Energy, Cost and Subsidy in Power Production

[NortonH]

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them. Currently we have a lot of wind farms being subsidized.

I am of the opinion that this is pure theatre and self delusion. If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes.

This discussion often gets bogged down when people try to redefine the word 'subsidy' and include things like tax rebates in the definition.

So I will use a definition here - a subsidy is a net flow of energy into a system from outside. 

I will also add that as a corollary to this the Cost of something is a very good measure of the Energy that went into creating and running it.

If wind farms cost more to build and maintain than they produce in a free market then they are not net producers or energy, they are absorbers.

[hypervalent_iodine]

You know what else is heavily subsidised? Fossil fuels. Far more so than wind farms are. 

[NortonH]

18 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

You know what else is heavily subsidised? Fossil fuels. Far more so than wind farms are. 

Thank you for your response. Please re-read lines 4-6 of my original post.

I think they cover that.

If you think that fossil can be subsidised then please explain where the energy comes from to subsidize it. In reality it is not possible to subsidize the cheapest source of energy (assuming we believe in the conservation of mass/energy)

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

You mean the part just after where you say:

46 minutes ago, NortonH said:

This discussion often gets bogged down when people try to redefine the word 'subsidy'

And then go on to redefine the word, 'subsidy'? 

I am somewhat confused by your post, as it appears to use two different definitions concurrently, so perhaps you could clarify. The way you talk in the opening of your post reads as though you are using the accepted definition, i.e.

Quote

A subsidy is money that is paid by a government or other authority in order to help an industry or business, or to pay for a public service.

From: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/subsidy

Yet, you go on further in the post to create this whole new definition and apply it retrospectively to your first statement. Wind farms, as with fossil fuels, are subsidised. The latter more so than the former. That is a simple, easily searchable fact. It is also worth noting that coal prices have been increasing, and are predicted to continue increasing for the foreseeable future. Renewables, on the other hand, have been dropping. 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, NortonH said:

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them. Currently we have a lot of wind farms being subsidized.

I am of the opinion that this is pure theatre and self delusion. If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes.

This is not at all clear to me; in fact, it's pretty obviously wrong. The converse is certainly true, however: if it produces less energy than it consumes, it requires a subsidy. But reversing that is not necessarily true (and assuming it is a logical fallacy)

Quote

This discussion often gets bogged down when people try to redefine the word 'subsidy' and include things like tax rebates in the definition.

That's not a redefinition. That is literally part the definition of subsidy, as hypervalent_iodine has shown.

Quote

So I will use a definition here - a subsidy is a net flow of energy into a system from outside. 

Which makes your position a tautology. Hardly useful.

[NortonH]

3 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

I am somewhat confused by your post, as it appears to use two different definitions concurrently, so perhaps you could clarify. The way you talk in the opening of your post reads as though you are using the accepted definition, i.e.

I defined the word for this post precisely because I wanted a single defintion. You can define it how you like but then you have to use it consistently.
If you want to use the Collins dictionary definition then you have to ask yourself whether you have defined a conserved quantity.

My defintion produces a conserved quantity. What goes to a recipient has to equally match what is taken as tax from someone else.
My definition of subsidy is identical to a negative tax and is conserved.

Is the definition you gave us conserved?

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?
If you think that you are being subsidized in case 3 but not in case 1 then you are admitting that your subsidy is not a conserved quantity. That is why I used the concept of Net flow.

If you don't like me using the word 'subsidy' then I will use the word 'skidka'. It is what I defined initially and is a conserved quantity. OK? Are you happy with that? No words have been harmed.
So let me state my post again with this new word. Renewables recieve skidkas and fossil fuels do not.

The reason I chose to define a conserved quantity is because it is a measure of the energy which is flowing. Fossil pays tax and receives no skidka. Renewables are recipients of skidka because they get more back as (what we used to call subsidies) than they pay in tax.
That is why I say that they are net energy absorbers.

If you still think that fossil fuels recieve net subsidies then please tell me where the energy is coming from to provide them.

 

If C(t) is the coal price and R(t) is the Renewables price then C'(t)>0 and R'(t)<0 does not imply that R(t)<C(t) or likely to be anytime soon.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is not at all clear to me; in fact, it's pretty obviously wrong.

It is clearly true. If it cannot survive without a subsidy and it is in the business of producing energy then clearly it is not producing enough energy to keep itself going. That is why it NEEDS a subsidy to keep going. I didn't say it got one just as a gift or a rort,  said it NEEDS one. It can only be in that position if it is not producing enough energy. Hence the need for a subsidy is an indicator that it is not producing more energy than it consumes.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not a redefinition. That is literally part the definition of subsidy, as hypervalent_iodine has shown.

OK, Then forget I ever used the word subsidy, we will use my new word 'skidka' which I defined above. It is a conserved quantity and ideal for this discussion. 

The phrase I used, 'net subsidy', could also work but, you know, if people find a reason to quibble rather than just debate they often do.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which makes your position a tautology. Hardly useful.

No it is not a tautology. It distinguishes my definition from the some other definitions (like Collins above) which covers flow one way but takes no account of any flow the other way.

Please see my example above and tell me whether there is a $1 subsidy in case 3.

 

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?

Here is a test: You earn $10 and I tax you $2 but tax everyone else $4. Meanwhile the cost I pay on infrastructure you use is $11. Are you subsidized? 

The definition of subsidized aside all R&D costs money. Adjusted for inflation the Manhattan Project had a cost of $22 billion. So your question, if we take you definition of subsidy, is whether or not sustainable clean energy is worth R&D spending. My answer to that question is YES.  

 

 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I defined the word for this post precisely because I wanted a single defintion. You can define it how you like but then you have to use it consistently.

That's not how this works. You need to come up with a new term, or better yet, find an existing one that means this. You can't just redefine existing terminology to suit your needs.

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If you want to use the Collins dictionary definition then you have to ask yourself whether you have defined a conserved quantity.

My defintion produces a conserved quantity. What goes to a recipient has to equally match what is taken as tax from someone else.
My definition of subsidy is identical to a negative tax and is conserved.

No, it's not identical. 

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Is the definition you gave us conserved?

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?
If you think that you are being subsidized in case 3 but not in case 1 then you are admitting that your subsidy is not a conserved quantity. That is why I used the concept of Net flow.

Taxes are a conserved quantity within the whole system, but not within subsystems. 

If you want to use net flow, how about calling it net flow? or "energy subsidy"?

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If you don't like me using the word 'subsidy' then I will use the word 'skidka'. It is what I defined initially and is a conserved quantity. OK? Are you happy with that? No words have been harmed.
So let me state my post again with this new word. Renewables recieve skidkas and fossil fuels do not.

What net energy is received by solar or wind power?

(we can discuss how fossil fuels are simply stored solar energy later)

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

The reason I chose to define a conserved quantity is because it is a measure of the energy which is flowing. Fossil pays tax and receives no skidka. Renewables are recipients of skidka because they get more back as (what we used to call subsidies) than they pay in tax.
That is why I say that they are net energy absorbers.

energy ≠ money

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If you still think that fossil fuels recieve net subsidies then please tell me where the energy is coming from to provide them.

Where is the energy coming from that you think is being added to solar and wind?

14 minutes ago, NortonH said:

 It is clearly true. If it cannot survive without a subsidy and it is in the business of producing energy then clearly it is not producing enough energy to keep itself going. That is why it NEEDS a subsidy to keep going. I didn't say it got one just as a gift or a rort,  said it NEEDS one. It can only be in that position if it is not producing enough energy. Hence the need for a subsidy is an indicator that it is not producing more energy than it consumes.

It needs money to cover economic losses when manufacturing is expensive. Oil gets subsidies, and when they aren't there, certain ways of obtaining oil are not profitable. Not all expenditures of money are for energy. Otherwise, you have to defend the idea that economies of scale or manufacturing efficiency depend solely on energy savings.

Put another way, if it takes 10 kWh of electricity to produce something, and electriciy is 10 cents per kWh, the energy cost of that widget is a dollar. Do you sell it for a dollar? Even if the materials cost is five dollars? if your artisan making it becomes better with practice and can produce two widgets in the time it used to take to build one, how has the energy cost per unit changed?

 

[NortonH]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Here is a test: You earn $10 and I tax you $2 but tax everyone else $4. Meanwhile the cost I pay on infrastructure you use is $11. Are you subsidized? 

The definition of subsidized aside all R&D costs money. Adjusted for inflation the Manhattan Project had a cost of $22 billion. So your question, if we take you definition of subsidy, is whether or not sustainable clean energy is worth R&D spending. My answer to that question is YES.  

 

 

Do I take it that you are not going to answer the question but will rather prefer to go off on a tangent? Sorry. I no longer play those games. Fooled once and all that.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I defined the word for this post precisely because I wanted a single defintion. You can define it how you like but then you have to use it consistently.
If you want to use the Collins dictionary definition then you have to ask yourself whether you have defined a conserved quantity.

 

 

That’s fine, but perhaps you could choose a word that doesn’t already have an extremely clear definition. That might seem like a meaningless distinction to you, but the entire premise of conversation is that we can communicate and understand the same language. If you go around using words that already have well known meanings, and randomly give them new ones, it makes discussion difficult. You can’t possibly hope to get anything substantive out of this if you don’t engage on a common level

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

My defintion produces a conserved quantity. What goes to a recipient has to equally match what is taken as tax from someone else.
My definition of subsidy is identical to a negative tax and is conserved.

Is the definition you gave us conserved?

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?
If you think that you are being subsidized in case 3 but not in case 1 then you are admitting that your subsidy is not a conserved quantity. That is why I used the concept of Net flow.

 

Wait, so are we talking about monetary amounts or aren’t we? I think before we continue this discussion, it would be useful for you to do some independent research on what constitutes a subsidy. You appear to be all over the place on what you mean, that it renders this conversation pointless. 

35 minutes ago, NortonH said:

The reason I chose to define a conserved quantity is because it is a measure of the energy which is flowing. Fossil pays tax and receives no skidka. Renewables are recipients of skidka because they get more back as (what we used to call subsidies) than they pay in tax.
That is why I say that they are net energy absorbers.

 

Are you claiming that coal plants require no energy to operate?

 

[NortonH]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not how this works. You need to come up with a new term, or better yet, find an existing one that means this. You can't just redefine existing terminology to suit your needs.

My use of the word is not uncommon and quite applicable. I defined it clearly so there was no ambiguity. All you are doing now is pointess nitpicking. We are not here to discuss linguistics but to debate science. That is why I carefully defined a conserved quantity.
In any case I HAVE created a new word for us to use. Skidka. See above.

If my definition is not the same as a negative tax then please say why not. It is almost as if you are just here to automatically contradict anything I say and I could speculate as to why you might feel the urge to do something so daft.

Quote

If you want to use net flow, how about calling it net flow? or "energy subsidy"?

Oh. So I said 'net subsidy' and I should have said 'net flow'. Gee. Sorry. Is that REALLY the biggest nit you could pick?

Quote

What net energy is received by solar or wind power?

If you really want to engage in debate (IF!) then I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down and actually read what I have written rather than just feel the need to contradict anything that bad old Norton writes. That question has been answered and I am reluctant to repeat myself but will do so one more time if you really cannot grasp it.
If you cannot come up with something relevant and constructive then it is not a problem for me.
You could start with a simple straight answer to the $10 question.

Quote

Where is the energy coming from that you think is being added to solar and wind?

That has been answered above. It is pretty much the point of the thread and why I chose a conserved quantity.

Quote

Put another way, if it takes 10 kWh of electricity to produce something, and electriciy is 10 cents per kWh, the energy cost of that widget is a dollar. Do you sell it for a dollar? Even if the materials cost is five dollars?

If your energy costs of fabrication are a dollar then you obviously need to charge more than a dollar to make a profit. Do you really need me to answer that?!?!

19 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

If you go around using words that already have well known meanings, and randomly give them new ones, it makes discussion difficult.

Iodine, I think is is fair to say that the definition I gave a lot more precise than the rather vague one you provided. In addition I threw in the word 'net' to make it extra clear.
I was not randomly giving it a new meaning I was giving it a precise meaning and the example i give illustrates that.

Quote

Wait, so are we talking about monetary amounts or aren’t we? I think before we continue this discussion, it would be useful for you to do some independent research on what constitutes a subsidy. You appear to be all over the place on what you mean, that it renders this conversation pointless.

 

That sounds a bit like evasion to me. Sorry but it does. All I asked for was a very simple answer to my little scenario question. Why could you not provide one?
Any sensible person would immediately recognise that situation 3 is the same as situation 1 and would immediately grasp why I needed to define the word precisely at the start.
Not the case on this forum...

Quote

Are you claiming that coal plants require no energy to operate?

I guess it is lucky that you have mod power and i do not because i would be tempted to give you a reprimand for deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Coal plants pretty obviously burn coal for energy. They release so much energy that they can run themselves AND produce surplus to power the society we live in.

By the way, I have defined the word 'skidka' specifically for use by people on this thread. No longer use the word subsidy if it cause so much grief.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

I do not see that there is an issue of vagueness at all. It is quite clear cut. However, and for the sake of continuing discussion, I’ll leave it at that. 

 

I am not using made up words to discuss something that the English language already permits (should people choose to use it correctly). Your issue, at its heart, is that you don’t believe wind power to be sustainable, correct? Could you please provide some numbers and sources that clearly indicate this to be the case? Finally, do you think that coal power is sustainable, given the state of our ever depleting resources and increasing cost to produce coal power, and the increasing burden the industry places upon the environment (leading to more expenditure)?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

Do I take it that you are not going to answer the question but will rather prefer to go off on a tangent? Sorry. I no longer play those games. Fooled once and all that.

 

The OP doesn't contain a question. It is a series of statements which complain about energy subsidies and seeks to redefine what a subsidy is.what question does this thread ask specifically? 

 

1 hour ago, NortonH said:

You could start with a simple straight answer to the $10 question.

Your $10 question isn't accurate if applied to any industry. Ignoring that and attempting to look at the question in total isolation there isn't enough information  to answer it. How much any company is taxed compared to another matters in all capitalistic economies where competition is a factor. Providing tax incentives to some puts a thumb on the scale. So in your $10 question what is the minimum rate being paid by all and what is the rebate for all?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

 

If you really want to engage in debate (IF!) then I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down and actually read what I have written rather than just feel the need to contradict anything that bad old Norton writes. That question has been answered and I am reluctant to repeat myself but will do so one more time if you really cannot grasp it.

No, you never answered the question. You said something about  tax, but that's money, not energy. What outside source of energy is needed for wind or solar, that is greater than the energy they produce?

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

 That has been answered above. It is pretty much the point of the thread and why I chose a conserved quantity.

You didn't actually choose a conserved quantity. The energy produced by burning fossil fuels is a net energy gain, relative to the energy needed to extract and distribute it. It's not conserved. That's the whole point of energy generation.

And that's not even required for it to be profitable, if you can distribute the energy to regions where local generation is difficult. If I had a substance which had a high energy density but was easily transportable, it would be profitable to use cheap energy to extract and refine it, and then ship it to where energy was expensive (like an island somewhere, that had no reserves of its own)

 

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

If your energy costs of fabrication are a dollar then you obviously need to charge more than a dollar to make a profit. Do you really need me to answer that?!?!

Yes, since you don't seem to have a grasp on the subject.

I can make something cheaper that has nothing to do with energy. So a subsidy might be required before these economies of scale kick in, and then be removed later on.

 

2 hours ago, NortonH said:

 Coal plants pretty obviously burn coal for energy. They release so much energy that they can run themselves AND produce surplus to power the society we live in.

Solar and wind do the same thing. And in some places they are cheaper than coal.

[NortonH]

7 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

I do not see that there is an issue of vagueness at all. It is quite clear cut.

I asked you to give  a very simple answer to a little scenario. I asked you that question so that i could demonstrate a point about the definition I chose. Why can you not give me a simple answer?

Quote

I am not using made up words to discuss something that the English language already permits 

Oh I see! So you don't like the definition I used because it was not the one you wanted.I was instructed to use a new word and when I used a new word I was told i should not make up new words when one already exists, even though I am not allowed to use it. And you are a Mod on a science forum!?!?! I would hate to meet a nitpicking evasive troll on a language forum!

Why do you not act like a responsible mod and actually answer the very simple question I asked about the three scenarios?

Why the evasion? Trying to save face or some such non-scientific motive?

Quote

Could you please provide some numbers and sources that clearly indicate this to be the case?

Yes, But I can only do that once we have covered the ground so far. You are refusing to engage in any serious debate.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, NortonH said:

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them.

 

[NortonH]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The OP doesn't contain a question. It is a series of statements which complain about energy subsidies and seeks to redefine what a subsidy is.what question does this thread ask specifically? 

Here is a clue Ten Oz, you actually quoted the questions in your initial response but here they are again:

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?

OK? Got it?

 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Your $10 question isn't accurate if applied to any industry.

It is my question. Answer it and we can progress.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

What outside source of energy is needed for wind or solar, that is greater than the energy they produce?

When someone has the gumption to actually engage and answer the very simple $10 question we can define a subsidy/skidka and we can use that to progress further and answer precisely your question. So far we are stuck because everyone is too scared to answer a simple question. This is like politicians in CYA mode, not science. Pathetic.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You didn't actually choose a conserved quantity.

My definition of subsidy/skidka allows us to discuss a conserved quantity. You can prevaricate and divert as much as you like but it will not change that fact.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

I can make something cheaper that has nothing to do with energy.

 

 

Quote

I can make something cheaper that has nothing to do with energy.

Cheaper than what? Give me an example. 

Quote

Solar and wind do the same thing. And in some places they are cheaper than coal.

So why do they need skidkas?

Until you answer the first questions I asked you are just going to go around in circles. I suspect that is what you want because it is clear you do NOT want to engage in any debate.

 

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

Do you have a point to make or are you just posting empty quotes?

[John Cuthber]

Is the quote system on the blink?
I quoted you.

The bit where you said "

13 hours ago, NortonH said:

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them.

"When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them."

But I underlined the word "new"

When new sources of energy are being proposed there is often an impetus to subsidize them.

[NortonH]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Is the quote system on the blink?

I don't know. But I got a reprimand yesterday for doing what you did. Of course, it is clear that I was in their sights because i have killed a few sacred cows recently. Just by the bye.

 

[John Cuthber]

(sorry this is off topic but...)
Does anyone else get the same effect?

 

Anyway, the point  I was making is that governments often (and reasonably) subsidise new technology- because companies are often a bit risk averse and won't invest in it., However neither nuclear power, nor the use of fossil fuels are "new"

The subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are straightforward pork barrelling. 

The subsidies to the nuclear industry are a bit more complicated.

[NortonH]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

The subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are straightforward pork barrelling.

That depends on what you mean by the word 'subsidy'. Please answer the following question so we can fix on a definition.

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?

[John Cuthber]

Define "earn"

But it hardly matters.

Any subsidy or preferential tax break to the fossil fuel industry is pork barrelling.

[NortonH]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Define "earn"

But it hardly matters.

Any subsidy or preferential tax break to the fossil fuel industry is pork barrelling.

You are now just quibbling and this is the last time i will engage with insincere debate. You understand perfectly well what the question means. Please answer it.

(it is funny that after about a dozen comments from the illuminati, (including a mod!!) we still have no answer to a question that most people could answer in a flash)

 

[CharonY]

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Here is a test:
You earn $10 and I tax you $4. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5. Are you being subsidized?
You earn $10 and I tax you $5 and then give you $1 back as a tax break. Are you being subsidized?

You may have missed it, since other commented on it. It depends on the taxation system. Obviously, in any given system equivalent entities are taxed the same (say, based on income). I.e. using the example on an isolated individual makes no sense whatsoever.

Thus, if everyone pays $5 and someone only pays $4, that person gets subsidized, in this case via tax reduction. 

If everyone pays $5  and someone gets $1 it is also a subsidy, this time in form of a cash payment. I hope that makes it clearer to you.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I haven’t attempted to answer it because two (now three) have responded to it and I didn’t see the point. I thought we had moved on from discussion of definitions?

50 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Oh I see! So you don't like the definition I used because it was not the one you wanted.I was instructed to use a new word and when I used a new word I was told i should not make up new words when one already exists, even though I am not allowed to use it. And you are a Mod on a science forum!?!?! I would hate to meet a nitpicking evasive troll on a language forum!

 

Incorrect. I have a problem with you using subsidy when you are not using it’s correct definition. If you expect to be able to have a discussion, expect to have to use the standard definitions of common words. 

 

I have some questions in my last post that you could answer.