60 Minutes Wyoming Green Energy Segment

[Deleted member 28227]

Source?

Oil And Gas Tax Deductions: 11 Major Ones to Consider - Pheasant Energy

Contents hide 1. Are there tax deductions available for oil and gas companies? 2. What type of Oil and Gas Tax Benefits are Out There and How Do They Work? 3. Are there Taxable Limitations? 4. What are The Benefits of Oil and gas tax deductions? Oil and natural gas projects generate substantial...

www.pheasantenergy.com

 

[BigHornRam]

Oil And Gas Tax Deductions: 11 Major Ones to Consider - Pheasant Energy

Contents hide 1. Are there tax deductions available for oil and gas companies? 2. What type of Oil and Gas Tax Benefits are Out There and How Do They Work? 3. Are there Taxable Limitations? 4. What are The Benefits of Oil and gas tax deductions? Oil and natural gas projects generate substantial...

www.pheasantenergy.com

I came up with this link. Getting to expense oil and gas exploration and well development costs as they acrure, is considered a "tax break" by some.

What tax incentives encourage energy production from fossil fuels?

Tax subsidies for oil, gas and coal development are expected to reduce federal revenue by $11.5 billion from 2019 to 2023 (figure 1). The two...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

 

[BigHornRam]

Meanwhile......

This link is kind of lame but has some interesting details.

Renewable energy: US tax credits for wind and solar mostly benefit big banks

Wind and solar developers have to woo investors before they can get the tax credits they’re entitled to.

theconversation.com

Subsidies to manufacture.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-treasury-unveils-rules-clean-energy-manufacturing-subsidy-2023-12-14/

30% tax credit for the individual purchaser.

Solar Tax Credit By State in 2023: The Ultimate Federal Solar Energy Tax Credit Guide

Get expert advice on improvements to your home, including design tips, how much you'd expect to pay for a pro and what to ask when hiring experts.

www.forbes.com

I can provide more if you like to compare apple to oranges.

 

[BigHornRam]

Berkshire Hathaway no doubt getting some tax credit assistance by diversifying into wind energy.

Wind and Solar

www.pacificorp.com

And picking up some side hussle cash from facebook/Meta by allowing them to clean up their carbon footprint.

WindAction | Facebook deal spurs PacifiCorp's rush to build a Montana wind farm

But Portland-based PacifiCorp said there was one other thing the wind project needed in order to be a winner for ratepayers — it had to be operating by the end of 2020, qualifying it for the full value of a lucrative federal incentive.

www.windaction.org

I need to start investing in wind farms!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I've shared this before, and I wish the Nuclear Industry would update this study (they originally commissioned it when they were asking for Federal loans guarantees for Vogtle). Certainly the renewable mix would change significantly over the past 13 years, I'd love to know where it is now.

View attachment 306885

EDIT* They did update it in 2016.

Analysis of U.S. Energy Incentives, 1950-2016

This 2017 study revealed that though billions of dollars in energy incentives came in various forms, only 8 percent was spent on nuclear energy. The study covers all incentives, including tax breaks, regulation exemptions and technology transfer from government to industry.

www.nei.org

View attachment 306888

What I don't understand is Oil/NG/Coal are all extraction of a commodity and also the industries of generation of electricity or production of fuel.

So are we putting gasoline breaks, in with excise tax reduction, in with some sort of tax break for a utility.

Oil for example is a commodity and while it's used to create electricity around ~3% is also used to make pharmaceuticals... also used to make textiles

So if we are including the various oil extraction tax breaks into the bucket of "power generation" wouldn't it, by exactly the same logic, be fair to characterize Patagonia or Pfizer as getting a tax subsidy?

Are there tax breaks for mining Uranium? All the various minerals used in solar panels...

Plus since it's a commodity, it's possible that any given power plant refinery ect is actually using foreign crude.... which obviously wouldn't have the tax break.

This post isn't cheering on OG or refuting tax breaks, they certainly exist, I just don't understand the methodology one would use to make these kinds of generalizations and or to make a fair comparison.

 

[BigHornRam]

What I don't understand is Oil/NG/Coal are all extraction of a commodity and also the industries of generation of electricity or production of fuel.

So are we putting gasoline breaks, in with excise tax reduction, in with some sort of tax break for a utility.

Oil for example is a commodity and while it's used to create electricity around ~3% is also used to make pharmaceuticals... also used to make textiles

So if we are including the various oil extraction tax breaks into the bucket of "power generation" wouldn't it, by exactly the same logic, be fair to characterize Patagonia or Pfizer as getting a tax subsidy?

Are there tax breaks for mining Uranium? All the various minerals used in solar panels...

Plus since it's a commodity, it's possible that any given power plant refinery ect is actually using foreign crude.... which obviously wouldn't have the tax break.

This post isn't cheering on OG or refuting tax breaks, they certainly exist, I just don't understand the methodology one would use to make these kinds of generalizations and or to make a fair comparison.

Law makers + lobbyists + time= big $*)Q!#@$ complicated mess!

 

[VikingsGuy]

What I don't understand is Oil/NG/Coal are all extraction of a commodity and also the industries of generation of electricity or production of fuel.

So are we putting gasoline breaks, in with excise tax reduction, in with some sort of tax break for a utility.

Oil for example is a commodity and while it's used to create electricity around ~3% is also used to make pharmaceuticals... also used to make textiles

So if we are including the various oil extraction tax breaks into the bucket of "power generation" wouldn't it, by exactly the same logic, be fair to characterize Patagonia or Pfizer as getting a tax subsidy?

Are there tax breaks for mining Uranium? All the various minerals used in solar panels...

Plus since it's a commodity, it's possible that any given power plant refinery ect is actually using foreign crude.... which obviously wouldn't have the tax break.

This post isn't cheering on OG or refuting tax breaks, they certainly exist, I just don't understand the methodology one would use to make these kinds of generalizations and or to make a fair comparison.

I don’t think the post was to deep dive into all the secondary and the tertiary effects of energy policy, but to rebut the knee-jerk reaction that renewables uniquiely only survive with govt incentives. In addition to the obvious tax benefits enjoyed by OG (and many other industries in the crony-capitalist economy), we have to look at these industries at their maturity levels.

Taxpayers will pay more for kids and the very elderly than for a 40-something, because in part the nature of their age and circumstances. In early OG development look at the likely trillions of dollars of tax funded infrastructure to enable the auto & gasoline -industries early launch. We built roads, gave favorable tax treatment, toppled democratically elected 3rd world leaders, etc.

In the end, it all gave a subset of the American people what they wanted — in turn a transition to post-petroleum economy will take a huge multi-decade investment - and it too will give a subset of Americans what they are asking for now. We live in a mixed market/govt reality and have since at least the civil war and the building of the railroads. It’s how shit gets done. Sorry if this shit isn‘t a person’s preferred shit - life ain’t perfect.

I for one look forward to a 5th/6th gen nuclear powered electric/hydrogen economy. Only 3rd world countries will remain on coal-based energy systems. Weird that the American first crowd wants us to be the technology laggards and leave to the Chinese and the Europeans the next wave economy.

 

[BigHornRam]

I don’t think the post was to deep dive into all the secondary and the tertiary effects of energy policy, but to rebut the knee-jerk reaction that renewables uniquiely only survive with govt incentives. In addition to the obvious tax benefits enjoyed by OG (and many other industries in the crony-capitalist economy), we have to look at these industries at their maturity levels.

Taxpayers will pay more for kids and the very elderly than for a 40-something, because in part the nature of their age and circumstances. In early OG development look at the likely trillions of dollars of tax funded infrastructure to enable the auto & gasoline -industries early launch. We built roads, gave favorable tax treatment, toppled democratically elected 3rd world leaders, etc.

In the end, it all gave a subset of the American people what they wanted — in turn a transition to post-petroleum economy will take a huge multi-decade investment - and it too will give a subset of Americans what they are asking for now. We live in a mixed market/govt reality and have since at least the civil war and the building of the railroads. It’s how shit gets done. Sorry if this shit isn‘t a person’s preferred shit - life ain’t perfect.

I for one look forward to a 5th/6th gen nuclear powered electric/hydrogen economy. Only 3rd world countries will remain on coal-based energy systems. Weird that the American first crowd wants us to be the technology laggards and leave to the Chinese and the Europeans the next wave economy.

 

[Forkyfinder]

That part you dismiss in all this, without the massive subsidies, projects like this would not be financially feasible to construct.

That isn't entirely true. The subsidies affect the rate of return, but these projects would still turn profit without them. There's a lot of factors that affect something's profitability, but political hyperbole you read on the internet isn't a great source.

I don't agree with subsidies - it picks winners and losers in what should be an open market.

Now google the "Ames" brothers and their money grab with the subsidized rail construction. Then read about the subsidies the federal government has provided rail roads. Then read up on the state and federal land that gets minerals leased for pennies on the dollar. After that, while you are mad about subsidies, why don't you see that the average grazing fee per cow calf pair is under $1.50 a month per. Then read up on the land that has been acquired for cheap for pipelines, railways, and powerlines.

Find a major industry thats not subsidized.

 

[Keep on]

I don’t think the post was to deep dive into all the secondary and the tertiary effects of energy policy, but to rebut the knee-jerk reaction that renewables uniquiely only survive with govt incentives. In addition to the obvious tax benefits enjoyed by OG (and many other industries in the crony-capitalist economy), we have to look at these industries at their maturity levels.

Taxpayers will pay more for kids and the very elderly than for a 40-something, because in part the nature of their age and circumstances. In early OG development look at the likely trillions of dollars of tax funded infrastructure to enable the auto & gasoline -industries early launch. We built roads, gave favorable tax treatment, toppled democratically elected 3rd world leaders, etc.

In the end, it all gave a subset of the American people what they wanted — in turn a transition to post-petroleum economy will take a huge multi-decade investment - and it too will give a subset of Americans what they are asking for now. We live in a mixed market/govt reality and have since at least the civil war and the building of the railroads. It’s how shit gets done. Sorry if this shit isn‘t a person’s preferred shit - life ain’t perfect.

I for one look forward to a 5th/6th gen nuclear powered electric/hydrogen economy. Only 3rd world countries will remain on coal-based energy systems. Weird that the American first crowd wants us to be the technology laggards and leave to the Chinese and the Europeans the next wave economy.

This all sounds wonderful to have such an enlightened and forward thinking economy where energy is cheap and plentiful. They said back in the 1950's that electricity was going to be so cheap and abundant that people didn't need to worry about insulating their homes because of the newly harnessed power of the atom.
Truth is it's been an all of the above energy policy and relatively cheap power compared to many parts of the world that has made this country and economy what it is. Those who think we can just wish that away are, in my opinion, at best misinformed.
I like to dream of the day we can all power our Delorean's on Mr. Fusions, but until then the American coal miner and roughneck will continue to help power this country.

 

[Westelker - W. Colorado]

Sure, no different than coal producing more energy than required in diesel to dig it out of the ground. But a solar panel has way higher output on a net basis over its 30yr life than required to make it and at a much cheaper price than coal. You would have been better choosing nat gas as your source.

More like 25 years life. Net savings depends on the cost of electricity for each particular location.

 

[BigHornRam]

More like 25 years life. Net savings depends on the cost of electricity for each particular location.

If the panels are made in China, 15 years is more realistic.

 

[SAJ-99]

If the panels are made in China, 15 years is more realistic.

Show some respect. Those Chinese kids do quality work.

 

[BigHornRam]

That isn't entirely true. The subsidies affect the rate of return, but these projects would still turn profit without them. There's a lot of factors that affect something's profitability, but political hyperbole you read on the internet isn't a great source.

I don't agree with subsidies - it picks winners and losers in what should be an open market.

Now google the "Ames" brothers and their money grab with the subsidized rail construction. Then read about the subsidies the federal government has provided rail roads. Then read up on the state and federal land that gets minerals leased for pennies on the dollar. After that, while you are mad about subsidies, why don't you see that the average grazing fee per cow calf pair is under $1.50 a month per. Then read up on the land that has been acquired for cheap for pipelines, railways, and powerlines.

Find a major industry thats not subsidized.

It's true. None of the wind and solar projects would get off the ground without the subsidies. And your drifting from the thread topic, green energy, Wyoming in particular.

 

[Westelker - W. Colorado]

Lots of good points about limitations on many renewables, need for grid, conversion of existing facilities instead of mothballing - but in no way does coal make sense in 2023. It needs to be fully replaced by at least natural gas and preferably nuclear backbone supporting various renewables. I am no lefty and no tree hugger, but coal is bad mojo all around.

I agree coal industry workers etc
..sooner or later need to transition into oil, natural gas and by ALL means nuclear power. Of course, the sooner the better, but the last couple years there has been a slow down in this transition. We haven't got anywhere with wind and solar has ruined some nice landscapes!

 

[BigHornRam]

Show some respect. Those Chinese kids do quality work.

The're junk.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This all sounds wonderful to have such an enlightened and forward thinking economy where energy is cheap and plentiful. They said back in the 1950's that electricity was going to be so cheap and abundant that people didn't need to worry about insulating their homes because of the newly harnessed power of the atom.
Truth is it's been an all of the above energy policy and relatively cheap power compared to many parts of the world that has made this country and economy what it is. Those who think we can just wish that away are, in my opinion, at best misinformed.
I like to dream of the day we can all power our Delorean's on Mr. Fusions, but until then the American coal miner and roughneck will continue to help power this country.

The American coal miner, roughneck, etc are all going to continue to help power this country for a long time, probably forever until fusion is successful at scale. Renewables can't be the only source of power - no one with a functioning brain is arguing for that.

It's true. None of the wind and solar projects would get off the ground without the subsidies. And your drifting from the thread topic, green energy, Wyoming in particular.

That isn't "true" you don't "know" that. It's a politically informed opinion.

 

[Keep on]

If we really want to transition to nuclear, they need to figure out how to build new reactors in this country in less than 15 years time. Vogtle was given financial incentives from the Obama administration in its early days. One of the units has just now come on line, the other one still not functional. In the process Westinghouse went bankrupt, Southern Company lost billions and massive delays and overruns on budget occurred.
Doesn't look like we'll be seeing a large increase in nuclear generation in this country anytime soon. Even the existing single unit stations are going out of business because they are not cost competitive. Man hours and NRC red tape precludes nuclear from being low cost generators.

 

[BigHornRam]

That isn't "true" you don't "know" that. It's a politically informed opinion.

That's an educationally formed opinion. I've looked fairly deep into the subject, for many years. Lot of snake oil schemes out there, and solar farms are at the top of the list.

 

[Westelker - W. Colorado]

That part you dismiss in all this, without the massive subsidies, projects like this would not be financially feasible to construct.

Our taxes. I don't see anything for me!