Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91926272829
Results 449 to 451 of 451

Thread: 1600 W maximum on vacuum cleaners from from Sept!

  1. #449
    Ninja Noxvayl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    748
    Thanked
    215 times in 173 posts
    • Noxvayl's system
      • Motherboard:
      • GigabyteZ87X-UD4H-CF
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 4770K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair Vengaence LPX + 8GB Kingston HyperX Beast
      • Storage:
      • 120GB Snadisk + 256GB Crucial SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4GB Sapphire R9 380
      • PSU:
      • ENermax Platimax 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define S
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • ATMT + Dell 1024x1280
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre

    Re: 1600 W maximum on vacuum cleaners from from Sept!

    Let me quote from the articles then, and then link you the resource you ignored from the BBC article...

    "According to the ODI, 75% of energy project support from international banks went to fossil fuel projects in 12 of the highest emitting developing nations." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833153

    "However, oil has been documented as having several additional health and environmental effects that cost us a large amount more. Additionally, there are tremendous military costs to protecting oil supplies (in the trillions and trillions) and keeping shipping lanes open." - http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/...gas-subsidies/

    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell...enewables-iea/

    I apologise for linking back to articles I feel you have glossed over and not read thoroughly. They clearly have data from the OECD report but that data is supported by other reports, are all of them wrong?

    It isn't as simple as subsidies only, but the benefits given to an industry already doing extremely well for itself is something I have a hard time supporting.

    Going back to governments supporting new industries, I agree with peterb in that without government support many industries would not be around at the moment, nuclear being one of them. Going forward I find it hard to see nuclear being useful for us in the future without government assistance, thankfully Chinese and Indian governments are investing in it while the UK and USA aren't. We will at least get the technology developed by other countries and catch up to them later.

  2. #450
    Account closed at user request
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Elephant watch camp
    Posts
    2,150
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked
    115 times in 103 posts
    • wasabi's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B85M-G43
      • CPU:
      • i3-4130
      • Memory:
      • 8 gig DDR3 Crucial Rendition 1333 - cheap!
      • Storage:
      • 128 gig Agility 3, 240GB Corsair Force 3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Zotac GTX 750Ti
      • PSU:
      • Silver Power SP-S460FL
      • Case:
      • Lian Li T60 testbanch
      • Operating System:
      • Win7 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • First F301GD Live
      • Internet:
      • Virgin cable 100 meg

    Re: 1600 W maximum on vacuum cleaners from from Sept!

    Quote Originally Posted by Noxvayl View Post
    Let me quote from the articles then, and then link you the resource you ignored from the BBC article...

    "According to the ODI, 75% of energy project support from international banks went to fossil fuel projects in 12 of the highest emitting developing nations." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833153
    Not a subsidy. These are banks.


    "However, oil has been documented as having several additional health and environmental effects that cost us a large amount more. Additionally, there are tremendous military costs to protecting oil supplies (in the trillions and trillions) and keeping shipping lanes open." - http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/...gas-subsidies/

    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell...enewables-iea/

    I apologise for linking back to articles I feel you have glossed over and not read thoroughly. They clearly have data from the OECD report but that data is supported by other reports, are all of them wrong?
    A few bits here and there are correct. The German hard coal subsidy actually is a subsidy for example. The rest is predominantly tax breaks (which ,again, renewables would also be entitled to.... if they made any money) or research grants.

    Some stuff is in the grey area of boondoggles though, like US support for ethanol to keep the farmer voters happy. But that is another subject.


    It isn't as simple as subsidies only, but the benefits given to an industry already doing extremely well for itself is something I have a hard time supporting.
    We've possibly hit peak oil already and not been told about it - although I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure. The BP disaster a few years back shows that they're having to drill in ever stranger places. Plus the shift to frakking, shale etc as traditional energy sources dwindle. So basically they should be punished because they are successful and their product works?


    Going back to governments supporting new industries, I agree with peterb in that without government support many industries would not be around at the moment, nuclear being one of them. Going forward I find it hard to see nuclear being useful for us in the future without government assistance, thankfully Chinese and Indian governments are investing in it while the UK and USA aren't. We will at least get the technology developed by other countries and catch up to them later.
    Nuclear is so politically sensitive it won't happen without massive government oversight. Sadly we're so far behind the curve in nuclear terms that even if the Tories manage to sneak a few power plants past the pseudo-greens, we'll have to buy most of the tech in from abroad.

  3. #451
    Ninja Noxvayl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    748
    Thanked
    215 times in 173 posts
    • Noxvayl's system
      • Motherboard:
      • GigabyteZ87X-UD4H-CF
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 4770K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair Vengaence LPX + 8GB Kingston HyperX Beast
      • Storage:
      • 120GB Snadisk + 256GB Crucial SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4GB Sapphire R9 380
      • PSU:
      • ENermax Platimax 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define S
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • ATMT + Dell 1024x1280
      • Internet:
      • Sky Fibre

    Re: 1600 W maximum on vacuum cleaners from from Sept!

    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    Not a subsidy. These are banks.
    And who backs the banks? Where do the banks go when they inevitably become insolvent due to their lending practices? What makes the investment in oil & gas safer for banks? Without the assistance of government the outlooks for these investments they make would be different and lending would likely be altered as a result. This is what I find annoying, the industry is artificial in the sense that it doesn't operate independently, despite this it is allowed to make profits and suck money out of the economy when it could be used for better things.

    You have this thing about the term subsidy, what is your definition of it? According to Wikipedia it is "a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from Government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from NGOs or implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates)." This seems like a rational and reasonable definition; the narrow definition which you seem to be hinting at is unhelpful when thinking of the complex interactions in the economy, at least as far as I am concerned. It seems others think of it in a similar way considering how many articles use it that way, when government provide benefits to an industry through which ever means they choose it is artificially reducing the cost of the commodity involved, in this case the cost of oil and gas are artificially lowered to perpetuate what we currently know as the backbone of our economy.

    If you still refuse to think of subsidy in that way what should I call it from now on? Monetary benefit due to government policy seems to encompass what we are talking about but is something I'd prefer not to type every time I think of subsidy.

    Quote Originally Posted by wasabi View Post
    We've possibly hit peak oil already and not been told about it - although I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure. The BP disaster a few years back shows that they're having to drill in ever stranger places. Plus the shift to frakking, shale etc as traditional energy sources dwindle. So basically they should be punished because they are successful and their product works?
    Why is tax breaks being taken away considered them being punished but on the flip side getting tax breaks isn't considered subsidising. I don't see why they should continue to get tax breaks when their business model is sufficient to keep the industry around for a while yet, those breaks could be put to better use in industries that are struggling to take off.

    Them being an honest contributor to our economy should be why we don't give them assistance that other industries need. We should not be helping those that can help themselves, we should be getting those currently unable to help themselves out of their current situation and then repeat that process. We got the industry going, support it with our economic and military might and should continue to provide tax breaks to it until it runs its course... sounds like a pseudo government organisation, it strikes me as odd that you seem to dislike government organisations that never stop costing us money but feel it is ok for an industry to run without the same constraints as others because there is a technical difference between a subsidy and a tax break. The industry gets additional profits thanks to the government allowing it, a simple difference in money being on the oil & gas industry books versus government's books regardless of how it is done, and it is not something I can support.

    As for peak oil, I doubt we'd hear about it until the proverbial hits the fan. I think new techniques for mining oil and gas out of areas that were previously left alone due to it being too difficult to extract will put the industry on life support for a while yet. I would prefer that it didn't get to that but then government policy is not helping in that regard, which is what I find so frustrating.
    Last edited by peterb; 29-09-2014 at 04:56 PM. Reason: Remove *

Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91926272829

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •