean energy.


See, this is what happens when you don't pay attention and make claims I never stated. Nowhere did I state any state depended 100% on wind energy. However, over 62% of Iowa's is. It provides over 40% of Oklahoma's energy. Texas as well is while somewhat less, still heavily dependent on wind energy. It's an energy source that is on the rise.


I ask you to just think about this for a minute when you ask "at what cost?"

A natural gas power plant has to pay for natural gas. Nobody has to pay for wind. A natural gas power plant needs continued maintenance and so does a wind farm. Prices have continued to come down on wind power and is cheaper than coal power and comparable to natural gas. When your energy source is free that makes a huge difference.


Which of course is something I never did to begin with. But I will give you credit, you do have a vivid imagination. To claim I did so is well, dumb.

Wind will never be the soul energy source. Neither will solar. Both of which you've railed against on here as not a viable alternative.

But both are rising in production and the percentage of America's energy. Even major oil companies are some of the top investors in both wind and solar. Shell and Chevron being the leaders among oil companies investing in renewables.

https://climateinsider.com/2024/11/13/renewable-energy-investors/

What I'm saying is companies such as Shell and chevron aren't in business to lose money. Investment in wind energy and production of wind energy is still very much on the rise. As time goes on it will become a larger portion of our energy supply.

Some people go kicking and screaming into the future. Others see the trends, the direction things are headed and don't act like those "Get off my lawn!" guys.

Wind is not entirely "clean". The carbon footprint for startup is bigger than any other form of energy not named nuclear. "The wind blows free" starts with a 350ft tower and 50 trucks of concrete per windmill.

And now that inflation has driven start-up costs much higher, guess who the energy companies are turning to for more help?? That's right, taxpayers.

We've been paying large energy companies to compete with themselves for decades. Their response is always "We're getting closer, boss!"... I wonder why? American taxpayers provide about $17 billion annually in direct federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Wind and solar tax credits alone will cost taxpayers 1/4 TRILLION between 2022-2031.

In true inept government fashion, The Production Tax Credit (PTC) can incentivize wind farms to produce electricity even when it's not needed.


In even more lame-brain-can't-think-a-damned-thing-through fashion, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has poured more gas on the fire with even bigger handouts -- that have only served to raise costs higher and encourage more price-gouging. As soon as the faucet opened, the cost of offshore wind has risen significantly, from a projected $77 per megawatt hour two years ago to $114 per megawatt hour currently. I wonder why??

Now, wind developers argue that the IRA subsidies are inadequate to attract and retain investment, especially in light of rising inflation and borrowing costs. (Funny how large corps find a way to spend every dollar and still scream for more as the handouts increase, isn't it??)


The Bottom Line:



Wind has a role. We've been actively trying to push that role further past the point of "common sense" than it should ever be pushed. As long as it's not profitable, it becomes a shell game with multi-billion dollar corps bilking taxpayers, so they can slow-play the free money game to the point of "awe, shucks guys, we really tried out best".

"Nobody has to pay for wind" is beyond tongue-in-cheek and approaches flippant-amusing.


(And I didn't even discuss the elephant everyone keeps ignoring -- the grid's inability to manage traffic and multi-trillion dollar corps looking to taxpayers for the most expansive and expensive grid improvement since the Edison walked the streets -- oh wait, I just did.)

I wish Michelle would chime in. She knows a lot about these things if I remember right

And this only because it's related. This paints a vivid picture of how reeeediculous we are in our solutions to "saving the planet". Somewhere there's an alien reading this in his morning newspaper, and turns to tell the rest on the ship "not yet, they're definitely not ready".


how much does tesla make selling carbon credits?
Answer
Tesla generated $1.79 billion from selling carbon credits in 2023, marking its highest annual revenue from this source to date124. This figure represents a slight increase from the $1.78 billion earned in 20225. Since 2009, Tesla has accumulated nearly $9 billion in total earnings from carbon credit sales26.

In the fourth quarter of 2023, Tesla reported $433 million in income from carbon credit sales, which was a 7% decrease compared to the same period in 20221. Despite this quarterly decline, the annual revenue from carbon credits still reached a record high.

These carbon credit sales have become a significant source of income for Tesla, accounting for 11% of its overall gross margin in the fourth quarter of 2023. The company incurs minimal additional costs to earn these credits, making them almost pure profit16.

Tesla's continued success in selling carbon credits has surprised some, as it was initially expected that this revenue stream would decline as competitors increased their electric vehicle production2. However, the demand for carbon credits remains strong, driven by global efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change1.


If only we could figure a way to make a cow purchase a clean energy ETF every time it farts...

Man, that really makes me think whoever runs Tesla should stay far away from influencing government policies!

Me too. She’s awesome. Wish I saw her around here more. Caught her on Discord. She feels as though she’s not welcome around here anymore, from what I gathered. Sucks.

I wish I could touch base with her.
I'd quickly set her straight about how much she was appreciated... and how much she's missed.

I'm no expert - but did notice something that stood out in your post:

American taxpayers provide about $17 billion annually in direct federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Wind and solar tax credits alone will cost taxpayers 1/4 TRILLION between 2022-2031.

So 17 Billion annually compared to a TEN YEAR total for wind and solar? That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison - and obviously it looks like the disconnect is huge. 17 Billion vs 250 Billion - and who know what rounding up they used to get to 250. Sure there is a difference - a big difference. But let's comp the annual totals of 17 to 25 to make it more transparent? Maybe the source of that had something of an agenda (not you - the place wherever you read that) I can see of no other reason to quote a yearly cost for one and a ten year cost for the other.

And of course no energy source can be "clean" - units have to be manufactured, repaired, maintained, replaced. Whether its solar panels or wind turbines. Infrastucture has to be updated, created or replaced.

Of course - or most probably - the initial switch from carbon emmitting energy to cleaner energy is going to cost more. But even over the last 10 years those cost differentials have plummeted - they should continue to improve. And the reason for doing it? Less Carbon emmissions.... it seems that if the goal is less carbon emmissions, it's unliklely any change will be cost neutral. Especially early on in the transition.

In some parts of the world the change is and has taken place effectively even if there are still people on both sides of the debate. In the UK - 27% of all energy was produced by wind in 2022. 51% of all energy came from 'zero carbon power sources' .... I'd say that's significant. Although anyone could highlight that the concrete, the materials and manufacturing process for the infrastructure all produce carbon before the first Kwh of energy is ever produced.

I was talking with a friend the other day who made an interesting comment that I've never thouht of before - he was talking about the difference between China and western democracies. He said China is thinking "for the next 200 years" - where as we are all running our countries based on 4 or 5 year government terms. I wonder what decisions would be different if we were planning for the next 50-75 years instead of looking at the right now. Or in politics - how to get re-elected in 5 years?

As I started - I'll repeat. I'm no expert, just throwing out some thoughts.

I think you're latching on to the disparity between the numbers without seeing there are specific differences. My bad on making things confusion with the wording.

First, a little nuance though, subsidies and credits wouldn't necessarily be the same anyway. While all credits are subsidies, not all subsidies are credits. Credits could be anything taken directly off their tax bill while subsidies could include low interest loans, grants, rebates or a host of other things.

More pertinent to my conversation is the fact that the subsides I mentioned were specific to the fossil fuel industry, while the credits were across all industries. That could include a $10 consumer rebate for a solar powered attic fan, for all we know.

Food for more thought is the fact that all this info, much of which is way less translucent that what you're reading now, is very hard to find. The two sources I found were compliments of an AI search. If I searched for that on Giggle, I would either be on page 32 or asleep on my keyboard before I found those papers.

Anyway, one said $260B the other said as much as $434B, I figured "1/4 TRILLION" was fair enough to survive hyperbole yet vague enough to know to not get caught up in the enormity of the numbers lol.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/america-s-power-doc-1/6879834f06f3b364/full.pdf
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/windsolaralt-energy-subsidies-to

I saw that big 27% number while reading down in this rabbit hole. Read a bunch of different ways the approach seems much smarter as well. Particularly in how they handle subsidies and the when, where and how of firing up back-up sources to not only fill need, but regulate price. It gave me more hope for US, until I remembered that we could never have an efficient model here lol.

They are also in a position to forcibly raise subsidies again, to cover inflationary cost of parts and materials for maintenance, as well as the needed new start-ups. Just one way the corps always have a gun to the head of a government at the expense of taxpayers. They'll withdraw investment and upset the whole apple cart.

I see Germany is in a bit of a pickle: suffering through some rate spikes after a "bad wind year", worst wind output in 10 years. They say a cold winter could exacerbate things there. Then, of course, they have their stock market wagging the tail of the energy dog just like here in the US.

What decisions would be different?? The shorter list is what decisions wouldn't. The past two election cycles we've been split into: "all green vehicles and dishwashers run on fairy dust by 2035", on one side, and "drill baby drill until you drill straight through to the other side"... on the other.

Did you really think he was trying to make a "fair comparison"? You pointed out the discrepancy and he's still trying to cover up for it. The fact the fossil fuel industry has been getting billions for decades isn't the point he wanted brought forth. Only the evil renewable boogeyman matters.

What are you even talking about? I'm the one that brought forth the fact. And there never was a "discrepancy", those were two different stats.

You need help.

And I'm sure somewhere within your self appointed superiority complex you think you're just the one to help me.

No, I'm quite sure I can't. I'm not sure who can.

Dr Seuss?
Dick and Jane?

You need to expand your list of authors.

J/C...

Kamala Harris:

has made statements related to the concept of "being the bigger person" in various contexts. In her 2019 book "The Truths We Hold: An American Journey," Harris wrote about the importance of taking the high road and maintaining composure in challenging situations. She emphasized the value of staying focused on one's goals rather than getting caught up in petty conflicts.

During her time as Vice President, Harris has often advocated for unity and bridging divides, which aligns with the idea of being the bigger person. In a speech following the 2020 election, she called for Americans to come together and move forward, despite political differences.

While Harris may not have used the exact phrase "being the bigger person," her public statements and actions often reflect this sentiment, particularly in her approach to addressing criticism and navigating political disagreements.


Also Kamala Harris:

Compared to Biden's about-face on Hunter's pardon and echoing Trump about weaponization of DoJ, it almost feels petty to even spend any time discussing this. The only thing that's a bigger joke than trying to run Biden and then their recovery plan is the reality that they probably won't learn anything from this.

They have to sideline the dinosaurs and the people who won't give up power. The Dems right now look like the Republicans in early 2016. It is ripe for a counter-current candidate to upset the stagnant status quo. I just don't know who that would be. I imagine it would have to be someone who is GENUINELY for the every-day working man (not just the current lip service idiots), who takes a hands-off approach to social issues (ie who cares what people do in their personal lives as long as it doesn't hurt anyone).

I would like an update on what "working class" means in this country, if you don't mind indulging.

Good question. You have your traditional blue collar types, but these days, I would say a decent portion of white collar as well. The wealth gap combined with price gouging has gotten so bad, I would say the majority of dual income families with a household income of ~$200K (75th percentile) or less would probably meet the definition for the sake of this conversation. Hell, I'm blessed that I live in a household with more than that and I would still definitely get behind such a candidate.

Basically, people who are feeling it every day going to the grocery store, using child care, buying clothes, cars, etc. that actually need to figure out a way to "make it work." Everything else being what it is, I think those people got angry between '22 and '24 with the economics of every day life and took it out on the polls, whether it was good for them or not. They were just mad and are looking for an advocate. I think they saw/see people like Harris and Pelosi as disingenuous to the cause, whereas I think they could get behind someone like Fetterman, assuming his health doesn't preclude him.

Thanks bro I appreciate it.


Do you think what would be considered middle class has increased or dropped by $ amount?

Sorry, I’m not a diaper wearing MAGAt. And as for the rest of your blah blah blah, I don’t care.


Edit: Because it annoys you.

The middle class $$$ is about the same, it’s just worth much less. To be middle-class by the 80s standard would require two 100K plus jobs in one household.

The middle class is stagnant, it’s the elite taking almost 100% of new wealth that keeps making our money worth less. And there is no stopping that transfer of wealth for the next 4 years. The dupes are gonna get right along with the rest of us… that’s your only solace. I just wonder if housing will come down when Trump crashes the market. These corps aren’t mom and pop landlords. They have mountains of cash and staying power. Meanwhile, MAGA think the minimum wage is good where it’s at. Overtime is dead. Unions are dead. And we’re at the breaking point already. And we all know that no one will be working for working class people for the next four years, short of a pitiful D by dems.

I can’t wait to see certain maga people take these hits they voted for…

Another good question. I don't know for sure what the answer is. With recent economic pressures and inflation, I would think that the income ranges establishing who falls within middle class has expanded, while the number of people who actually fall within the middle class has shrunk. The wealth gap has inarguably widened by leaps and bounds. That, combined with inflationary pressure has decreased middle class buying power. I don't really say any legit, prospective candidate who actually is championing that cause with a legitimate plan, either.

Oh, and by the way, this isn't a partisan issue. There are both conservative and liberal methods to keep a strong middle class. I think what we're seeing is the prioritization of donor classes over middle classes, however.

If the past is any indication, I do expect the next four years to skew this even further.

Personally,. I think it was a mistake not to engage with Vance.. But nothing she or biden do can ever compare to the insurrection that Trump caused.....

It's funny how they never mentioned the fact that trump is such a whiny, classless person he wouldn't even attend Biden's inauguration. But you know.... Kamala.

But of course they don't hold him accountable for anything. Instead they blame the people that point such things out.

They don’t care about having an impartial view on this matter. How dare a woman not host a once gay idiot lackey with a jelly fish spine. JD vance is a token VP. Trump is an illegitimate POTUS because of J6, period. The real POTUS is Elon and about a dozen other billionaires, IMHO. And I don’t think they will crash the economy by idiocy, I think they will crash it intentionally for bailouts or to leave a handful of men more powerful and wealthy than they are now. Meanwhile, dementia Don will be blowing sunshine up the butts of MAGA talking about his fake accomplishments riding on bidens economy. It’s all a dog and pony show. Trump is closer to a ring master than a POTUS in nature, and he’s bringing his circus to DC.

If you absolutely have to pout, then it's better to go and do it quietly in the corner vs blasting it all over social and sending your minions to attempt a coup.

The next time he pouts in private will be the first time.

I see where President Biden just issued preemptive pardons to several people like Fauchi and Shifty. Innocent people don't need Presidental pardons.

They do when the incoming king has made it clear he will be conducting witch hunts.