New York State mandates all electric buildings

[T. A. Gardner]

Good first step.

What about free use of land that an OIl and gas company might get, or a stadium might get, that other businesses would not, or that they would have to pay full value to build upon in other jurisdiction that was not offering that same land?

Oil and gas companies don't get "free use of land" so what you are trying to do is gaslight with a canard or red herring. I showed you the government webpage you go to to get information on LEASES for mineral extraction, including oil and gas. The government leases the land to a company who then pays the government a royality (cut of the profit) from extraction of the resource.

So you have one city or State offering to the company when others are not and if they build elsewhere they would pay cash for the land.

Government land leases are generally open to the public and anyone can bid on them.

Is that subsidy? If you were city that lost the Arena due to that is it right to say you lost, in part, because the other city was able to offer a subsidy that we could not?

So, it isn't a fucking subsidy in the case of oil and gas--or other mineral extraction. Stop trying to conflate sports arenas with land leases by the BLM to people for various purposes. They're two different entities.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I heard about something someone recently invented called a battery. I think it stores electricity so you can use it even when the sun isn't shining or the wind blowing.

I don't know if these exist yet but I bet one day they will be quite common.

They're prohibitively expensive. Pumped hydro is too. Think about this.

You need electricity 24/7, not just sometimes on a large scale. So, if you were using solar alone, and you can only produce electricity with your solar array at full power say 10 hours a day, at most, then you need 14 hours of some other means to produce power.

So, you build say 16 hours of battery capacity to go with your array to cover when it's down and have a bit of extra. Then you have to build enough extra solar panels into the array so you can supply power for 10 hours when things are up plus have enough extra capacity to charge the battery with 16 hours of charge. So, you in effect build an array 3 to 5 times larger than necessary to do all of this.

An alternative to that is build a natural gas or other type of conventional plant that produces the needed power 14 hours a day and sits idle for 10 hours a day while the solar array runs.

Now, you could just build a natural gas generator that supplies the power 24/7 and consumes cheap natural gas without the need to over build capacity or install storage...

When you do the math, solar arrays all of a sudden become horribly noncompetitive. Wind is a bit better but still not worth the trouble.

 

[QP!]

That's in your mind. You tell me how horrible trump is is like a bank robber pissing and moaning that they got their locket picked. Stfu

You scrotum suckers have created a society where a supreme court justice can't tell us what a woman is because she not a biologist. You retards have done more damage than anything trump has done or could do.

And yet your reply is a sole whataboutism comparing Trump to the people you think horrible.

So you are not too smart if you think a whataboutism is anything but an 'admission with an excuse that the other does it too'.

 

[QP!]

Oil and gas companies don't get "free use of land" so what you are trying to do is gaslight with a canard or red herring. I showed you the government webpage you go to to get information on LEASES for mineral extraction, including oil and gas. The government leases the land to a company who then pays the government a royality (cut of the profit) from extraction of the resource.



Government land leases are generally open to the public and anyone can bid on them.

So, it isn't a fucking subsidy in the case of oil and gas--or other mineral extraction. Stop trying to conflate sports arenas with land leases by the BLM to people for various purposes. They're two different entities.

Terry i never asked you so stop ducking.

I am simply asking if a major sports team or an oil and gas company was to get free use, discounted use, or a grant of land that is not available to others or that they would have to pay for to use, is that a subsidy.

I am not claiming there is any sports team or oil and gas company (yet) that has ever got such. I am simply trying to see if you would define it as a subsidy or not and if you say 'yes' then i will give my example or the sports teams or oil and gas companies so you can assess, BASED ON YOUR YES, if the land they got then is a subsidy.

So once again i ask 'would you consider it a subsidy IF it did happen as i lay out'?

 

[gmark77]

They're prohibitively expensive. Pumped hydro is too. Think about this.

You need electricity 24/7, not just sometimes on a large scale. So, if you were using solar alone, and you can only produce electricity with your solar array at full power say 10 hours a day, at most, then you need 14 hours of some other means to produce power.

So, you build say 16 hours of battery capacity to go with your array to cover when it's down and have a bit of extra. Then you have to build enough extra solar panels into the array so you can supply power for 10 hours when things are up plus have enough extra capacity to charge the battery with 16 hours of charge. So, you in effect build an array 3 to 5 times larger than necessary to do all of this.

An alternative to that is build a natural gas or other type of conventional plant that produces the needed power 14 hours a day and sits idle for 10 hours a day while the solar array runs.

Now, you could just build a natural gas generator that supplies the power 24/7 and consumes cheap natural gas without the need to over build capacity or install storage...

When you do the math, solar arrays all of a sudden become horribly noncompetitive. Wind is a bit better but still not worth the trouble.

You know "so much" about the horrors of renewables. But what do you know about the horrors of coal?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You know "so much" about the horrors of renewables. But what do you know about the horrors of coal?

Coal is pretty bad as a pollutant. I have no problem retiring it as a fuel. However, "horrors" is hyperbolic nonsense. The best choice is nuclear backed up by natural gas. Solar and wind should be niche solutions for specific uses and problems and ditched entirely as large commercial sources. Home solar is terribly inefficient and should be ditched immediately.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Terry i never asked you so stop ducking.

I am simply asking if a major sports team or an oil and gas company was to get free use, discounted use, or a grant of land that is not available to others or that they would have to pay for to use, is that a subsidy.

If they did get it for free or at a highly discounted rate it would be a subsidy. But that isn't the case with oil and gas leases. The BLM is set by law to lease land and the rates are set by Congress.

I am not claiming there is any sports team or oil and gas company (yet) that has ever got such. I am simply trying to see if you would define it as a subsidy or not and if you say 'yes' then i will give my example or the sports teams or oil and gas companies so you can assess, BASED ON YOUR YES, if the land they got then is a subsidy.

Yes, it would be a subsidy.

 

[gmark77]

Coal is pretty bad as a pollutant. I have no problem retiring it as a fuel. However, "horrors" is hyperbolic nonsense.

Is it hyperbolic? Pretty much any toxic chemical on the Periodic Table is probably somewhere in coal. It's a witches brew of nastiness. There's more radioactivity spewed out of a coal burning powerplant than a nuclear reactor. The waste is a horrorshow. The fly ash is a pollution nightmare.

The best choice is nuclear backed up by natural gas.

That is definitely better than coal. But then until we switch over to more "inherently safe" reactor designs we are stuck with systems that run pretty well until they don't at which point really bad shit happens.

Solar and wind should be niche solutions for specific uses and problems and ditched entirely as large commercial sources.

Disagree. Every month when I fly into LA I fly over acres and acres and acres of open roofspace that could be solar. Solar won't ever replace all of the coal and natural gas we currently burn but it can do a fuckton more than we already ask of it.

Home solar is terribly inefficient and should be ditched immediately.

LOL. Sorry you aren't going to get me to agree to that. 18 years of almost zero power bills, free charging on my EV at home, and a built-in solar array to charge the solar generator when my lights go out.

I can't say enough GOOD about this. And I live in a part of the world that is cloudy half the year and STILL I produce a net excess each month vs what I use!

Home solar is GREAT! Fuckin' A!

 

[QP!]

If they did get it for free or at a highly discounted rate it would be a subsidy. But that isn't the case with oil and gas leases. The BLM is set by law to lease land and the rates are set by Congress.


Yes, it would be a subsidy.

So since you claim it has never happened and does not exist if i can cite a single example where a gov't sold land for Oil and gas purposes for X and then the oil and gas company turned around and sold it for 50x and 100x which was cited as a scandal, would you admit you are wrong?

That the gov't massively discounting land is in fact a subsidy and when the company resells it they profit a second time off that subsidy?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Is it hyperbolic? Pretty much any toxic chemical on the Periodic Table is probably somewhere in coal. It's a witches brew of nastiness. There's more radioactivity spewed out of a coal burning powerplant than a nuclear reactor. The waste is a horrorshow. The fly ash is a pollution nightmare.

There are no chemicals toxic or otherwise on the periodic table. That table is composed of individual atoms. Chemicals are molecules or compounds.

Fly ash can be used for manufacture of concrete and masonry products but that is currently limited in production. Yes, radioactivity is a problem with coal but it isn't more "than a nuclear reactor." What radioactivity is present is a result of the release of gases within the coal or coversion to a gas of atoms that are radioactive combining with nitrogen or oxygen during the combustion process.

That is definitely better than coal. But then until we switch over to more "inherently safe" reactor designs we are stuck with systems that run pretty well until they don't at which point really bad shit happens.

Even current designs in nuclear reactors are more than reasonably safe. The only time "really bad shit happens" with commercial nuclear power is when you have an unaccountable government and massive corruption present like in the Soviet Union.

Disagree. Every month when I fly into LA I fly over acres and acres and acres of open roofspace that could be solar. Solar won't ever replace all of the coal and natural gas we currently burn but it can do a fuckton more than we already ask of it.

Home solar systems are terribly inefficient. They are rarely, if ever, placed optimally to produce power. Their use greatly complicates the grid and in older neighborhoods often present a load challenge to older transmission systems. The cost of those systems is such that they barely break even over their lifetime.

Nuclear backed by natural gas is the way to go.

LOL. Sorry you aren't going to get me to agree to that. 18 years of almost zero power bills, free charging on my EV at home, and a built-in solar array to charge the solar generator when my lights go out.

How much did that array cost to install? You don't have to tell me, I can guess. You paid for 20 + years of electricity getting it installed. If I wanted whole house emergency power I'd get something like a Genrac generator on propane or natural gas. My cost total install today would be about $4000 at most.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So since you claim it has never happened and does not exist if i can cite a single example where a gov't sold land for Oil and gas purposes for X and then the oil and gas company turned around and sold it for 50x and 100x which was cited as a scandal, would you admit you are wrong?

That the gov't massively discounting land is in fact a subsidy and when the company resells it they profit a second time off that subsidy?

That's irrelevant. The government sells or leases the land at a rate they set, just like anyone else. Yes, the land could be resold or the lease transfered to another entity. That's between the buyer and seller.

In any case, the government makes a 16.67% royality on ALL mineral wealth extracted from that land if that is what the lease or sale was for.

Royalties: The ONRR collects a royalty on production for Federal onshore leases. The Federal onshore oil and gas rate is 16.67% for leases issued after August 16, 2022. However, there are a few exceptions, including different royalty rates on older leases, reduced royalty rates on certain oil leases with declining production, and increased royalty rates for reinstated leases.

Oil and Gas: General Leasing | Bureau of Land Management

General Oil and Gas Leasing Instructions The BLM issues competitive leases for oil and gas exploration and development on lands owned or controlled by the Federal government. Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 which rescinded the BLM’s authority to issue noncompetitive leases...

www.blm.gov

That's where the money is, not in the dirt, but the wealth extracted. So, even if the government gave the land away, they end up making a profit off of the mineral wealth extracted.

 

[gmark77]

There are no chemicals toxic or otherwise on the periodic table. That table is composed of individual atoms. Chemicals are molecules or compounds.

Huh??? Where do you get that?

Fly ash can be used for manufacture of concrete and masonry products but that is currently limited in production. Yes, radioactivity is a problem with coal but it isn't more "than a nuclear reactor."

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

www.scientificamerican.com

Comparative health risk assessment of nuclear power and coal power in China - PubMed

The public health risk of ionising radiation released from the coal-fired energy chain, 20 deaths (GW a)(-1), is about 18 times that of the nuclear energy chain, 1.1 deaths (GW a)(-1), in China. The main contributors to the fatality risk for the former are the public dose caused by the use of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What radioactivity is present is a result of the release of gases within the coal or coversion to a gas of atoms that are radioactive combining with nitrogen or oxygen during the combustion process.

There is a goodly amount of uranium and thorium naturally in coal.

The only time "really bad shit happens" with commercial nuclear power is when you have an unaccountable government and massive corruption present like in the Soviet Union.

Or Three Mile Island. Or SL2 in Idaho. Or Simi Valley in California. Or...

They are rarely, if ever, placed optimally to produce power.

LOL. You don't really know what you are talking about. As I said I have about 18 years experience living with home solar. And I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to pay an electric bill in 18 years.

Their use greatly complicates the grid and in older neighborhoods often present a load challenge to older transmission systems. The cost of those systems is such that they barely break even over their lifetime.

Too bad I'm living with so much free electricity and a car that never costs to fuel up.

How much did that array cost to install? You don't have to tell me, I can guess. You paid for 20 + years of electricity getting it installed.

Not even close. The ROI is closer to 10 years. But even then I don't even feel the cost now 8 years later. And given how much I've saved in GASOLINE ALONE would probably pay for about half the unit!

If I wanted whole house emergency power I'd get something like a Genrac generator on propane or natural gas. My cost total install today would be about $4000 at most.

Not a prepper.

 

[QP!]

That's irrelevant. The government sells or leases the land at a rate they set, just like anyone else. Yes, the land could be resold or the lease transfered to another entity. That's between the buyer and seller.
...

Right but it is a subsidy when purposely done below market rates that others would pay, right? When you give them a benefit that saves them cash they would otherwise have to spend if they set up in another area that was not offering the free or discounted lands.


As you say a company can do it to. My first tech company in the DotCom boom decided to give Programmers moving to our city 6 months free rent in condo's in the downtown, if they moved there.

I am not saying they cannot do it and i am not saying anyone else cannot do it, as you say. They can, the gov't can.

What I AM SAYING is 'it is a subsidy when you do it'. We did as there was immense competition to get Programmers and offering free rent to those willing to move was a way to subsidize them in ways other companies could not.

Do you understand that? Do you understand why saying 'govt's or private company have a right to do and others do it'... DOES NOT make it, not a subsidy?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Huh??? Where do you get that?

Here, a picture at your grade level

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

www.scientificamerican.com

Comparative health risk assessment of nuclear power and coal power in China - PubMed

The public health risk of ionising radiation released from the coal-fired energy chain, 20 deaths (GW a)(-1), is about 18 times that of the nuclear energy chain, 1.1 deaths (GW a)(-1), in China. The main contributors to the fatality risk for the former are the public dose caused by the use of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There is a goodly amount of uranium and thorium naturally in coal.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly.

1.9 mrem is nothing in terms of whole body radiation.

Or Three Mile Island. Or SL2 in Idaho. Or Simi Valley in California. Or...

TMI: Nobody died. Nobody got cancer. It was cleaned up for about $2 billion. The BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster was far, far worse. A dozen people died. It's likely that thousands had serious health issues because of it. It wiped out wildlife wholesale.

SL 1 (It's 1 not 2) was the result of an accident during refueling. Three technicians died. The resulting accident was cleaned up entirely.

Same with each and every other US nuclear accident. Not one of these was nearly so disasterous as many chemical or other industrial accidents that didn't involve things nuclear.

LOL. You don't really know what you are talking about. As I said I have about 18 years experience living with home solar. And I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to pay an electric bill in 18 years.

You paid somebody to install your system. It wasn't free. The government probably heavily subsidized it too. That cost goes against whatever you saved versus the alternative of just paying for electricity as you use it.

Too bad I'm living with so much free electricity and a car that never costs to fuel up.

It isn't "free." You paid money to install those solar panels.

Not even close. The ROI is closer to 10 years. But even then I don't even feel the cost now 8 years later. And given how much I've saved in GASOLINE ALONE would probably pay for about half the unit!

Most installs have a breakeven point at about 18+ years. Sales people will use government subsidies to make that look better.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right but it is a subsidy when purposely done below market rates that others would pay, right? When you give them a benefit that saves them cash they would otherwise have to spend if they set up in another area that was not offering the free or discounted lands.

Most of the land the BLM leases or sells has a very low per acre value. What makes it valuable are the mineral rights.

As you say a company can do it to. My first tech company in the DotCom boom decided to give Programmers moving to our city 6 months free rent in condo's in the downtown, if they moved there.

I am not saying they cannot do it and i am not saying anyone else cannot do it, as you say. They can, the gov't can.

What I AM SAYING is 'it is a subsidy when you do it'. We did as there was immense competition to get Programmers and offering free rent to those willing to move was a way to subsidize them in ways other companies could not.

Do you understand that? Do you understand why saying 'govt's or private company have a right to do and others do it'... DOES NOT make it, not a subsidy?

You are off on a tangent. The list of oil company subsidies I normally get presented by anti-oil types includes 80% + stuff that isn't subsidies, like depreciation of equipment or accounting methods, that sort of thing. That is, they pad their claims heavily with nonsense hoping no one will pay attention.

 

[QP!]

Most of the land the BLM leases or sells has a very low per acre value. What makes it valuable are the mineral rights.

You are off on a tangent. The list of oil company subsidies I normally get presented by anti-oil types includes 80% + stuff that isn't subsidies, like depreciation of equipment or accounting methods, that sort of thing. That is, they pad their claims heavily with nonsense hoping no one will pay attention.

No you are off on an tangent.

You keep trying to answer with specifics when i am asking a general question to make sure we define 'subsidies' the same way.

So again i ask...

Right but it is a subsidy when purposely done below market rates that others would pay, right? When you give them a benefit that saves them cash they would otherwise have to spend if they set up in another area that was not offering the free or discounted lands.

If XYZ Company or Gov't gives someone land below market rates that others would pay more that is a subsidy right?

(do not answer with BLM leases or other examples as i am not talking about that yet. Once we agree on a definition of what a subsidy means then i will give MY EXAMPLES to you. )

 

[Hawkeye10]

So no gas ranges in restaurants. That isn't going to work.

That is allowed....for now. There are intended to be follow on phases.....for instance eventually houses are to tear out gas and replace with electricity.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No you are off on an tangent.

You keep trying to answer with specifics when i am asking a general question to make sure we define 'subsidies' the same way.

So again i ask...

Right but it is a subsidy when purposely done below market rates that others would pay, right? When you give them a benefit that saves them cash they would otherwise have to spend if they set up in another area that was not offering the free or discounted lands.

If XYZ Company or Gov't gives someone land below market rates that others would pay more that is a subsidy right?

(do not answer with BLM leases or other examples as i am not talking about that yet. Once we agree on a definition of what a subsidy means then i will give MY EXAMPLES to you. )

The relevant question in return is, Does the BLM offer land at below market value? That aside, even if the land is offered at below value, it is so cheap in most cases as to make the purchase price irrelevant compared to the royaltys paid out for extraction of resources.

It isn't much of a subsidy, and it could be looked at as a subsidy, to offer the land far cheaper than full market value, but in the larger picture, the small price of the land pales in comparison to the value of what's extracted from it.

 

[Walt]

There is also a push to electrify rail.

Actually, the choice to go with electrified rail happened in 1902. It was implemented in Manhattan before WWI, and implemented up to Albany by the 1930's. It has been slower to be implemented in the rest of the state, because of out-of-state trains. It has been the goal since 1902, and for over a hundred years it has been impossible to bring a non electric train into NYC.

The result is that poorest section of NYC (Park Avenue) became some of the most expensive property in the world. Trains could be moved underground, and pollution was reduced to nearly nothing.

Civilization runs on energy.....diversifying energy sources is the smart thing to do.

The nice thing about electricity is it can come from any different source you want. It is a way of transporting energy, not a source of energy. That makes it the smartest system from the point of view of diversity.

The electric grid all through America is becoming less stable because of intermittent energy and not enough investment....and it is becoming more difficult to get it up again if it goes down.....this is a recipe for disaster.....this is ideology trumping self preservation.

If we create a great smart grid, other countries will be forced to buy from us. If we do not, I am sure sooner or later the Chinese will develop it, and we will have to buy from them.

The question is whether we are willing to invest in America or not?

 

[Earl]

Actually, the choice to go with electrified rail happened in 1902. It was implemented in Manhattan before WWI, and implemented up to Albany by the 1930's. It has been slower to be implemented in the rest of the state, because of out-of-state trains. It has been the goal since 1902, and for over a hundred years it has been impossible to bring a non electric train into NYC.

The result is that poorest section of NYC (Park Avenue) became some of the most expensive property in the world. Trains could be moved underground, and pollution was reduced to nearly nothing.


The nice thing about electricity is it can come from any different source you want. It is a way of transporting energy, not a source of energy. That makes it the smartest system from the point of view of diversity.


If we create a great smart grid, other countries will be forced to buy from us. If we do not, I am sure sooner or later the Chinese will develop it, and we will have to buy from them.

The question is whether we are willing to invest in America or not?

Actually, NRW, it was in 1883 that a West Point graduate started developing an improved design for an electric motor.

One young engineer drawn to the possibilities of electrified rail was Frank J. Sprague. A U.S. Naval Academy graduate with a sharp mind and a keen interest in electricity, Sprague was already developing an improved design of his own for an electric motor in 1883 when he went to work for Edison. Sprague had hoped to work with the famous inventor on electric motors for rail and other applications, but Edison had eyes only for his incandescent lighting system, which he believed would change life more fundamentally than would electric trains.

Try to keep up, NRW.