Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times Renewable Subsidies

[Schneibster]

The latest piece of propaganda on the so-called "Solyndra Crisis" made it into the New York Times (and no, it's not a leftwing propaganda rag, actually it fairly reliably prints the claims of the Republican Teagagger Party's Public Fabrications flacks. Right after Bloomberg publishes this, the New York Times publishes this.

Note that they put that headline on an article that says that the investments in solar power arrays are certain winners. This is "criticism."

It doesn't look like the editors had much idea of what it said in the article. It looks pretty sensationalist.

Still, the fact remains: six times more.

[Seth]

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that fossil fuels are a thousand times more efficient and cost-effective at actually meeting the energy needs of the public.

Pouring more public money down the rathole of wind and solar power is a complete waste of time. The technology is not mature and it's not ready for prime-time, despite Obama's earnest desire to make believe it is.

We're still stuck with "what do you do when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine" conundrum, and fossil fuel will be in our energy future, particularly for vehicles, for at least the next century, there's simply no way around that.

Left alone, the free market will either support or destroy wind and solar depending on it's utility and cost-effectiveness, both of which have been badly skewed by imprudent funneling of public money into scams like Solyndra.

Now, nukes, that's another thing entirely. We should be pouring ALL the "renewables" subsidies into building French reactors by the thousands, all over the country.

[Seth]

The New York Times (and no, it's not a leftwing propaganda rag,

Yes, it is, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, and everybody knows it.

[Warren Dew]

Are ethanol subsidies being counted here?

[Schneibster]

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that fossil fuels are a thousand times more efficient and cost-effective at actually meeting the energy needs of the public.

Got some evidence?

[Schneibster]

The New York Times (and no, it's not a leftwing propaganda rag,

Yes, it is, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, and everybody knows it.

Then why is it spouting right wingnut propaganda?

Just askin'.

[Schneibster]

Are ethanol subsidies being counted here?

The New York Times article concentrates on solar. Ethanol subsidies isn't a line of argument the right wingnuts want to follow since all their favorite Republican Teagagger Party politicians are for them.

[JimC]

Grid-connected solar panels on houses, factories and schools make a lot of sense, particularly when you start installing enough of them, and get economies of scale. Across a whole country, evened out by the grid, they simply reduce the need to burn as much coal as before. The supply is predictable enough, and things like natural gas turbines can be turned on and off rapidly enough to keep the power level constant in any given area...

Subsidies to home-owners, and tax-breaks to factory owners are modest and sensible ways to nibble away at our dependence on coal-fired electricity generation. Not enough by themselves, but a good start...

[mistermack]

Actually, wind energy is getting quite close in cost to coal and gas, with all subsidies removed.
Where it can't compete, is in being readily available and predictable.
However, there is actually a good ECONOMIC case for wind generators, in areas that are hard to supply with coal and gas or mains electricity.

Especially so for projects that don't require instantly available power. Some contracts can be written so that they can take surplus energy when it's cheap, like when the wind is constantly blowing, and can then wait till it's cheap again. Power hungry industries like steel furnaces can and do time their consumption to take advantage of power surplus.

I'm not particularly a wind energy advocate, but I have to admit it's getting a lot closer to viability, with the price rises of fossil, and the improved efficiency of wind generation.

If the technology is sourced locally, it certainly helps the balance of import/export payments.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I for one find the idea of subsidizing Pensioner to be a great thing.

[Seth]

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that fossil fuels are a thousand times more efficient and cost-effective at actually meeting the energy needs of the public.

Got some evidence?

Yeah, physics. If you dispute it, demonstrate how that solar panel on your house is going to operate your motor vehicle with anywhere near the efficiency, convenience and cost-effectiveness that gasoline does. (and when you get to the "solar panel recharge of your EV" please explain how that's going to help you when you're driving from Chicago to LA and your fossil-fuel created Lithium-ion battery pack goes flat after 40 miles...)

BTW, you do realize that "fossil fuels" are nothing more than stored sunlight, right?

[Seth]

Grid-connected solar panels on houses, factories and schools make a lot of sense, particularly when you start installing enough of them, and get economies of scale. Across a whole country, evened out by the grid, they simply reduce the need to burn as much coal as before. The supply is predictable enough, and things like natural gas turbines can be turned on and off rapidly enough to keep the power level constant in any given area...

Subsidies to home-owners, and tax-breaks to factory owners are modest and sensible ways to nibble away at our dependence on coal-fired electricity generation. Not enough by themselves, but a good start...

Every subsidy dollar is a dollar out of someone else's pocket that makes their energy cost more. If you want solar panels on your roof, I'm fine with that, but how about you pay for it all yourself and not expect others to subsidize you? I get it, and I agree that renewables are useful and a good idea...but it's not something that will EVER replace either nuclear or fossil fuel electrical generation, it will at best be an adjunct to conserve other fuel sources. Listen, I was designing an off-grid solar/microhydro-powered, earth-sheltered, hydrogen/passive solar-heated home clear back in 1973 (I still have the blueprints I drew), but the economics still aren't where they need to be for large-scale application to existing infrastructure.

I don't object to renewables, but the unintended consequences need to be carefully considered. Wind turbines kill birds and clutter up the landscape and are a pain in the ass to live near because of the omnipresent "whoosh-whoosh-whoosh" of the blades. Even the eco-nuts in the People's Republic of Boulder are so sensitive to the visual and aural environment that it's pretty much impossible to get permission to install your own personal wind turbine on your own land as a result.

Solar panels require plenty of fossil fuels for manufacturing, and off-grid homes require batteries, which have their own huge environmental load. Nor are the power grids really well designed for solar back-feeding, and there are significant hazards involved in backfeeding the grid, not the least of which is the potential for electrocuting linemen trying to maintain and repair power lines when a solar system inadvertently feeds lethal voltages back into the grid.

And then there's the circuit loading issues. It's very difficult or impossible to control a solar backfeed system on an individual basis, which makes balancing the grid load all the more difficult for power companies.

All these are technical issues that can and will be solved over time, but until the conversion rate, durability and cost of the panels themselves reaches non-subsidized economic viability, solar is going to be a bit-player, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to pay for the few who care to use solar through subsidies when subsidizing research and development of clean-burning coal-fired systems is much more cost effective, like the system being tested in Colorado Springs that was invented by a Colorado resident:

A big step toward clean coal

Neumann Systems project update

At Springs Utilities we are committed to preserving our community’s natural beauty for generations to come. We also understand the need for fiscal discipline as we search for sustainable energy solutions.

Colorado Springs Utilities is tackling the emissions challenge head-on. In 2007, we began a partnership with Neumann Systems Group to test revolutionary clean coal technology. In progressively larger-scale tests since then, NSG’s NeuStream™ scrubber has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 90 percent. Last month, we completed a successful three-month endurance test. And, this fall, we will make a decision on whether to install the technology full-scale at the Drake Power Plant.

If successful, this partnership will enable our community to meet strict new Environmental Protection Agency air emissions standards at about half the cost of conventional scrubber equipment, saving customers more than $150 million.

Based on tests so far, we believe that the NeuStream™ technology will provide our community significant benefits, including:

* Lower cost: Capital costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs are significantly lower than that of conventional systems.
* Smaller size: NeuStream™ is one-tenth the size of conventional lime-based scrubber systems. Very compact equipment may be the only way that small-campus power plants, such as the Drake Power Plant, can comply with new EPA emissions standards.
* Less power and water needed: NeuStream™ requires about one-half the power and water compared to conventional scrubbers.
* Usable by-product: When sulfur dioxide is removed from the exhaust stream, gypsum is created as a by-product and can be used in construction materials.

If every coal-fired power plant used this system (if it works as advertised, which it appears it does), coal sulphur-dioxide emissions would be reduced significantly, nearly eliminating one of the major problems with coal power generation. The other side of that coin, carbon emissions, needs more research to develop carbon sequestration or removal technology, and THAT is where our subsidy money should be going, not into the low-return-on-investment alternative energy market.

We need to fix what we have already invested trillions of dollars in before we try to develop risky and unproven alternative energy sources using subsidies. And we need to work more on nuclear plants.

[sandinista]

The New York Times (and no, it's not a leftwing propaganda rag,

Yes, it is, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, and everybody knows it.

yah, a corporate media outlet is leftist.

[Jason]

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that fossil fuels are a thousand times more efficient and cost-effective at actually meeting the energy needs of the public.

Citations or shut the fuck up.

[Pappa]

Pouring more public money down the rathole of wind and solar power is a complete waste of time. The technology is not mature and it's not ready for prime-time...

I think the contrary would be a better idea. Pour public money into renewable R&D like we did nuclear R&D. The potential future payoff is huge.

We're still stuck with "what do you do when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine" conundrum, and fossil fuel will be in our energy future, particularly for vehicles, for at least the next century, there's simply no way around that.

Not really. We already have pretty effective means of storing electricity, ones that we use in conjunction with nuclear and fossil fuel plants already, such as pumping water up to higher altitude reservoirs during the night and generating electricity from it via hydro in the day. There's no reason why the same couldn't be used in conjunction with renewable energy. The quality of batteries has also improved significantly in recent years. Successful trials have already taken place that used batteries with wind turbines to provide abundant power to small (village sized) communities with no energy downtime. One I read about in Australia generated enough to sell some to the grid in addition to providing all the power the village needed.

Left alone, the free market will either support or destroy wind and solar depending on it's utility and cost-effectiveness, both of which have been badly skewed by imprudent funneling of public money into scams like Solyndra.

The free market can't afford the costly R&D of trialling lots of new designs. They don't have the money or time required to reap the benefits. Nuclear didn't rely on the free market to get where it is today. If public money hadn't been thrown at nuclear in astonishingly huge amounts, we'd not have nuclear power today because no private enterprise would risk such an investment. Developing more cost effective renewables would almost certainly be cheaper than the amount we spent on nuclear energy.