Energy, Cost and Subsidy in Power Production

[NortonH]

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are.

Since I have asked you (and everyone else) to use YOUR definition of 'subsidy' I cannot answer the questions. The point of them is to allow me to understand your definition of the word subsidy.

(By the way that is about the third time you have posted a blank response. You want to be careful because that can be interpreted as Disruptive and Abusive. Not by me, I might stress, I don't care, but the mods.)

[hypervalent_iodine]

16 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Since I have asked you (and everyone else) to use YOUR definition of 'subsidy' I cannot answer the questions. The point of them is to allow me to understand your definition of the word subsidy.

(By the way that is about the third time you have posted a blank response. You want to be careful because that can be interpreted as Disruptive and Abusive. Not by me, I might stress, I don't care, but the mods.)

I posted a working definition back on the first page. 

I would also like to note that the warning you received was for an entirely separate issue. It was not merely because you posted a quote. You do not do yourself any favours by misrepresenting other people's actions. 

[CharonY]

I think the definition is quite clear and as pointed out, repeatedly, it requires establishing a baseline. And assuming that the low rate is the baseline, you have gotten your answer a couple of time already.

It is like asking whether $5 for one object is a bigger discount than $4 for a different one, without telling what the respective original price is.

[NortonH]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

I posted a working definition back on the first page.

Great. So now can you USE your working definition to answer the questions I asked so that I can understand your working definition a bit better and see whether the working definition you give provides a working definition for something which will allow us to discuss a conserved quantity?

A simple yes or no. I won't bother indulging any further.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

I think the definition is quite clear and as pointed out, repeatedly, it requires establishing a baseline. And assuming that the low rate is the baseline, you have gotten your answer a couple of time already.

It is like asking whether $5 for one object is a bigger discount than $4 for a different one, without telling what the respective original price is.

The baseline rates are the same for everyone and the three scenarios apply to everyone. Please indicate whether there is a subsidy applying in each case.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Or you could instead give us your answer, so we all know what you are talking about (this is your thread after all) and we can move on from there. I have already said (three times now) that I agree with the assessment of others who have responded. I particularly like CharonY's post, and would consider his answer to be identical to mine:

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

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.

 

If you can't accept that, then this whole thread is pointless, and it is obvious you aren't here for a discussion. 

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, NortonH said:

The baseline rates are the same for everyone and the three scenarios apply to everyone.

So everybody pays $4, and pays $5, and pays $5 but gets $1 back. That means everyone pays $13 tax on $10 income. 

Either that or you haven’t understood what is meant by baseline. 

Either way, if everyone pays the same then there is no subsidy so I fail to see the relevance. 

[NortonH]

14 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Or you could instead give us your answer, so we all know what you are talking about (this is your thread after all) and we can move on from there. I have already said (three times now) that I agree with the assessment of others who have responded.

Since I have asked you (and everyone else) to use YOUR definition of 'subsidy' I cannot answer the questions. The point of them is to allow me to understand your definition of the word subsidy.

I stated clearly above that there are three simple scenarios which apply to everyone. All you have to do is give a simple straight answer. It is not credible that you cannot give three Yes/No answers.

I remind you that you are not obliged to be on this thread. Up until a couple of hours ago it did not exist and you were OK. So I suspect that you would be OK if you left it and let others who are willing to discuss it in good faith to get on and do so. I do not know what the ethics are of a mod trolling a thread or a troll modding a thread but I suggest you discuss it in the mod forum. I would have thought that you were obliged to maintain higher standards rather than abuse your privileges.

I have asked you to answer three very simple questions using YOUR definition of a word so that I can resolve an ambiguity. You have refused.

Thank you for your time. Have a great day. 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

So everybody pays $4, and pays $5, and pays $5 but gets $1 back. That means everyone pays $13 tax on $10 income. 

It is quite clear that I am giving three different scenarios and asking whether there is a subsidy involved. The question is quite clear. Please give an answer so that i can get an understanding of your definition of 'subsidy'.

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, NortonH said:

It is quite clear that I am giving three different scenarios and asking whether there is a subsidy involved.

If the same scenario applies to everyone I can’t see what definition of subsidy you think could apply. Do you mean that paying less than 100% tax is a subsidy?

But I thought you were defining subsidy in terms of energy; how does that relate to tax?

[NortonH]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

If the same scenario applies to everyone I can’t see what definition of subsidy you think could apply. Do you mean that paying less than 100% tax is a subsidy?

But I thought you were defining subsidy in terms of energy; how does that relate to tax?

Thank you for your response.

For the last time - I have asked three very simple questions. Each is a separate scenario. I am asking people to use their own definition of subsidy to give me three simple Yes/No answers.

When you have given these answers I will understand more about your use of the word. 

Do not complain about lack of progress of the thread when you are the ones obstructing. You are not obliged to be on this thread and if you have nothing to contribute then please stop clogging it up.

[hypervalent_iodine]

3 hours 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?

OK? Got it?

 

You have not provided enough context, and that is why no one is giving you three yes / no answers. I will reword and repeat the answers you have already been given though, for whatever good it will do you. 

IF in the first case everyone else is being taxed $5, then yes, there is a subsidy. 

IF in the second case everyone else is being taxed $5, then no, there is no subsidy.

The third is clearly a subsidy. 

And this all of course depends on the tax system you are talking about, but if you assume the simplest version wherein everyone is taxed one amount, then my above answers stand. 

Alternatively, you could try and read the wiki article on subsidies and get on the same page as everyone else in this thread who already know what the term means, instead of spending what is now 3 pages talking in circles about the meaning of a word instead of just stating your case in plain English. 

[NortonH]

Just now, hypervalent_iodine said:

IF in the first case everyone else is being taxed $5, then yes, there is a subsidy. 

Where did I say that everyone else was being taxed $5?? Where?

I said no such thing. I stated above that the scenario applies to everyone. Why do you introduce stuff I never said? That is strawman behaviour, is it not?

Last chance for simple straight Yes/No answers:

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?

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I am asking people to use their own definition of subsidy to give me three simple Yes/No answers.

And everyone seems to agree that it is a poorly framed question so a yes/no answer is not possible. 

4 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

The third is clearly a subsidy.

I’m not sure that is true if everybody gets the $1 back - then it just sounds like an over-complicated (realistic?) tax system. 

[hypervalent_iodine]

3 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Where did I say that everyone else was being taxed $5?? Where?

I said no such thing. I stated above that the scenario applies to everyone. Why do you introduce stuff I never said? That is strawman behaviour, is it not?

Last chance for simple straight Yes/No answers:

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?

 

This is why no one has given you clear answers. Your question is poorly framed, and your statement that if you think 3 is a subsidy then 1 is also does not make sense unless you make the assumption that everyone else is being taxed $5. Could you kindly explain how else this constitutes a subsidy. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, NortonH said:

Last chance for simple straight Yes/No answers:

How about asking a better question instead?

[hypervalent_iodine]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

And everyone seems to agree that it is a poorly framed question so a yes/no answer is not possible. 

I’m not sure that is true if everybody gets the $1 back - then it just sounds like an over-complicated (realistic?) tax system. 

 

Good point! I was making very simple assumptions about the context. 

[NortonH]

5 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

and your statement that if you think 3 is a subsidy

I did not make a statement, I asked a question about whether YOU think it is a subsidy. You refuse to answer because you would like to tell us that there is a subsidy in case three even though case 3 and case 1 are exactly the same. Hence a subsidy only means something if it is netted off and treated as a conserved quantity as I originally defined it.

It is clear that you have just been jerking me around, (fine if it floats your boat), but you have kind of screwed up the thread for anyone else who may have wanted a sincere discussion.

As far as I am concerned this thread is closed. I will not be responding any further.  I suggest that a responsible mod lock the thread but i do not care either way.

I will start new topic in a moment and ignore trolls.

Have a great day.

[hypervalent_iodine]

How are they the same? A subsidy is where money is returned in some fashion. If I was originally going to be taxed $5, but I received $1 back and was only taxed $4, then that is a susbsidy. If I was originally taxed $4 and received nothing back, even though the amounts I am being taxed in the first and third situation are the same, it is not a subsidy. I received nothing back. Do not blame me for your inability to used correct definitions of standard terms. I have tried to engage with you, I tried to get a clear idea of your position, and you refused to respond. 

[NortonH]

I tried to discuss this earlier but the thread was hijacked by trolls and allowed to be hijacked by trolls.
By an amazing coincidence they were the same people who had been rubbed up the wrong way on another thread earlier. (What are the chances eh!?)
I have started new thread to discuss in a scientific way a topic which I find relevant.
If you are not prepared to discuss then please do not conribute. I will indulge once or twice but no more, I have learned my lesson. You are not obliged to be on this or any other thread.
The following people will be ignored unless they make a sincere effort.

CharonY, Strange, hypervalent_iodine, John Cuthber

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 or money or some conserved quantity into a system from outside. eg If a windfarm gets more paid to it than it pays out in tax then it is subsidised ie there is a NET flow in.
If you pay tax but get some kind of rebate for something then, as long as the rebate does not exceed what you pay in tax you are a NET taxpayer and not recieving a subsidy.
It is important to define this word properly because people bandy about but, when pressed, are unable to actually understand the consequences of their ambiguous lax defintion.

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.

Sincere commentary welcome, trolling will be ignored and probably reported.
 

[koti]

Dude, one thread per same topic.

[Outrider]

You did a much better job of explaining yourself this time NortonH so I hope the mods will leave this open and lock the other thread. 

16 minutes 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.

 

This is true.

17 minutes ago, NortonH said:

If the energy source cannot survive without subsidy then it is clearly not producing more energy that it consumes.

This is not true in the case of wind turbines. The source of energy is the wind and obviously it exists with or without the turbines. Also the turbines don't consume any energy that we have to realistically "pay for" other than construction and maintenance. Thats the whole point.

21 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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.

This is also trivaly false. You can buy a watch these days that cost more than some cars the watch used less energy to "create" and uses less to run. If you want to try to defend this concept further I suggest you divorce create and run because it really is two different things. 

26 minutes ago, NortonH said:

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.

I get it. No idea if its true but for the purpose of this discussion I'll take your word for it. Our technology will get better as we use it and renewables are a much better long term plan than the status quo.

So I'm ok with the subsidies.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I am merging this with your other thread. One per topic, please. 

 

[Frank]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wind+energy+subsidy-free

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

So...is taking oil out of the ground without paying the current and future damages it causes effectively, if not literally, a subsidy?

[NortonH]

2 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

I am merging this with your other thread. One per topic, please. 

 

I explained quite clearly why I started a new topic. 

3 hours ago, Outrider said:

The source of energy is the wind and obviously it exists with or without the turbines. Also the turbines don't consume any energy that we have to realistically "pay for" other than construction and maintenance.

Hi Outrider.
Thank you for your response.
The energy needed to create and maintain the wind mills as well as the infrastructure needed to transmit the power they produce is not insignificant and I will argue that the combination of start-up cost (energy) and maintenance outweighs the energy they produce in their lifetime. The maintenance cost IS something that we have to pay for.

Quote

This is also trivaly false. You can buy a watch these days that cost more than some cars the watch used less energy to "create" and uses less to run.

I disagree. Can you give me an example and I will explain why I disagree. My guess is that you are talking about a gold watch encrusted with diamonds. That raises the question of why gold and diamonds are so expensive and that once again goes back to my original point - the cost of something is a measure of the energy that goes into producing it.

I agree that creation and running are two different things but they both require energy. Once is a start-up one-off lump and the other is an ongoing consumption.

You assume that as technology improves wind farms will become more efficient and so in the meantime we have to help them with a subsidy. I disagree with this for two reasons.
The initial investment should be considered a lump sum that we are prepared to risk rather than an open ended blank check. (as any business start up should be) and secondly you are assuming that they will actually eventually become self sustaining. I have some reason to doubt this which I will explain in a moment once I get some more details together.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So...is taking oil out of the ground without paying the current and future damages it causes effectively, if not literally, a subsidy?

Hi JC. Thankyou for your question. I would say that this kind of question is exactly why need to be very precise about what we mean by 'subsidy'. The problem we had earlier was that a bunch of people thought it was a good jape to quibble this concept endlessly.

I will define a subsidy as a NET flow (of energy or money) into a system from an external system and I will say it is exactly the same as a negative tax. This is the definition I use because it is a conserved quantity. If people want to play their silly games they will be ignored.

So basically I am using it as a way of tracking energy consumption. Energy is a conserved quantity and if we use a definition of subsidy and tax which are conserved quantities which represent movement of resources in and out of systems then these become good measures. eg if your energy business is needing a subsidy from somewhere then that is a good indication that you are absorbing more energy than you are producing.

I am happy to clarify anything if it is unclear at this early stage.

[hypervalent_iodine]

10 minutes ago, NortonH said:

I explained quite clearly why I started a new topic. 

 

A couple of things. The rules, which you agreed to when you signed up to this forum, prohibit a member from opening multiple threads on one topic. You do not get to get around that because you are not satisfied with the responses you were getting. Secondly, you do not get to dictate who is able to participate in a thread or even how they participate. If you do not agree with someone's post, you are free to make your case to them as to why they are wrong or why you think they have missed the point.

Now, persistently wrong definitions of what constitutes a subsidy aside, I still find several issues with your premise. Although, I should thank you for explaining your position a bit better in your previous post. 

4 hours ago, NortonH said:

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.

 

Where is your evidence that this is the case? Certainly, wind energy and other forms of renewables were not competitive when first brought into the fray, but the point of subsidising them was to allow them to develop to the point where they were. All recent evidence now suggests that they either are, or are well on track. I came across this article, which I found interesting. Would you care to comment on it, and specifically on the quote below?

 

Quote

It is true that black coal can supply electricity to the wholesale market at A$40 per megawatt hour (MWh). However, new wind farms require much less than A$120 per MWh to be financed. Recent experience shows that new wind farms require A$80-90 per MWh. 

But this is comparing apples with oranges. The coal cost refers to what is essentially the cost of fuel. The wind cost is the cost over the lifetime of the project, including capital and return on investment. 

If we compare apples with apples, the long-run cost of coal is A$85-$100 per MWh (without a carbon price), versus A$90 per MWh for wind. The short-run cost of wind is zero: flowing air costs nothing.