Renewable energy companies also have a $23 billion tax advantage over widget manufacturers. Not from a depletion allowance like the fossil fuel industry. But from temporary tax credits like renewable tax credits. IE, the extra money fossil fuel companies get from the depletion allowance is the same amount as renewable companies get from the temporary tax credits. Fossil fuel companies produce far greater amounts of energy however so their per MWh subsidies are far lower than renewable energy companies.marmico wrote:The oil and gas industry has a tax preference through intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion. The CBO estimates that those preferences amount to ~$23 billion over the next 10 years relative to the widget or any other manufacturer.
Repeal Certain Tax Preferences for Energy and Natural Resource–Based IndustriesAnother argument against this option is that it would alter permanent tax preferences for extractive industries but would not make any changes to temporary tax preferences for the renewable-energy sector. This report, however, does not include options to eliminate or curtail temporary tax preferences. Under current law, temporary tax preferences for the renewable-energy sector are scheduled to expire over the next several years; consequently, eliminating those preferences would not have a significant effect on deficits over the decade. Nonetheless, some temporary tax preferences are frequently extended and so resemble permanent tax preferences. For example, the tax credit for renewable-energy production is classified as temporary but has been in effect since 1992. In 2015, JCT estimated that if policymakers extended that credit so that it remained in place from 2015 to 2024, federal revenues would be reduced by $23 billion over that period. Limiting temporary tax preferences for renewable-energy sources would further reduce the distortions in the way resources are allocated between the energy sector and other industries, as well as within the energy sector. However, producing energy from renewable sources may yield wider benefits to society that a producer does not take into account, such as limiting pollution or reducing dependence on foreign governments as domestic reserves are depleted; in that case, preferential tax treatment could improve the allocation of resources.
Renewable energy companies also have a $23 billion tax advantage over widget manufacturers. Not from a depletion allowance like the fossil fuel industry. But from temporary tax credits like renewable tax credits. IE, the extra money fossil fuel companies get from the depletion allowance is the same amount as renewable companies get from the temporary tax credits. Fossil fuel companies produce far greater amounts of energy however so their per MWh subsidies are far lower than renewable energy companies.
Rockman wrote: aspera - Here's another problem you seem to have: believing those net cash flow charts while having no background that allows common sense to tell you that the shale plays could now have been drilled had the economics been that bad. How could any industry been losing money like that and still kept going? But perhaps you'll reply with the same unrealistic explanations so many others have offered.
As far as the EROEI of the "total global system" the same answer applies. Except now you're dealing with investment decisions made inn countless other aspects of global energy supply. And while govt and "society" policies can have some impact on that decision process all those decisions are based upon economics and not EROEI. Can you name one energy investment decision where they stated the INVESTORS rejected a project due to a low EROEI...even just one project? Or can you name one govt policy that was enacted because the GOVT decided the EROEI was to low? Or one project where "society" refused to allow a project due to a low EROEI?
pstarr wrote:Rock, your endless distraction within/against/from the forum would better be served if it were actually read. Gibberish
Rockman wrote: Not one company has ever financed itself at the Fed rate or anywhere close to it.
pstarr wrote:That's your dumb-#ss signiture.
marmico wrote:New monthly record in August 2018 of 82.764 million barrels per day.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/mo ... ec11_5.pdf
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
pstarr wrote: OPEC has peaked.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests