Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Cars and Starvation (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Cars and Starvation
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fine by me. But remember why we are here: Orson Scott Card wrote an entry calling for the immense subsidization of so-called "renewable energy". So, if we can all agree OSC was completely wrong on this subject, then my work here is done. It was you that wanted to talk about "certification of reserves" which, best I can figure, has nothing to do with this topic.

But, since you insist, any capital market needs common benchmarks against which they can try to predict the future. If all certification of reserves are an over-estimation, and if everyone knows that, then there is no problem: everyone will discount them and then invest accordingly. It is their money, afterall, so they set the policies under-which their money will be either loaned or invested.

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't remember what Orson wrote, way back then, exactly, except that his data was off. I do not remember that he specifically endorsed subsidies. If that was his enthememe, I would have disagreed and agreed with you to eliminate that practice.

YOU were the one who wanted to say that fossils and nuclear were aplenty (which is what the certification of reserves topic was about) and you were not aware that fossils and nuclear have more than anyone else, congressionally mandated and cash allocations as well.

Which is why I get mad at you for your last statement.

No, it is not their money getting sunk into drilling.

It is OURS.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sm
New Member
Member # 6123

 - posted      Profile for sm         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Orson quoted un-named people as saying that renewable energy sources "can only meet "5%" or "2%" of our national energy needs." This is a serious misconception started out of ignorance or hidden agendas.
There are significant barriers to developing renewable energy sources but their potential is limitless (and I don't use the word limitless casually). Solar energy, especially, has fantastic potential. So much solar energy strikes the earth that low efficiency solar panels readily available today would only need to cover an area equivalent to 10% of the state of Nevada to meet all of the electrical needs of the United States. Thats an area equivalent to 0.3% of the actively farmed land in the United States today. I'm not necessarily saying we should cover 10% of Nevada, only that there is an incredibly vast resource out there.
As I said before there are significant hurdles to making large scale solar a reality, but the real barrier is money. No one who has the money is going to build solar farms that won't turn a profit. I think things will change fast when the price of electricity has gone up, the costs associated with solar have gone down, or the government steps in to make up the difference.
The Governments of Spain and Germany are subsidizing solar in a big way today and it seems that this is helping to spur some improvement in the solar industry that will make the real unsubsidized break-even point come a little sooner.
Subsidies like feed-in tariffs (that artificially increase the market price of electricity from renewable sources) would be a prudent measure for our government to take given the inescapable end-game of fossil fuels and the viability of renewable solutions that just need a boost to get some momentum before the crisis really hits.

Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC got smoked, all over.

It's the technologies that say "we don't need the subsidies" that are being denied access to capital.

[ June 09, 2008, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, but...no. Even the old-style nuclear reactors had multiple redundancies in the safety systems, such that when a cooling tower goes, either there is sufficient cooling in other towers to continue operating, or there is emergency cooling available immediately near the reactor for shutdown. How many people died because of the Three Mile Island Explosion? Hint: It wasn't an explosion, and if you count above zero, you're wrong.
You might want to look at the cancer statistics for the TMI area. Especially the pediatric ones. No explosion but certainly an increase in cancer (of course not nearly to the extent of Chernybl).
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion, do you have any links for what you just said? I ask because I heard the exact opposite: no defensible studies showed any correlation between TMI and cancer rates.

munga, as a percentage of total investment, government subsidies are a puny figure, miniscule compared to their tax bill. If the government did do what we want it to and eliminated all subsidies it would be the oil and gas wells which survived thanks to investor dollars, not the Ethanol and solar plants. That is because oil and gas are absolutely cheap to produce energy sources when compared to their competitors.

[ June 09, 2008, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: LoneSnark ]

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lonesnark-

Question- Who provides the financing, the actual cash, and who provides the insurance, to finance most fossil and nuclear power generation facilities? Upon whose credit is the facility financed for interim/construction, and how are they provided Permanent? Where does each actual dollar come from, even to the monetization of credits?

Answer- the financing is usually accomplished via flow through structures of subsidies (monetization) so that the facilities are owned by industry in name, revenues inure to industry, but the tax payers fund and insure and even in many cases, prefund, and in almost all cases, provide credit facilities (financial instruments) via the Investment Grade municipal conduit structure, loan guarantees, etc... all without any benefit to the taxpayer except energy products at retail prices and full environmental liability.

As the treasury itself acknowledged, clearly the financial advantages have gone to fossils and nuclear but the attempt to level the playing field is the with the tax credits. When I argue that credits are far less monetizable and that function can only be done at TWO discount procedures, they agreed that this is so, sympathized, but supposed that even the double haircut serves the economy. To their eyes, a subsidy (an actual cash handout) to the fossils and nuclear is exactly the same as a credit (a ficticious anti-tax-dollar) which they know isn't fair but lobbyists accomplished their goal in the categorization of our federal spreadsheets.

[ June 10, 2008, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lone Snark - There are several studies that were conducted in the mid 80's that show a 2-10X increase in cancer rates in the area around TMI (no one says absolutely that the accident was to blame).

TMI Alert

There are other studies that have found no increase but I actually live in the area and know several oncologists. They also won't come right out and blame TMI but they do speak about a significant increase of leukemia in the communities South and East of Harrisburg. There has also been a significant cluster increase of pediatric cases of Leukemia in the same area during the last several years that may reflect genetic damage there parents suffered during early childhood.

I neither support or oppose nuclear energy but no matter how safe we try to make something there is always the possibility of an accident. Fire is a great tool but it can burn.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion, I have not looked too much into it, but I have read a few studies and the ones that find clusters tend to be the same ones that fail to perform their study with due dilligence to eliminate confounding factors. For example, TMI is a deterrent for the wealthy, which fear the bad history of the power plant, but is a boon to the poor which follow the resultant lower property values. As a result, if you perform the same study for diseases which are not related to radiation exposure but are similarly related to poverty exposure, we find similar clusters of ill health near not only TMI, but high voltage power lines, prisons, and land-fills. I am not saying this explains everything, there was a radiation release, as such it obviously had an impact, my point is simply that from what we know the impact should be dwarfed by confounding factors.

munga, what you say is predominantly true. The power industry as a whole is run in such ways, that is the tradeoff society has suffered due to its desire to regulate the industry so. However, this is true regardless; if private investors had chosen to build turd based power plants then they would have similarly been intertwined by government. It was investors who were the first movers in most cases, they simply sought and received government, not the other way around.

It is no accident that the most heavily regulated industries are also the most subsidized industries. Investors are not stupid, they would not voluntarily invest just to have whatever they produced be regulated away by government. As such, in the never-ending battle that is democracy, in exchange for regulation investors demand subsidization and risk sharing schemes which always result in government assuing all the risk and all the rewards. But so what? If whatever power source you are advocating managed to win-over investors then you too could employ lobbyists and enter the business of fleecing the government. But only then: investors still want their 30% annual return before you can even begin factoring in subsidies.

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LS-

With all due respect, LS, you don't even make sense. Are you suggesting that if investors were offered free insurance, free or very low interest loans, and free money, like fossils and nuclear, they wouldn't take it? Remember, the fossils and nuclear still receive all the revenues after all the government assistance, so why wouldn't renewable investors use the tools if they were offered? It wouldn't affect their bottom line and I'm afraid all actions in the end are about bottom line.

And no, the fossils and nuclear are not heavily regulated. In fact, they stomp the regulators left and right. Worse, they dictate their desires backward. The sales of the energy products are simply lowest priced energy into the line- that is the meaning of OATT. The power generators are usually owned by the utilities, which have the same regulations as FERC and otherwise police themselves!

Why not simply allow the same financing tools that are available for fossils and nuclear to become available to renewables on a renewables fairness policy, which would remove all the need for any direct subsidies because the renewables, minus the automatic advantages given to fossils and nuclear, can compete if the playing field is level?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I am not explaining this the right way. You are absolutely right about the end results so far. There is no denying that the providers have run circles or outright corrupted the regulators at every turn, had the government absorb all the risk, and taken home all the profits, for the past fifty-plus years. However, in 1960 when the investors in question decided to build, there was no guarantee that this would be the end result. Similarly, for investors thinking of building a plant there is no guarantee they will be able to milk the public. There is not even a guarantee that the public will not squash them with price controls.

As such, while I believe the government would happily be taken advantage of by 'renewables' just as they are by fossil and nuclear. But, while renewables are clearly profitable, they are not as profitable, so it would take longer to get your profit back. As such, investors big enough to control government will default to nuclear and fossil for fear of the longer time horizons and the regulatory uncertainty they introduce in traditionally regulated industries.

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In 1960, which investors are we talking about? The ones that today are hoarding all the access to in monopolistic greed? And... I can tell you for a fact that most of the smaller fossil investors were wiped out by Reagans Tax Reform, 1984, so only the big corps are left.

LS- consider that fossils have multiple percentage point examples of where they are not on equal footing. I have a permanent Take Out offer for me at 12%. The fossils have access at 2.5%. And I have a deep discount to place up the equity facility- roughly 20%. So, let's just start with a 30% assumed advantage. Are the supposed subsidies as reliable as the automatic advantages fossils and nuclear have? Consider that they also finance interim/construction on public credit, not rolled into the plant, and all nuclear is issured by congress. So.... put it all together, and that is close to a 50% advantage no one even sees. So much for Renewables aren't profitable. Renewables are rarely given half a chance to compete on level ground.

I'm not lobbying for renewables. I am lobbying, I suppose, for equal access to advantages that have been created for other energy industries, but only in the tax code. In my opinion, no industry should enjoy automatic government finance, because it results in eventual stagnation as the government body is unable to embrace advances as it is invested (literally, the people have debt paper-- a conflict of interest) on older technology. This is exactly the problem today.

[ June 10, 2008, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1986, Reagan's reforms were 1986....
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lone- The properties in the surrounding counties are some of the most expensive in PA. I am not saying that there may not be other causes for the cluster but the studies that show no significant changes that I looked at were conducted by enitites that had reason to find no significant change.

I am not opposed to nuclear as a short term fix to reduce carbon emmissions and reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. I just don't want to minimize the risks associated with it's use.

"It is impossible to make something dummy proof. As soon as we do someone invents a better dummy".

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have a permanent Take Out offer for me at 12%. The fossils have access at 2.5%
With who?

Look, munga, you are preaching to the converted. Government should dis-entangle itself. However, what I know of these entanglements tell me that it has nothing to do with "automatic finance" and everything to do with who you know. If you knew enough congressmen then you too would have access to all the government help others get. And the only way to know that many congressmen is to get an influence peddler on your side, which means landing a huge investor up front with the contacts to get things done for you. This means investing in the technology that the big investors believe in.

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lonesnark......

I am not telling Who. We have revealed our counterparty so far to the Treasury's Economic Policy and Treasury Bond Finance and USDA's FFB representative, the Director of the USDA's Southern Division, and that's it. Suffice it to say it is one of the largest investment banking entities in the world, and they've warned us that if the market changed by Take Out time, they reserved the right to bump it to 13.5%.

If I knew enough congressman....

Actually, that is not the problem. We have been offered to play the game, but to play it as usual. In this schenario, I'm always picked as the bag man, the person to deliver the pay off and become criminally over-the-barrel and ALWAYS they insist on access to the public credit. They can't have the investors be bag people, and they can't have the government labs do it, so that leaves just me. They don't want an investor, because then how will they milk the municipality? I have three phone calls scheduled with congress people today (and usually we just talk to aides, that's how that is done.... congress people don't get their own hands dirty. I'm always willing to do things that way until they send me their lawyers.) The topic is allowing the access to the Treasury window for the investors because the banks are uniformly unwilling to incur FDIC oversight. Of course that means there is a reason that they don't want the oversight. So, we are appealing to their good natures by saying "let's obey the law (there is a previous OCC letter ruling on this topic) and we won't tell anyone about the banks and we will just inject liquidity into the economy this way."

For details, see the "45 Trillion" thread. It makes me sad that its gotten no comments yet, but maybe it takes a bit of study.

And yes, it does have to do with automatic finance. Several states have even passed laws to that effect, that any fossil plant that comes up for proposal gets automatic finance (this way, no due diligence required and lowest interest rates agreed). The state of MS put that one up at the same time it was telling a sitting mayor NO to his renewable energy plant, for which he brought not one but two investors to cover 100% of the capital bill with proffered and discounted collateral and credit facilities (SLCs).

As for my investor-- he is huge. He was the world's top currency trader. He's got deep oil and gas experience, so he's aware of all the financing tools and customs. The problem is that all the tools that have been traditionally on the table are removed for renewables. And he's from Houston, which means, given his penchant for fairness, he's come under direct fire of the Bushes. Tom Delay arranged for theft of his assets once, because investor refused to meet with Bush in order to agree on a settlement to receive less payment from some valuable property in order to become an energy partner. So, he IS known, as the enemy to the system. He has also, as a citizen, indicted Oil and Gas in Alaska as a Qui Tam relator, for which service he was rewarded by the government.

The real problem is that those in power are clinging to their ability to continue to repress the next advances. They know who we are. We know who they are. The battle lines are always drawn at the access to capital, which has been controlled, and we say, make it open for all.

[ June 11, 2008, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The battle lines are always drawn at the access to capital, which has been controlled, and we say, make it open for all.
Right. Well. I'm sorry to say this, I mean no disrespect, and please don't take it personally, but I pray that you never get access to the capital you seek. The problem would be that they have access, not that you do not. Forget that. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I hope you both get thrown out on your asses. If only one of you gets thrown out then so be it.
Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lonesnark.

I'll go over this one more time.

They've already got the access. They've got all of them. They don't need access to the treasury window because they've got access to the treasury window, and furthermore, they don't need investors because they've got the monetized credits and actual subsidies to stand as pseudo equity in the structures.

We are really asking for two things-

equal access upon OUR collateral (which WE will not take from the public, as they are)

equal access to Tax credits (such as a Renewables Fairness Policy that will translate all the current fossil/nuclear advantages in the tax code to all on a equal BTU for BTU basis)

I don't want to appear mean, because in a way I am glad for your response, it gives me hope, and yet I get daunted when I realize how much misinformation is out there.....

And, of course, we want to fix the economy. Liquidity influx minus inflation index or debt is just the ticket (it's similar to the Marshall Plan) so, it is sound financial policy..... IF anyone is actually interested in fixing it at the expense of releasing monopoly power. That's the battle.

[ June 12, 2008, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion

I hope you realize that the shortest term fix Nuclear can offer is 30 years, starting five years from embarking on the project.

A modern natural gas plant produces 1/3rd the carbon a modern coal-fired plant does, 1/6th what some of our oldest coal-fired plants do.

The time it takes to pay off construction costs for gas is only 11 years, as opposed to 20+ for Nuclear. Private investors are far more interested. We can build more of them (Nuclear gets most profitable at about 1,000 megawatts) smaller and closer to the end user, and lose less in transmission.

We don't have to worry AS much about where we put them, in terms of flood plains and earthquake faults.

The really, really killer part? If we get a cheap enough source of Hydrogen, we can blend it with natural gas, and those plants won't become outdated overnight.

[ June 12, 2008, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only issue I have with natural gas is that it remains a fossil fuel. Hydrogen is the long term answer. If not as the initial source at least as the best form of storage for mobile or peak power needs.

Ultimatey, I think we need to totally move away from non-renewable energy sources. For this to happen we need to create significant tax breaks for individuals that move to solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. and invest in r&d for developing new technologies, improving existing technologies, and better conservation methods.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about we let each technology try, by opening up the avenues of secured finance?
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you entirely, Mynnion. Well, except maybe about how "long term" the wait on affordable hydrogen will be.

The real question is - which makes a better bridging technology?

We've sunk a LOT more cash if we go nuclear, and then algea pans out in a big way. We may actually wind up pumping a lot more carbon firing all that cement for the Nuclear plants than Gas plants would have produced.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually like the algea solution. It not only provides cheap renewable biofuel but also acts as CO2 sink.

The big picture is that we need to look at ways of dealing with multiple issues at once and to me nuclear with all it's pitfalls still has 0 carbon emmisions. I would much rather look at ways of tapping the energy in some of our "HOT" zones and go with geothermal. Iceland has it right.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Near zero, in operation. Massive emissions in construction.

The other way to look at the equation, though, is how much reduction in carbon emissions do we get for our dollar?

We don't have to do squat to get private industry to build Gas plants, really, except let them build the piplines. Slight tax credit, maybe.

Nuclear? We've got to pay for waste disposal, decommissioning when they're out dated, and a huge chunk up the up front finance charges.

Now, the worst (and mostly oldest) 20% of our coal plants produce over half of our total CO2 from coal-fired energy.

We knock out those twenty percent and replace them with gas, we've done a hell of a lot at very little cost to the taxpayer. We've also left a lot of hilltops and valleys in place in West Virginia.

[ June 12, 2008, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Excellent points. Now if we would actually approach alternative energy investment like a national defense issue we might make some progress.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
orrrrr......

if we let the investors finance innovative plants rather than blocked that the only source of US capital, we might let investors foot the bill for discovering the best technological choice.

[ June 12, 2008, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The benefit to tax breaks and r&d development is that if done right it promotes creative exploration of multiple technologies. We certainly need to remove the roadblocks you mention in addition to providing the support I mention.

Our nation is great because we have been the world leaders in R&D. For us to continue our greatness we need to continue to promote new technologies and improve on the old. We have the ability to fix things but we need to fix them in ways that make sense.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
t'would help if there was a fairness policy, that tax credit monitization for fossils-nuclear be matched by tax credit monitization for tax credits for renewable (right now, they can stop the finance train right there) on a straight one for one/application percentage.

Do you realize that the R&D budget for the entire US GOVERNMENT is equal to 1/3 of the research budget for Microsoft?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally I would like to see no tax credits for fossil fuels. The oil industry certainly doesn't need any.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, here we need to think things through.

Why are there tax credits in the first place? The answer is to help projects get financing. Otherwise, all projects would HAVE to be governmental or just be financed by those who have money. I would BE tyranny of politicians and tyranny of current monopolies and promote an aristocracy.

Now, when projects that have public value, such as a LARGE project that will employ many, the tax code keeps it open for all to participate by (well, it's supposed to) leveling the playing field by allowing anyone to put together the financing, if you can get drum up the interest.

Let's say I want to finance a 10 million dollar plant. It is a New Market in a depressed area. Therefore I apply and gain New Market Tax Credits for ten million. I present this to bankers and show them that I have gained an advantage, not only can they give me loan and make interest on it, but further, those who hold the debt paper will enjoy a tax credit, or a forgiveness on tax liability. So my banker goes out and tells his well-heeled clients about this, and they are willing to put up the funds and purchase the debt paper (enhanced with the coupon, that's called a hybrid) and I have financed a facilty and I didn't even have to give an investor all the interest in my new idea--- I got it financed with debt! Remember that most bankers actually do require some equity and in fact NMTC usually asks for matching funds, but there's a limit to what I can write in one night....

So, to continue, this is why we need to keep tax credits, because this offers every person with An Idea that has public merit (or it wouldn't be recognized by congress or the tax code) to get financing from - and this is really important- non- tax funds. If all Americans were of the opinion that we should allow investors to finance all our public infrastructure, we could. In fact, most of all the money that comes from "somewhere" to finance our advances and projects comes from Asia for this reason. Here in America there would be the added cost of "bond raise" =equal "selling the debt opportunity" which can be as much as 120k per state. However, no problem in Asia. So, we go to Asia, which allows access to capital anyway, or secured finance whenever anyone puts assets into the treasury, so they've got tons of financial power and lots of agility, whereas here we restrict our access to secured finance, and we charge ridiculous fees so that states can take their cut.... resulting in bankers preferring to work with the more reasonable Asian Capital Markets.

Bottom line, while I loath the idea that oil needs tax credits, think of what that field would be like if NO competition from the little guy were involved? Mind, Reagan pretty much wiped it out in 86, but since that time investors have learned to pool their interests. Exxon gets competition from 200 investors who band together to finance a stripping well, and their crude is every bit as good. Exxon and the investors have access to the same advantage but I'm glad they have competition (what little there is) between them to keep costs a little under control.

The biggest travesty today is that congressional spreadsheets keep things "fair" between renewable and fossils/nuclear by giving actual help (low interest rate financing, subsidies, free insurance, removal of liabilities, automatic financing) to fossil/nuclear and then produce a LIMITED amount of tax credits on a competitive basis for renewable......which the fossils have contrived to make application for, discussing it as a renewable energy facility they will own. Then, of course they get the allocation and don't build it, because the language of the legislation is such that after the treas or IRS allocates the awards, they never go back and check if they actually did get financing and get that renewable energy facility up. As a matter of fact, they NEVER have the right to even allocate government resources to check, even when they know that the program's allocation expires in five years. They must assume that the allocations resulted in success. This is why I get so mad that congress won't give out new tax credit allocations or at least FIX what they did!!! Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, or CREBs are a perfect example of a completely screwed-over very good idea that democrats struggle for, and republicans, the universal sihtbags of monopoly control and corruption, twist against the will of the people with a little sneakiness.

Fine print, people, fine print.

[ June 12, 2008, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel like I talk to an empty room.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shhhh! People are reading!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'll go over this one more time.
munga, no need. I understand what you are asking for and I pray you do not get it. I equally pray that it is taken away from anyone else already getting it, but forgive my rejoicing in at least someone getting thrown out on their ass, even if they should have been joined by many others being thrown out of the halls of government.

Just because others are getting government backed financing does not mean you should. Now, persue it all you want, it is a free country. But me, as a free citizen, I hate you all, especially your cohorts that succeed at ripping the rest of us off. Please understand.

Tax credits for some mean higher taxes for all. Subsidies for some make us all poorer. It is wrong for them to get preferential treatment from the government, when you try to do the same it does not magically become just.

[ June 14, 2008, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: LoneSnark ]

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lonesnark,

There are multiple economic policies, and we have purposely created a recession and will continue to do so because it is in the best interests of the banks and monopoly industry.

I use instruments and advise in such as way as to at all times so as to make it possible to entirely remove the rationale for taxes.

If you can elaborate a good plan, other than ours, to do so, please do.

[ June 14, 2008, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I use instruments and advise in such as way as to at all times so as to make it possible to entirely remove the rationale for taxes.
Government must be funded, so you cannot remove taxes. Unless, of course, you just print the money, but that is just as much a form of taxation as any other.
Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LS-

you haven't been paying attention through the "this is how money is printed" seminars.

Yes, you print money on the basis of derivatives contracts and assets. Or in other words, when people turn in value to the treasury, you can remove value from the treasury on a positive-liquidity, null transaction, the simple procedure referred to as "repo" short for repurchase agreement, meaning, that an investor places up assets, funds the projects (at a discount, the window makes something) and then, after the project is completed and paying off the debt, the original collateral is removed and replaced with the dNPV (discounted net present value of the repayment contracts) with debt products sold to investors who desire them. It is always better to allow investors to purchase project debt rather than to tax the people.

THAT is true economic development and true government- promoting leveraged advantages of investors for the public good. This is the rationale behind Mayor Andre Deberry's desire for a ZESC facility for Holly Springs. Due to the portion earned by an investor's willingness to provide debt purchasing of his paper, the city would have more than enough to operate without taxing the people.

[ June 15, 2008, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this one, for general release to congress:


An open letter to politicians and public servants on June 16, 2008:


We Stand at the Crossroads:

Today we stand at a crossroads in multiple concerns- energy, environmental, and economic problems. We contemplate military answers.

There is discussion visible to the public that would suggest that government is keenly aware of the above problems and searching for answers.

This is refuted by our two-year history of attempting to make the legislated solutions work. They do not work. They refuse to work. They are doing all to block real advanced in energy, injections of liquidity into our economy, and environmental remediation that costs the tax-payer nothing.

Please kindly see the report requested by Congressman Childers. On this, you will find that we copied the Baker Institute and many others who have recently paneled for the House Energy and Global Warming Committee. Our information directly refuted their testimonies.

Our answer is a Marshall Plan:

A Marshall Plan is REPO finance, which is an abbreviation of “repurchase agreement”. It is a mechanism in which allows for a “null transaction” or “secured finance” meaning that it creates liquidity (cash) when assets are pledged at the Federal Reserve Window. Kindly understand that this is not a liquidity injection that creates later, separate debt, as the recent stimulus package did. It is “assets in, for money out” …a null transaction. This is exactly how all the government programs (which require collateral -most of them), and banks and brokers gain the cash for projects without taxes or accessing program allocations and without depositors’ funds. It is sound economic development because the best new projects, which may bring significant advances, cost too much for taxpayers, and the banks have very low cash on hand at this time and always do in a recessive economy.

The “repurchase” portion of the name comes from the ability of the debt investor- the party that put up the collateral of value, to pull the collateral back out after the project is up and producing the revenue stream (in other words, the investor alone underwrites the risk phase of the project) and substitute the collateral and allow buy-out with other debt participants.

Only government programs, banks and brokers have access to our Federal Reserve. No one else may contact this entity, even investors.

Problem 1: It is not in the banks and brokers’ best interest to allow investment at the window because a poor economy is a high-interest environment. Loans are made, today, at higher interest rates.

Problem 2: Government believes that it is not in government’s best interest to allow investment in advanced energy, efficiency, or significant pollution remediation technologies (such as would be required to answer our 45 Trillion dollar deficit as outlined by the IEA in June 2008) because government itself has previously colluded with energy industries that operate at lower efficiency, greater pollution and create less energy. In fact, they regularly finance industry’s projects on the public credit. If any innovative, advanced project were to out-perform a neighboring low efficiency, polluting project that was financed on the public credit (almost all of them) the public itself would be “on the hook” for the retro-fits required to keep it competitive and to meet new, better, environmental standards necessitated by BACT- or the requirement that all polluting facilities meet Best Available Control Technology. Reasonably, the people would also discover what the state and federal finance programs have been “up to.” In spite of our suggestion to pay for the retrofits using the Carbon Credits for which the polluting technologies would then be eligible (called Tax Credit Monetization Financing) the government at every level has determined to refuse access to the Treasury Window to finance advances that threaten the status quo it has already underwritten, to our nation’s environmental, economic, and energy-supply detriment.

Please consider our Nation’s needs, and contact Congressman Childers today and express willingness to stand with him as he fights for one location’s ZESC facility. Congressman Childers is a new face and needs support to win this. Winning this tug-of-war wins all the rest; we need our advances for economic development--- by letting investors place assets directly into the treasury without the interface of those who have reasons to prevent wealth in America, and for the environment---- which needs great projects, many investors, multiple competing technologies to meet the challenge prior to great detriment to our irreplaceable natural resources as outlined by the IEA, and energy supply--- which has been artificially repressed and is thus a high priced cost to all Americans.

If our nation would allow Equal Access to Capital for those with assets (this is, by the way, the Asian difference; the reason that their economy is booming and ours is dying), there would be no reason for investors to place factories in China, no need to repress the construction of power facilities that make no pollution when financed without public money, and no need to tax the people generally as a new day of Government Gaining Revenues Through Partnerships with Industry (not merely government used as a personal purse by industry) can dawn for us all; there would be no reason to go to war again.

It is my assertion that those who repress these advances have engaged wrong solutions.

Sincerely,

[ June 16, 2008, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1