4 ms·

Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion worldwide in subsidies in 2020.[0] So whatever you may be thinking is 'spent' on renewable energy it is quite

Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion worldwide in subsidies in 2020.[0] So whatever you may be thinking is 'spent' on renewable energy it is quite literally a drop in a bucket compared to subsidies and tax rebates for fossil fuels. [0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...

belorn 4y ago
For EU the numbers: https://trinomics.eu/energysubsidies/ https://trinomics.eu/energysubsidies/ Renewables: €78bn Fossil fuels: €56bn Here is an other source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303891/eu-breakdown-of-energy-subsidies-by-carrier/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303891/eu-breakdown-of-... So no, not literally a drop in a bucket but rather an larger bucket that also is increasing every year. For US it is a bit more complex, but in in terms of tax rebates we see that renewables get more subsidies than fossil fuels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... The paper you linked is primarily about air pollution and effects on global warming, or what they describe as "implicit subsidies". Not money from government or tax rebates. In terms of "implicit subsidies", air pollution account for 42% of that $5.9 trillion, 29% global warming, and 15% are road accidents and traffic congestion.
- mateo1 4y ago
  Something else that would provoke some thought is what kind of returns do these subsidies get in terms of energy delivered? To get the full picture would require the inclusion of grands for r&d, governmental human resources and capital allocation, and perhaps more importantly the cost incurred by large investors both private and public shifting from clearly profitable investment in traditional energy sources to questionable or even outright improbable mageprojects only because of a clear and persistent signal from governments that profitable investments in fossil fuels will be punished in the near future. People don't seem to get it but we are spending our pension funds and taxes into various scams. This has already started to bite our asses here in europe and there's still no sign of this insanity ending. At least if public dialogue was honest and grounded in reality we could spend all that money in researching a solution that actually works economically.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The biggest energy scam I know about, just now, is Energy Vault. Until last week, I thought Energy Vault was just cranks, like that Gateway Spaceport youtube-CGI "VERA space station in 6 months" guy. But Energy Vault is a publicly traded company, with $billions valuation! There is simply no chance of that stuff ever being competitive. It's like fusion. I read over the things DoE is putting money into. Almost all of them amount to obscure ways to ensure heat engines remain massively involved in the energy system.
    - mateo1 4y ago
      Fusion can and hopefully will be competitive in the near future, but gravity based storage is just not possible to scale unless we're talking about massive hydroelectric dams. I didn't know about energy vault and yeah the investment amount they managed to get is insane. Centrifugal energy storage can be used as a short term buffer somewhat economically for variations in demand, but not actual storage. Thankfully natural gas and other fossil fuels store just fine as they are, and peaker plants are very cheap as they're usually just the old low efficiency plants, available at essentially zero capital cost.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        There is no possibility of fusion becoming competitive. A fusion plant would cost at least 10x fission, and fission is itself very far from competitive. As costs for renewables continue falling, that target gets always further out of reach. Centrifugal storage could be useful for a few seconds, perhaps to smooth over sudden spikes. But it has been well-understood for over a century, and not used yet, so that is unlikely to change. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are the problem we are trying to solve, so they cannot count as part of a solution. For the present, NG must be used when renewables fall short, because any storage we built out now would have to be charged up from fossil fuels anyway, as renewables do not exceed demand yet. Practical storage will turn out to be based on an eclectic mix of air pressure (underground or undersea), liquified nitrogen, chemical synthesis (hydrogen, ammonia), hydro (conventional pumped surface, and underground and undersea variations), plus some small amount of batteries (liquid metal, iron). The first few are attractive because they are compatible with existing gas furnaces. Hydro is attractive because it is very mature. Chemical synthesis is attractive because once local tankage is full, any surplus power generated can be turned into revenue, and any shortfall in storage can be made up by importing more. One more possibility is subsea buoyancy; an air bladder or rigid air tank is drawn toward a pulley anchored to the sea floor, yielding power when it is allowed to rise again.

belorn 4y ago

For EU the numbers: https://trinomics.eu/energysubsidies/ https://trinomics.eu/energysubsidies/ Renewables: €78bn Fossil fuels: €56bn Here is an other source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303891/eu-breakdown-of-energy-subsidies-by-carrier/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303891/eu-breakdown-of-... So no, not literally a drop in a bucket but rather an larger bucket that also is increasing every year. For US it is a bit more complex, but in in terms of tax rebates we see that renewables get more subsidies than fossil fuels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United... The paper you linked is primarily about air pollution and effects on global warming, or what they describe as "implicit subsidies". Not money from government or tax rebates. In terms of "implicit subsidies", air pollution account for 42% of that $5.9 trillion, 29% global warming, and 15% are road accidents and traffic congestion.

mateo1 4y ago
Something else that would provoke some thought is what kind of returns do these subsidies get in terms of energy delivered? To get the full picture would require the inclusion of grands for r&d, governmental human resources and capital allocation, and perhaps more importantly the cost incurred by large investors both private and public shifting from clearly profitable investment in traditional energy sources to questionable or even outright improbable mageprojects only because of a clear and persistent signal from governments that profitable investments in fossil fuels will be punished in the near future. People don't seem to get it but we are spending our pension funds and taxes into various scams. This has already started to bite our asses here in europe and there's still no sign of this insanity ending. At least if public dialogue was honest and grounded in reality we could spend all that money in researching a solution that actually works economically.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The biggest energy scam I know about, just now, is Energy Vault. Until last week, I thought Energy Vault was just cranks, like that Gateway Spaceport youtube-CGI "VERA space station in 6 months" guy. But Energy Vault is a publicly traded company, with $billions valuation! There is simply no chance of that stuff ever being competitive. It's like fusion. I read over the things DoE is putting money into. Almost all of them amount to obscure ways to ensure heat engines remain massively involved in the energy system.
  - mateo1 4y ago
    Fusion can and hopefully will be competitive in the near future, but gravity based storage is just not possible to scale unless we're talking about massive hydroelectric dams. I didn't know about energy vault and yeah the investment amount they managed to get is insane. Centrifugal energy storage can be used as a short term buffer somewhat economically for variations in demand, but not actual storage. Thankfully natural gas and other fossil fuels store just fine as they are, and peaker plants are very cheap as they're usually just the old low efficiency plants, available at essentially zero capital cost.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There is no possibility of fusion becoming competitive. A fusion plant would cost at least 10x fission, and fission is itself very far from competitive. As costs for renewables continue falling, that target gets always further out of reach. Centrifugal storage could be useful for a few seconds, perhaps to smooth over sudden spikes. But it has been well-understood for over a century, and not used yet, so that is unlikely to change. Natural gas and other fossil fuels are the problem we are trying to solve, so they cannot count as part of a solution. For the present, NG must be used when renewables fall short, because any storage we built out now would have to be charged up from fossil fuels anyway, as renewables do not exceed demand yet. Practical storage will turn out to be based on an eclectic mix of air pressure (underground or undersea), liquified nitrogen, chemical synthesis (hydrogen, ammonia), hydro (conventional pumped surface, and underground and undersea variations), plus some small amount of batteries (liquid metal, iron). The first few are attractive because they are compatible with existing gas furnaces. Hydro is attractive because it is very mature. Chemical synthesis is attractive because once local tankage is full, any surplus power generated can be turned into revenue, and any shortfall in storage can be made up by importing more. One more possibility is subsea buoyancy; an air bladder or rigid air tank is drawn toward a pulley anchored to the sea floor, yielding power when it is allowed to rise again.