We were talking about alternative energy sources, home geo is not an energy source, it's used for heating, cooling, and requires electricity to operate, as opposed to producing electricity. But since you brought it up, I actually like home geo and I would like to see the technology become more prevalent - by way of the free market, not government subsidies and mandates.
Geo power plants are very limited in where they can currently be used and there's that pesky "geo power causes earthquakes" thing we have to deal with too.
A tax cut is a reduction in the tax rate. Oil companies haven't gotten any tax cuts, quite the opposite, their tax rates have been steadily increasing nearly every year for the last decade. They do get tax incentives, tax credits and tax abatement's, but they have to take some action specified by government to qualify.
You remember hearing about "record profits" from big oil? Did you know they pay almost 4 times as much in taxes as they make in profit? So every time you heard about an oil company making record profits, they were paying out 4 times as much in taxes. In 2008, Exxon Mobil alone paid as much in taxes as the bottom 50% of taxpayers.
I agree, it's not cheap, let the private sector pay for the research. It's not the governments (taxpayers) job to fund alternative energy... And if I had my way, the Capitalist way, there would be no tax incentives, tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies or mandates, for any business or industry. Every business and industry would have to fend for itself without assistance from the government.
They cost 10-30 million each and operating costs are a quarter to a half million per day once built.
Zero.
Unlike you, I actually looked this information up so you're the only one guessing, assuming, and estimating about oil companies and taxation.
Much of the taxes that oil companies currently pay (which are actually paid for by consumers) are direct subsidies for alternative energy. "Green" energy cannot compete in a free market, so it has to be massively subsidized with oil money to compete against the oil companies.
Really? We've been working on Solar since the 1950's, spent billions upon billions on R&D, and it accounts for a whopping 0.09% of our total energy. Wind doesn't fair much better, so I'm wondering what progress you're referring to here...
Their location is incredibly limited, the size of wind farms is an issue, so is the noise, and don't forget about the treehuggers who will be blocking you every step of the way because they kill birds and interrupt their migration patterns.
And I was the one who pointed out you need backup power plants for wind and solar because of their inefficiency and reliability issues. Those back up power plants still have to be manned 24/7, they still have to have an adequate supply of fuel, not to mention maintenance, which is part of why alternatives are so much more expensive to operate than just having a traditional power plant.
You never have explained how you are going to get past the NIMBY crowd. Do you think you could at least try to address that?
