(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

Can't let it rest? The Section 29 Tax Credits I mentioned above went into effect in 1989 and expired in 1999. Just like every tax credit and incentive I've ever known anything about.

Why does a statement like "Tax credits for wind and solar should have been a declining credit that has an end" prompt "Yet the tax credits for the fossil fuel industry should continue in perpetuity, eh?" That is like responding to "the sky is blue" with "Bush was a great President". Unrelated factoids. Congress passes tax loopholes to try to get industry to accomplish tasks that Congress feels are in the public interest. It is the obligation of publicly traded companies to maintain knowledge of these incentives and to take advantage of the ones that make economic sense. How the hell did that become evil?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[JohnRBaker]

I never said it was evil, I was simply questioning why arguments made in favor of tax exemptions in one area of energy production are not equally valid for other complementary areas as well. I must confess though that your comments appear to be totally disingenuous. How else does one explain your total disdain for one set of tax loopholes while in the same breath defending others whose purposes were basically identical, that is providing an incentive to industry for making investments in the development of energy resources here in America.

BTW, I can't think of a single situation where I would ever respond with something like "Bush was a great President" ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[zdas04]

"Tax credits for an industry" is kind of a meaningless concept. Each individual tax incentive had its own reason for creation. Each individual law should be evaluated on its own merit. For example, the Section 179 tax credit allows all industries to accelerate depreciation on certain assets into year one instead of depreciating it over a number of years. The purpose of this loophole is to get companies spending money on replacing capital equipment. This tax credit has worked OK, not wonderful or revolutionary, but it has increased capital spending on certain assets (especially vehicles over 6,000 lbs curb weight). "Renewable Power" has the same access to that loophole as "Oil & Gas" or "Software" or my one-man Engineering firm, but the current administration is working to repeal that tax credit for Oil & Gas while leaving it in place for other industries. That is politics, not policy.

Currently, intangible drilling/mining costs can be expensed instead of capitalized. The administration wants to require Oil & Gas to capitalize these expenses while allowing mining to expense them. In the 33 years I've been paying attention to this stuff, these costs have been capital about 1/3 of the time and expense about 2/3 of the time. It makes a difference for the first 2-3 years after a change, but then cumulative depreciation catches up and the annual write off is the same in either case. This is an example of a "loophole" (actually a technical definition) that is a lot more smoke than heat and if they'd just leave it alone we would all be better off.

On the other hand the tax credit for ethanol have stopped research into alternative oxidents that are not hydrophillic and don't create shortages in the corn and corn byproduct market. I don't think that this renewable tax credit is in the public interest.

Do you see the difference? A broad statement like "Why are we still giving tax breaks to oil companies?" is a really evocative sound byte, but when you dig into the details, the answer is "because that is the closest thing that this country has ever had to an energy policy".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

My beef is that the tax policy is driving a disruptive technology, that will drive instability in the electric grid. This is wind that is doing this, and less so solar. And besides the tax credits, as if that was not enough, there are now unfunded mandates on utilities to buy wind and solar energy at a higher cost than other forms of energy.

Now one positive thing wind power has done is make a few farmers richer, as well as some fast talking sales people. But the same wind power has increased the cost of other forms of energy because of the instability in power output.

So wy whole point is not just tax credits, but the driving of instability in something almost everyone expects to be stable.

 

[rb1957]

unintended consequences ? but possibly not unforeseeable ??

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[jgailla]

Dave,
I disagree with you about the tax credits, but your last post was really well put. I'd never thought about it the way you put it in the last line.

 

[zdas04]

The bottom line on all tax breaks is that they are a piecemeal way to implement government policy, and tend to be less effective than actually having a long-term policy. The tax breaks for Oil & Gas that are being vilified today can all go away tomorrow. The result will be (we saw this in the Carter administration where Oil & Gas was also the evil villain) will be for capital investment to go overseas. Pretty simple. I can drill for Shale gas in Pennsylvania with a $2/MCF gas market and unfavorable tax rules or I can drill in Indonesia into a $12/MCF LNG market with very favorable tax rules. In the 1970's tens of thousands of companies decided that the later was more effective and most haven't come back to the U.S. Some have, but they're skittish and it doesn't take much Presidential breast beating to drive them to Poland, Indonesia, Viet Nam, etc. I'm already seeing international growth in drilling and production numbers that is disproportionate to what should be U.S. opportunities. Part of that is the foot dragging by the administration on Export licenses, the rest is the rhetoric about taxes.

So, disagree all you want, if the President gets what he wants on the tax credits then energy independence will be pushed back another decade. Oh yeah, there is a nearly 100% probability that the U.S. deficit will be gone and the budget will be balanced within 5 years of becoming a net exporter of energy so let's just keep beating that horse till he lays down and won't pull the cart any longer.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

So what happened to the biomass people? Why haven't we heard from them in the energy market?

 

[zdas04]

I don't know. Biogenic natural gas plus extracting heat directly from compost is the only "renewable" that makes sense for the past, present, and future. The stuff is going to decompose anyway, I love the idea of using the low-grade heat and the gases. Many dairy farms in cold country have cut their barn heating bill to zero and are generating a fair bit of their electricity from biomass. That is a place where accelerated depreciation would be in the public interest.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[KENAT]

cranky, which biomass folks are you talking about?

Those that want directly to burn bio matter such as switch grass, straw etc. to generate power? Or ar you including the ones that process the biomass be it regular ethanol, cellulose ethanol, or allowing it to compost etc.?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[cranky108]

Well I wasen't thinking of burning anything directly. Wood has been around for a long time, so what's the difference if we burn wood or grass?

There were projects with converting switch grass, and maybe wood to ethonol. What happened?

I know of a few power plants that have adapted some of there burners to accept wood, and the limit seems to be the crushers ability to cursh the wood to a small enough size without cloging.

The idea to convert maneure to methane looks like it has the best hope because it is very compatable with natural gas, but the issue it looks like is the volume of matter, and compression.

I just havaen't seen anything lately.

 

[zdas04]

This month's ASME magazine has an article on energy from trash and they seem to favor (and I agree) that putting gas turbines on top of the source and using the biogenic methane on-site and exporting electricity is way better than burning organic solids. Compression is pretty low grade (less than 3 compression ratios and the compressor end of the turbine can be staged to provide that on the same shaft as the air compressor). Turbine waste heat can be used to accelerate decomposition. It can be a really effective nearly closed system. For retail versions, dairy farms all over the country are installing digesters to quickly turn cow wastes into methane and sterilized fertilizer. These systems seem to make sense with a fairly small number of cows (I don't know the number but is seemed like it was in the dozens not hundreds).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[KENAT]

http://energy.aol.com/2013/03/14/cellulosic-ethanol-breakthrough-in-oregon/

here you go cranky, a quick google search will get you a bunch more - some of them about efforts going nowhere.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ornerynorsk]

"ZeaChem says it makes ethanol from wood". Huh. I wonder if they meant to say methanol.

Another government subsidy boondoggle like corn ethanol, IMHO. I don't believe that alcohol can be produced efficiently and economically from low sugar bio material, no matter the spin put on it by the "adherant faithful". We have corn ethanol plants all over Minnesota and the upper midwest being idled and going into bankruptcy. The true cost of ethanol, after buying the LP gas to heat the mashing tanks and distill it is nearly $5 USD per gallon, for an inferior fuel. And now we'll likely have a round of construction of new plants instead of converting the corn facilities. If it is not economically feasible to stand on its own, it should never happen. We are swimming in oil, with well-played market control and the mythical tale of peak oil keeping the price propped up. I see this as merely another feelgood "let's do something".

Now, perhaps if they would use biogas to provide the heat source, that may be a different story altogether.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[KENAT]

Sure bio gas from the waste from the co-located feed lot to heat the mash sounds like a wonderful idea.

Just not sure on the energy balance side of things.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[GrandpaDave]

I came across the following article on TWC (The Weather Channel) about a month ago. Did anyone else here see the article?
If you have already discussed this article please... I beg your pardon.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/global-warming-poll-believe-hoax-20130403

The following paragraph (See below) stated, like a fact, that a 1/3 of the US population thought global warming was a hoax.
It was further stated, like a fact, that 97% of published climate scientists blame humans for global warming. Now it is known
that TWC is owned by the NBC Corporation so there is no bias… Right?

"So, who is more likely to be correct -- the 97% of all publishing climate scientists, who view the evidence as showing that humans
are primarily responsible for global warming? Or the 37% of the public who view global warming as a hoax, who have been subject to a massive
PR campaign by the richest industry in human history, to make them believe just that? I'll go with the 97% of climate scientists."

G-pa Dave --- an old retired, and tired Missile Stressman in Florida

 

[zdas04]

At high noon in Houston, you will not get 97% of any population in the western hemisphere to agree that it is daytime. 30% won't understand the question. I've never found much consensus among even a very small group of scientists. People keep throwing that 97% number around like it means something. It doesn't. I would expect if you surveyed just the climate scientists who's salary is directly attributable to proving that AGW is real (which is an offensive concept to begin with, but that is "science" in today's world) you would find less than 50% who would state AGW as an unequivocal fact. The rest would equivocate and say that it is "the most likely hypotheses", or "model results show clearly ...", or "the data seems to show ...", etc. If the number that people were tossing around was 64.8% then it might be accepted as "the overwhelming majority", but 97% is clearly invented.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[TomDOT]

David, excellent points. You also need to consider the descriptor "publishing." Given the current climate research community, if you don't agree the current anthropogenic global warming theory, you are much less likely to be allowed to publish. Self-selecting population there.

 

[cranky108]

I actually don't agree with the ethonol tax write off's, but I do agree with the biggest gift of the ethonol industry, and that is geting the ATF off the band wagon of no ethonol production without excise taxes. It's not like there's a line to drink it (or maybe I haven't seen it).

I also don't understand why the industry is biases for corn, when other fruit might work better than corn (apples come to mind). I believe these maybe a lower cost than corn because the waste fruit can be used.
I also wonder why sugar beets never made a comeback.

 

[SnTMan]

cranky108, suggest you ask the Senators from Archer Daniels Midland and Gargill

Regards,

Mikie