4 ms·
Those aren't the costs of generating the energy. They receive ~£140/MWh in government subsidies, and ~£49/MWh for wholesale supply.
by lumisota 9y ago
Those aren't the costs of generating the energy. They receive ~£140/MWh in government subsidies, and ~£49/MWh for wholesale supply.
- vuln 9y agoSo the consumer is paying twice? Through taxes and then again when they actually purchase the power? Wow...
- hunta2097 9y agoBritish taxpayer here. I'm completely fine with it. Makes me wonder what we could do had we invested that bailout in innovation rather than City of London banking.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoIf it keeps you from going to war (for oil) and/ or being manipulated in other way (e.g., by Big Oil) then it's money well spent.
- DEADBEEF 9y agoJust an aside, but much of the bailout money was recovered when the shares the UK acquired were subsequently sold on once the banks had restabilised.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoYes. But certainly a far better return than an excesssive over "investment" in the MIC and its ilk.
- pjc50 9y agoIf we kept going with coal, the government might have to pay the costs of dealing with Somerset, Norfolk etc being underwater instead ...
- PoachedSausage 9y agoNot to even mention a taller Thames Barrier.
- FreeFull 9y agoThat's going to happen either way, as long as other countries with coal. There are other problems with coal though that make it really not worth using either way.
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoThe shift away from coal to gas started a long time ago and was driven by costs more than anything else.
- tomcam 9y agoYes. Welcome to the world of corporate welfare.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoFair enough but... 1) What does Big Oil's subsidies (including special tax breaks) look like? 2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change.
- emiliobumachar 9y agoFair enough, but again... I'm in favor of subsidies for clean energy, but I'm also in favor of calling a spade a spade. Pretty much every subsidy nowadays has some "for the public good" narrative, some more believable than others. I don't think having a better such narrative than average makes it not a "subsidy in the traditional sense".
- chiefalchemist 9y agoFair enough, but again... 2) Depending on where you stand on the cause of climate change, I think it could be argued that aiding renewables isn't a subsidy in the traditional sense, as much as inventment in hopes of mitigating future expenses due to climate change. I don't want to assume, so I have to ask: Do you understand the difference between an expense and an investment? To clarify, it's not narrative if $X today aims to save $X x Y and Z lives tomorrow, to say nothing of the social and sociopolitical disruption. That's still a subsidy? I don't agree; at all.
- todd8 9y agoAccording the University of Texas Energy Institute[1], the federal financial support in the USA for generation of energy is estimated to be (2019 numbers): Oil & Gas $0.95/MWh Coal $1.07/MWh Nuclear $1.74/MWh Wind $15.15/MWh Solar $42.51/MWh Other RE $22.85/MWh A lot goes into the calculation of these numbers, for more detail see the referenced white paper. [1] /Federal Financial Support for Electricity Generation Technologies/, https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_Subsidies_2018_Jan.pdf https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_S...