Proposition 23

[no_such_reality]

[img_assist|nid=14076|title=EIA Share of Energy Subsidies|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=466|height=434]

Source Energy Information Administration, US Gov.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[afx114]

The problem here is that there is no set definition for “subsidy.” Does your chart include price supports for growing corn and tax credits for foreign royalties paid by oil and gas companies? The Environmental Law Institutes studies did, and they came up with quite different numbers (and their study spans more years, 2002-2008):

Energy Subsidies Black Not Green (PDF)

They put the values at 72.5 billion for fossil fuels vs 29.0 billion for renewables:

A study released by the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization, shows that the federal government has provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels totaled approximately $72 billion over the seven-year study period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled $29 billion over the same period. The vast majority of subsidies support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel. Moreover, just a handful of tax breaks make up the largest portion of subsidies for fossil fuels, with the most significant of these, the Foreign Tax Credit, supporting the overseas production of oil. More than half of the subsidies for renewables are attributable to corn-based ethanol, the use of which, while decreasing American reliance on foreign oil, has generated concern about climate effects.These figures raise the question of whether scarce government funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a low-carbon economy.

Also, I don’t think we can compare decades worth of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel sector with current subsidies for renewables. Renewables are in the startup phase, so even if they do currently enjoy more subsidies (which is suspect), it is still a pittance compared to what fossil fuels have received over time. Would renewables pencil better if they were able to enjoy the 40+ years of subsidies enjoyed by non-renewables? I don’t see how you can say no.

I’d also like to see external costs count as subsidies. Perhaps we can call them hidden subsidies? For example, supporting a military to protect our interests in obtaining energy, or the environmental/health costs incurred by energy extraction/refining/transport/etc.

[no_such_reality]

Here’s the supply side from 2009
[img_assist|nid=14078|title=Renewable Energy Supply 2009|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=253]

Let’s see, Solar 1% of 8%, umm, that’s 0.08% of the energy pie.

Wind cranks up another 0.72%. Combined they are less than 1% of the energy pie. Are you seeing the scale of gap and why AB32 dictating the 33% of energy comes from “Green” is going to be a problem.

That’s a quadrupling of the energy generation currently. Subtract out Hydro, which accounts for over a 1/3rd, since we aren’t likely redoing the dams and you need 6X increase.

We can debate if biomass is ‘Green’ from a CO2 standpoint. It requires that all the CO2 from burning be matched by the decay of the plant. Seems logical until you stop to think that Oil is biomass that didn’t fully decay before it was sequestered and then baked by the planet into oil. Likewise, our landfills are now a source of methane and incomplete decomposition of materials.

As for the decades of subsidies. Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…

[no_such_reality]

Here’s the supply side from 2009
[img_assist|nid=14078|title=Renewable Energy Supply 2009|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=253]

Let’s see, Solar 1% of 8%, umm, that’s 0.08% of the energy pie.

Wind cranks up another 0.72%. Combined they are less than 1% of the energy pie. Are you seeing the scale of gap and why AB32 dictating the 33% of energy comes from “Green” is going to be a problem.

That’s a quadrupling of the energy generation currently. Subtract out Hydro, which accounts for over a 1/3rd, since we aren’t likely redoing the dams and you need 6X increase.

We can debate if biomass is ‘Green’ from a CO2 standpoint. It requires that all the CO2 from burning be matched by the decay of the plant. Seems logical until you stop to think that Oil is biomass that didn’t fully decay before it was sequestered and then baked by the planet into oil. Likewise, our landfills are now a source of methane and incomplete decomposition of materials.

As for the decades of subsidies. Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…

[no_such_reality]

Here’s the supply side from 2009
[img_assist|nid=14078|title=Renewable Energy Supply 2009|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=253]

Let’s see, Solar 1% of 8%, umm, that’s 0.08% of the energy pie.

Wind cranks up another 0.72%. Combined they are less than 1% of the energy pie. Are you seeing the scale of gap and why AB32 dictating the 33% of energy comes from “Green” is going to be a problem.

That’s a quadrupling of the energy generation currently. Subtract out Hydro, which accounts for over a 1/3rd, since we aren’t likely redoing the dams and you need 6X increase.

We can debate if biomass is ‘Green’ from a CO2 standpoint. It requires that all the CO2 from burning be matched by the decay of the plant. Seems logical until you stop to think that Oil is biomass that didn’t fully decay before it was sequestered and then baked by the planet into oil. Likewise, our landfills are now a source of methane and incomplete decomposition of materials.

As for the decades of subsidies. Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…

[no_such_reality]

Here’s the supply side from 2009
[img_assist|nid=14078|title=Renewable Energy Supply 2009|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=253]

Let’s see, Solar 1% of 8%, umm, that’s 0.08% of the energy pie.

Wind cranks up another 0.72%. Combined they are less than 1% of the energy pie. Are you seeing the scale of gap and why AB32 dictating the 33% of energy comes from “Green” is going to be a problem.

That’s a quadrupling of the energy generation currently. Subtract out Hydro, which accounts for over a 1/3rd, since we aren’t likely redoing the dams and you need 6X increase.

We can debate if biomass is ‘Green’ from a CO2 standpoint. It requires that all the CO2 from burning be matched by the decay of the plant. Seems logical until you stop to think that Oil is biomass that didn’t fully decay before it was sequestered and then baked by the planet into oil. Likewise, our landfills are now a source of methane and incomplete decomposition of materials.

As for the decades of subsidies. Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…

[no_such_reality]

Here’s the supply side from 2009
[img_assist|nid=14078|title=Renewable Energy Supply 2009|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=253]

Let’s see, Solar 1% of 8%, umm, that’s 0.08% of the energy pie.

Wind cranks up another 0.72%. Combined they are less than 1% of the energy pie. Are you seeing the scale of gap and why AB32 dictating the 33% of energy comes from “Green” is going to be a problem.

That’s a quadrupling of the energy generation currently. Subtract out Hydro, which accounts for over a 1/3rd, since we aren’t likely redoing the dams and you need 6X increase.

We can debate if biomass is ‘Green’ from a CO2 standpoint. It requires that all the CO2 from burning be matched by the decay of the plant. Seems logical until you stop to think that Oil is biomass that didn’t fully decay before it was sequestered and then baked by the planet into oil. Likewise, our landfills are now a source of methane and incomplete decomposition of materials.

As for the decades of subsidies. Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[afx114]

[quote=no_such_reality]Are you saying we’ll pull the plug on Green subsidies and they’ll be self funding? I doubt it. Subsidy per megawatt for coal is about 50 cents. Today for wind or solar is $20+…[/quote]

No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that all energy sectors receive subsidies and have been receiving them for decades. What I’d like to see is an even playing field before we decide which subsidies are worth it and which aren’t. But I’m not deluded enough to think that that will ever happen.

[Author]

Posts