We taxpayers have dumped $Billions into wind, solar…etc. and have gotten no return. Shouldn’t we allow the Free Market determine what forms of energy we use?
From the Wall Street Journal:
“Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new “Manhattan Project” for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.
Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.
An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized.
For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.
The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.
By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other “alternatives.”
The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.
All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of “green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_
only skeptics believe in reality, warmers and other faithful live in a world of magic and fantasy.
Clearly the answer is YES!
Renewable energy is the new code word for corporate welfare.
If you’re priority is money, yes. If you’re priority is breathing clean air, no.
Yes and Yes,
Alot of renewables will make the air worse. If you count the energy to make ethonal, you could get ~ 1.5X Nox, hydro carbons.
Absolutely correct,and it’s about time people woke up to the truth.
I agree. when we tax one form of energy & use that tax money to subsidize another form of energy it just confuses the issue of which ones practical & which ones are just a political pork barrel project.
it would also help if the media was educated to use a single unit of energy such as joules when comparing various methods of production instead of their using btu,kw hours & horse power interchangeably.
actually it would be a BIG help if the media was educated at all.
Nuclear is such a fun topic to dissect. Did you know that NO nuclear reactor EVER made a profit without subsidies? It might only directly get a subsidy of $1.59/mwh, but that doesn’t include the tax money spent to design and build the facility. Nor does it include the tax money spent to mine, process and ship the fuel to the facility. It does not include the tax money spent to ship the fuel to a storage facility where tax dollars will be spent for the next 100,000 years to keep it safe. It does not include the tax money spent to dismantle the nuclear facility at the end of its useful life either. Nor does it take into account the governments taking over the insurance risk of a disaster. If the company had to buy insurance for risk of a leak or meltdown it couldn’t even start up- how much do you think $10 trillion worth of insurance would cost them each year? Good old taxpayers subsidize the bill if it happens. No, it hasn’t happened yet, but neither have I had an accident yet I still have to pay for insurance each month.
The only reason we have such a large military complex is to protect our interests abroad, mainly oil interests. At nearly a trillion $$ per year spent on military, I’d say that’s a large subsidy.
I think its time to end ALL subsidies for all businesses in the country. Why should we pay for wind power if its so good? Why should we pay for coal since its been around for centuries? Why should we pay for roads we will never use? Why should we allow people to deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes- renters or people who own their homes just have to make up the difference. Why should people be allowed to reduce their taxes because they have children? You and me just end up paying more in taxes to educate that child and pay so many other expenses related to child rearing- let the parents pay for it!