Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another interesting fact if you care to look at the EIA document is that most of the $854 million that went to coal was for R&D. In the renewable sector it goes to production.
The EIA comes with this caveat:
Quote:
The differences between rankings of subsidies and support based on absolute amounts
and amounts per megawatthour are driven by substantial differences in the amount of
electricity generation across fuels. Capital-intensive, baseload generating technologies,
such as coal-fired steam generators and nuclear generators, together produce about 70
percent of total net generation,4 which tends to reduce their subsidies and support per unit of
production compared to the other fuel groups (Table ES5). For the same reason, electricity
subsidies for solar and wind show a relatively large subsidy per unit of production, as these
groups account for less than 1 percent of total net generation in the country. It is important to
recognize that the subsidies-per-megawatthour calculations are a snapshot taken at a particular
point in time.Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have
received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in
reaching their current role in electricity production.5 The impacts of prior subsidies, some of
which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis.
A per-unit measure of electricity production subsidies and support may provide a better
indicator of its market impact than an absolute measure. For example, even though coal
receives more subsidies in absolute terms than wind power, the use of wind is likely to be more
dependent on the availability of subsidies than the use of coal.
This explains why the subsidy/kWh looks so outrageous for renewables. As you say: those subsidies are for production i.e. building them. So to be fair, you have to amortise the subsidy over their lifetime output, not on the output of the current plant. For example: the subsidy to a new plant in 2007 which wasn't even built would be averaged over the existing wind plant's output, which is relatively small compared to new plant. Subsidies for coal, for example, are averaged over the whole existing plant which is huge compared to new plant.
Thanks for dealing with the penny ante amounts: what's your case for the indirect subsidies, the externalities, which amount to about 5 times the added value of coal?
They didn't even get it right with hard numbers, why bother?
Having said that lets look at what coal does provide for us, look around where you're at. Everything and I mean everything you see has been made possible with cheap energy derived from coal in more way than you could ever imagine. Do you know how much heat is required to produce that concrete you take for advantage everyday? Coal which gives us electricity, cement and steel. the building blocks of our society....
The EIA comes with this caveat:
This explains why the subsidy/kWh looks so outrageous for renewables. As you say: those subsidies are for production i.e. building them. So to be fair, you have to amortise the subsidy over their lifetime output, not on the output of the current plant. For example: the subsidy to a new plant in 2007 which wasn't even built would be averaged over the existing wind plant's output, which is relatively small compared to new plant. Subsidies for coal, for example, are averaged over the whole existing plant which is huge compared to new plant.
Wrong again son, if you want to debate this topic with me you better do some research, to quote myself:
Quote:
Now if you want to talk about real money the wind subsidy is $0.023/kWh.
Quote:
Wind Industry Lobbies for Tax-Credit Extension - NYTimes.com
The production tax credit program allows owners of wind projects that sell renewable energy to a utility to take a tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 10 years of a project’s operation. That program is set to expire at the end of 2012, and uncertainty over whether it will be renewed has already affected the industry.
The last time the credit lapsed, at the end of 2003, development of new wind projects tapered off significantly. The credit was ultimately renewed toward the end of 2004, but only 389 megawatts of new wind capacity came on line that year, compared with 1,687 megawatts in 2003.
That of course is just one federal subsidy and it looks like it is going to expire.
FYI the federal government is just one level, these projects are also subsidized by the states and in some cases local governments. We're only hitting the tip of the iceberg with the 2 cents.
Thanks for putting me straight on what you meant by production. Now that you've got the trivial stuff out of the way how about responding to the claim that coal causes pollution and health damages many times its added-value. http://chronmyklimat.pl/theme/Upload...0of%20coal.pdf
Quote:
Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream
and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are
thus often considered “externalities.”We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are
costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.Many of these so-called externalities are,
moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal
per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments
in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal
is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.
[SIZE=-1]This study presents a framework to include environmental externalities into a system of national accounts. The paper estimates the air pollution damages for each industry in the United States. An integrated-assessment model quantifies the marginal damages of air pollution emissions for the US which are multiplied times the quantity of emissions by industry to compute gross damages. Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added. The largest industrial contributor to external costs is coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added.
Apparently GE didn't get any stimulus money for off-shore wind: it was for other projects. If you read the OP carefully the media report was worded to give a misleading impression.
Thanks for putting me straight on what you meant by production. Now that you've got the trivial stuff out of the way how about responding to the claim that coal causes pollution and health damages many times its added-value.
It's not what I meant, it's what the document meant that you have incorrectly interpreted.
As far as the external costs I've already pointed out one significant mistake in calculating the cost of subsidies, this is not rocket science. It's simple calculation using a hard number.
A quick glance at their totals shows another mistake, they have included the cost of abandoned mine reclamation. This is paid for through a tax at the mine, every mine operation pays X amount of dollars per ton of coal they mine into this fund. Those costs are passed onto the consumer. It's already paid for and would be included in the cost of the coal.
In their worse case sceanrio they are including the Environmental Law Institutes totals. As I already pointed out that particular study has issues itself like including the black benefit as a subsidy which if I remember correctly was the the largest sum adding to the subsides for coal, no tax on the tax.
That's three mistakes in their calculations on the easy stuff and you expect them to accurately calcualte something as abstract as "Climate damage from combustion emissions of CO2 and N2O"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
