New MAGA tax on renewable energy - WHY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an impressive government we have, that someone can drop a provision into a bill and it’s just a mystery.

Because they’re all bought and sold 10x over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an impressive government we have, that someone can drop a provision into a bill and it’s just a mystery.

Normally our government does not work all-nighters on self-imposed deadlines to pass partisan hugely-unpopular bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Solar and wind suck. The way you can tell us that Martha's vineyard and Cape cod fight to the death to keep them out.

When Aspen, Martha's vineyard and the Hamptons get wind farms and when jets take off with batteries then I'll consider them worth looking into.

Wind farms are going in up and down the Atlantic and across the plains and in mountains areas including Western PA and western MD.

Total eyesores. Ruining the beauty of the country

Well then you can have coal pollution or forego power.

[Anonymous]

Because....Trump (aka no good reason)...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the energy source can't compete without favorable treatment then it sucks. Tax it like we tax oil and see how it does.

Oil is subsidized moron.

Plus we are building a country NOT a business. The Chinese understand this and that’s why they are going to own us—all tech is going to go there because we won’t be able to produce enough energy to compete.

[Anonymous]

This tax is removed in the lastest version of the bill.

[Anonymous]

No reason, just spite that doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Solar and wind suck. The way you can tell us that Martha's vineyard and Cape cod fight to the death to keep them out.

When Aspen, Martha's vineyard and the Hamptons get wind farms and when jets take off with batteries then I'll consider them worth looking into.

Wind farms are going in up and down the Atlantic and across the plains and in mountains areas including Western PA and western MD.

Total eyesores. Ruining the beauty of the country

Do you know what is worse? A country with denuded forests, piled garbage and no clear air or water, which is the world the GOP wants.

Also with constant blackouts and brownouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BBB includes not only rolling back Biden-era subsidies for solar and wind power, but new taxes intended to kneecap those rapidly growing industries. Much of the solar and wind production in the US is in red states like Texas. Why is it "winning" to kneecap an industry that's providing cheaper energy, in exchange for oil and gas that are becoming relatively more and more expensive?
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/01/trump-clean-energy-tax-credits-renewables

How is solar and wind cheaper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This tax is removed in the lastest version of the bill.

Not removed. Lowered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BBB includes not only rolling back Biden-era subsidies for solar and wind power, but new taxes intended to kneecap those rapidly growing industries. Much of the solar and wind production in the US is in red states like Texas. Why is it "winning" to kneecap an industry that's providing cheaper energy, in exchange for oil and gas that are becoming relatively more and more expensive?
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/01/trump-clean-energy-tax-credits-renewables

How is solar and wind cheaper?

Cancer is expensive.

[Anonymous]

Windmills are really bad for migrating birds. BAD.

It sounds like a fantastic idea, until it doesn't.

They need to figure out how to make the windmills so that they don't create havoc for wildlife. Until then, I'm against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BBB includes not only rolling back Biden-era subsidies for solar and wind power, but new taxes intended to kneecap those rapidly growing industries. Much of the solar and wind production in the US is in red states like Texas. Why is it "winning" to kneecap an industry that's providing cheaper energy, in exchange for oil and gas that are becoming relatively more and more expensive?
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/01/trump-clean-energy-tax-credits-renewables

How is solar and wind cheaper?

https://www.freeingenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/g110-FinLcoeForecast-lcoe-forecast-solar-gas-wind-2040-EF.png

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Windmills are really bad for migrating birds. BAD.

It sounds like a fantastic idea, until it doesn't.

They need to figure out how to make the windmills so that they don't create havoc for wildlife. Until then, I'm against them.

They have figured out how to mitigate this. So you can be for them now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the energy source can't compete without favorable treatment then it sucks. Tax it like we tax oil and see how it does.

Ok, then lets pay the full cost of oil, including environmental remediation and the military subsidy. It comes to $12-14/gal instead of the ~$3 you are paying now.

Baloney. You're just picking numbers out of the air. You're also making the assumption there wouldn't be a military if we didn't use petroleum. False. Bigly. You're also making assumptions on what percentage of military spending goes to protect petroleum from exploration to shipping.

BTW, where the hell do you think that PLASTIC dashboard in your electric vehicle comes from? Guess what material is a large part of the components of plastic? Oil.... from the ground. Yikes, huh? Have you really thought this out?

Now, let's get to Electric Vehicles. Efficient? Not by a long shot.

The entire reason a gallon of gasoline fits in that size and weighs six pounds, more or less (plus the tank of course) is that it is mixed with 14 times, roughly, as much air as said fuel when it is burned. You don't carry the air with you; it's there for the mixture to burn. Gasoline is a mixture of things but has a mass in the common mixtures of about 100g/mol (molar mass). Air is a mixture too (mostly nitrogen and then oxygen) and has a mass of about 30g/mol. I'm rounding.

There are 450 grams to a pound. So for every pound of gasoline you must have roughly fourteen pounds of air to react with it.

A battery has to carry both reactants in the case. In both cases the reaction is roughly the same; both are a form of oxidation-reduction reaction (redox reaction) in that one molecule gains electrons and another loses them. That is, using a battery requires roughly 14 times the mass of fuel to be carried for the energy produced compared with gasoline, because you have to have the air in the case and to accelerate something you must accelerate its mass. The fuel-driven vehicle thus wins twice as it neither has to carry that mass or accelerate it.

There ain't no free lunch (TANFL), so you have to be much more-efficient end-to-end to use a battery to make sense for this very reason. But the electricity is generated somewhere else, it must be generated, go through multiple lines and transformers and then undergo a chemical conversion in the battery twice -- once to charge it and then again when you use it. All you're doing is moving a polluting event from one place to another! It doesn't make it disappear and we never want to account for things like the energy consumed and environmental waste produced by making lithium-chemistry batteries and all the ugly heavy metals. However, all of that has to be accounted for when you choose where to make the batteries because you can trash the environment there, also. Heavy metals like cadmium tend to be nasty at low levels.

Stop being a talking points bot and know what you're talking about.