4 ms·
It's because our on-shore potential is equally as great and it's a lot cheaper. Additionally, farm states are disproportionately (with respect to population) im
by Robotbeat 7y ago
It's because our on-shore potential is equally as great and it's a lot cheaper. Additionally, farm states are disproportionately (with respect to population) important politically, so it's easier to get subsidies for on-shore wind. This is also why ethanol accounts for ~10% of the US motor gasoline mix. Wind and solar are way better per unit land than ethanol, so hopefully ethanol is replaced by solar.
- maxerickson 7y agoEthanol is used as an oxidizer that reduces emissions, production exceeds subsidies by an enormous amount.
- Robotbeat 7y agoSubsidies, yes, but there are large mandates as well. Also, ethanol is, I believe, cheaper than gasoline per unit volume (not necessarily per energy) so there’s incentive to blend it in.
- todd8 7y agoI'm not sure that ethanol mandates are a good idea. It's not clear that the entire life-cycle costs (in terms of CO2 emissions) of adding ethanol is better than the gasoline that it displaces, see [1]. This would mean that the mandates and incentives would be be better spent on other ways to reduce emissions. [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-or-lower/ https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-o...
- scblock 7y agoFor the most part the federal Production Tax Credit is the only subsidy of substance that applies to wind farms in the US.
- Robotbeat 7y ago...but it’s enormous. The credit is 2.1¢/kWh for first 10 years, more than half the current unsubsidized 3.6¢/kWh levelized cost of wind.