4 ms·

Solar, Wind Energy Get Hundreds of Times More Tax Incentives Than Oil and Gas

2 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

BMc2020 3y ago
Not counting the US Military, of course.
Ecko123 3y ago
[dead]
SonOfKyuss 3y ago
This is great news. Hopefully the trend continues.
RetroTechie 3y ago
Article bases its claim on this piece: https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/actually-solar-is-getting-302-times https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/actually-solar-is-getting... Which does some back-of-napkin math that may be accurate, but ignores some very important issues in the process: The numbers are [subsidies received] divided by [units of energy produced] for 2022. Now, let's take nuclear: 'of course' a nuclear power plant built 50y ago was built without using any kind of gov't monetary support. Not relying on gov't supported infrastructure like enrichment facilities, shady deals concerning uranium mining in faraway countries, or whatever. Yeah... right. Not saying any specific item applies! But private company building nuclear power plant using exclusively its own resources front-to-back, is hard to believe. Fast forward to 2022. Of course that plant is chugging along as it has for decades. No gov't support needed today. And as we know, nuclear tends to be power-dense. So subsidy/energy output for 2022 works out to a small number. Also this says nothing about who picks up the bill when a mayor accident were to happen. If so, good chance power company goes under & taxpayers pay for the cleanup, environmental & health damage, etc. Or End-of-Life of a nuclear plant. Fossil: ignoring all costs externalized to society in the form of climate change related damage, health damage (+costs) due to environmental pollution, cost of wars to secure oil supplies in dictator-controlled countries, etc etc etc. Those costs are huge (yes there are studies on that), they do amount to indirect subsidies, but they're not accounted for in numbers mentioned in the article. Now, take solar. Of course these are all new installs, subsidies involve upfront costs for rooftop / solar farms that will likely sit there for 20..30y, and energy output for 2022 is only a small fraction of what it's expected to produce over its lifespan. So subsidy/output for 2022 works out to a big number. Article also mentions a big number ($900 billion) for subsidies as projected for 2060. Wut? If humans are still around by then, energy market will be veeerry different. Doubtful that subsidies for solar would still exist in 2060. Resulting numbers are so skewed, painting renewables in such a bad light, that I can't help to wonder how much this Robert Bryce (or the Cowboy State reporter) was subsidized by some Big Oil funded thinkthank. Or somehow convinced by a Big Oil lobbyist to have a look into this. Or some other mysterious way to bring these articles about. Not saying that's the case! Just wondering...

2 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

BMc2020 3y ago

Not counting the US Military, of course.

Ecko123 3y ago

[dead]

SonOfKyuss 3y ago

This is great news. Hopefully the trend continues.

RetroTechie 3y ago

Article bases its claim on this piece: https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/actually-solar-is-getting-302-times https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/actually-solar-is-getting... Which does some back-of-napkin math that may be accurate, but ignores some very important issues in the process: The numbers are [subsidies received] divided by [units of energy produced] for 2022. Now, let's take nuclear: 'of course' a nuclear power plant built 50y ago was built without using any kind of gov't monetary support. Not relying on gov't supported infrastructure like enrichment facilities, shady deals concerning uranium mining in faraway countries, or whatever. Yeah... right. Not saying any specific item applies! But private company building nuclear power plant using exclusively its own resources front-to-back, is hard to believe. Fast forward to 2022. Of course that plant is chugging along as it has for decades. No gov't support needed today. And as we know, nuclear tends to be power-dense. So subsidy/energy output for 2022 works out to a small number. Also this says nothing about who picks up the bill when a mayor accident were to happen. If so, good chance power company goes under & taxpayers pay for the cleanup, environmental & health damage, etc. Or End-of-Life of a nuclear plant. Fossil: ignoring all costs externalized to society in the form of climate change related damage, health damage (+costs) due to environmental pollution, cost of wars to secure oil supplies in dictator-controlled countries, etc etc etc. Those costs are huge (yes there are studies on that), they do amount to indirect subsidies, but they're not accounted for in numbers mentioned in the article. Now, take solar. Of course these are all new installs, subsidies involve upfront costs for rooftop / solar farms that will likely sit there for 20..30y, and energy output for 2022 is only a small fraction of what it's expected to produce over its lifespan. So subsidy/output for 2022 works out to a big number. Article also mentions a big number ($900 billion) for subsidies as projected for 2060. Wut? If humans are still around by then, energy market will be veeerry different. Doubtful that subsidies for solar would still exist in 2060. Resulting numbers are so skewed, painting renewables in such a bad light, that I can't help to wonder how much this Robert Bryce (or the Cowboy State reporter) was subsidized by some Big Oil funded thinkthank. Or somehow convinced by a Big Oil lobbyist to have a look into this. Or some other mysterious way to bring these articles about. Not saying that's the case! Just wondering...