4 ms·

>the homeowner should get paid the spot price like every other generator, not full residential rates. Either the other generators should pay a significant carb

>the homeowner should get paid the spot price like every other generator, not full residential rates. Either the other generators should pay a significant carbon tax or the solar / wind producers should get a significant subsidy for polluting less.

tertius 11y ago
Just because your competition has an advantage doesn't mean that you can ignore costs. Even if you choose to ignore the costs, a subsidy is a direct monetary cost and not an advantage that you can just force to compete.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  That argument doesn't make any sense. Whichever way you look at it there's no justification for giving the same tax treatment to both coal and solar. One imposes an enormous externality and the other doesn't. Whether it's a subsidy for one or a tax for the other is somewhat immaterial. The point is that they shouldn't be taxed the same. Currently coal and gas actually receive massive subsidies, too, while a 30% tariff is slapped on most solar panels imported from China which is even more perverse. We're literally subsidizing pollution because coal/gas are tight with out politicians, while cheaper, cleaner forms of electricity generation are rendered purposefully less competitive.
  - cmdrfred 11y ago
    > Whichever way you look at it there's no justification for giving the same tax treatment to both coal and solar. The same? Not even, fossil fuels get significant subsides on top of paying nothing for the emissions and that's just the tip of the iceberg. In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.[1] [1]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      Worldwide, yes. In the US, not even close. According to the actual EIA report[1] (see PDF pages 15 and 16, table ES2) US government subsidies for fossil fuel power generation are a drop in the bucket compared to renewables subsidies. Solar alone gets more subsidies than all fossil fuels combined. If these are the numbers that fed into the $557 billion and $43 billion[2] then it appears the US is responsible for a trivial amount of the fossil fuel subsidies worldwide and over 40% of the renewables subsidies. [1] http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf [2] I know the numbers in the report are for 2010 and 2013, while the big numbers are for 2008. I'm assuming the other numbers have scaled similarly since then.
      - cmdrfred 11y ago
        Taking that as gospel, in a supposed 'free market' economy why does the US subsidize fossil fuels all? Does anyone have a compelling reason? Isn't absorbing the cost of the externalities enough?
        tertius 11y ago
        Likely because the grid is important enough to the economy that there should be government support of the stability of the energy supply.
      - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
        That report only lists, as it's title suggests: "Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy". Harvard Medical School estimates that coal costs the US half a trillion (yes, trillion) dollars every year in externalities that the public, not the coal industry, or the utilities, pay the price for. The total accounted for in your document, for all energy types is only $40 billion, more than a factor of ten less. You can have a fascinating semantic discussion about whether those half a trillion dollars, every single year, are a subsidy or not, but either way they're getting paid by the US public when a bit more "sudsidy" for solar could have avoided them.
ams6110 11y ago
You would of course need to include the externalities associated with the manufacturing of solar panels.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Which is minor compared to the carbon spit out by coal and natural gas plants, as well as uranium released directly into the atmosphere when coal is burned.

tertius 11y ago

Just because your competition has an advantage doesn't mean that you can ignore costs. Even if you choose to ignore the costs, a subsidy is a direct monetary cost and not an advantage that you can just force to compete.

crdoconnor 11y ago
That argument doesn't make any sense. Whichever way you look at it there's no justification for giving the same tax treatment to both coal and solar. One imposes an enormous externality and the other doesn't. Whether it's a subsidy for one or a tax for the other is somewhat immaterial. The point is that they shouldn't be taxed the same. Currently coal and gas actually receive massive subsidies, too, while a 30% tariff is slapped on most solar panels imported from China which is even more perverse. We're literally subsidizing pollution because coal/gas are tight with out politicians, while cheaper, cleaner forms of electricity generation are rendered purposefully less competitive.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  > Whichever way you look at it there's no justification for giving the same tax treatment to both coal and solar. The same? Not even, fossil fuels get significant subsides on top of paying nothing for the emissions and that's just the tip of the iceberg. In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.[1] [1]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    Worldwide, yes. In the US, not even close. According to the actual EIA report[1] (see PDF pages 15 and 16, table ES2) US government subsidies for fossil fuel power generation are a drop in the bucket compared to renewables subsidies. Solar alone gets more subsidies than all fossil fuels combined. If these are the numbers that fed into the $557 billion and $43 billion[2] then it appears the US is responsible for a trivial amount of the fossil fuel subsidies worldwide and over 40% of the renewables subsidies. [1] http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf [2] I know the numbers in the report are for 2010 and 2013, while the big numbers are for 2008. I'm assuming the other numbers have scaled similarly since then.
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      Taking that as gospel, in a supposed 'free market' economy why does the US subsidize fossil fuels all? Does anyone have a compelling reason? Isn't absorbing the cost of the externalities enough?
      - tertius 11y ago
        Likely because the grid is important enough to the economy that there should be government support of the stability of the energy supply.
    - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
      That report only lists, as it's title suggests: "Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy". Harvard Medical School estimates that coal costs the US half a trillion (yes, trillion) dollars every year in externalities that the public, not the coal industry, or the utilities, pay the price for. The total accounted for in your document, for all energy types is only $40 billion, more than a factor of ten less. You can have a fascinating semantic discussion about whether those half a trillion dollars, every single year, are a subsidy or not, but either way they're getting paid by the US public when a bit more "sudsidy" for solar could have avoided them.

ams6110 11y ago

You would of course need to include the externalities associated with the manufacturing of solar panels.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Which is minor compared to the carbon spit out by coal and natural gas plants, as well as uranium released directly into the atmosphere when coal is burned.