Utilities Take a Dim View of Solar Energy

[alfred russel]

But it is not sustainable.  There are plenty of arguements about finding and developing new energy sources.  Oh but no we cannot put any money there because it would be unfair and the free market should decide.  But guess what?  The market isn't free.  That is an entirely pro-fossil fuels arguement and not balanced at all.

Besides if they are so freaking economical to obtain then why do they require hundreds of billions worldwide to keep the prices down?  Why do we keep going to war to secure their supply?

I am sorry you hate the arguement, but it is a completely valid one and I stand by it.

Fossil fuels are not sustainable. All indications are that they are badly damaging the environment. On those points I agree with you.

On the issue of the economics of the immediate present, I can't disagree more. Which is important because the problem of addressing the first few points is hopelessly compounded by the groups putting out your arguments.

Do you agree that the some of the largest taxpayers on the planet are oil companies?

Have you read oil company financials? If so, have you seen the billions of dollars of subsidies on the financials? (I've read them and never seen those line items)

What wars have we gone to in order to secure the supply of oil? (I'll maybe give you Gulf War 1, although we have gone to war in the past to prevent countries from conquering others through naked aggression. We've twice gone to war to protect France, but I don't hear much complaining about the French wine subsidy) How much do you put the expense at?

[DGuller]

Hilarious that suddenly the dude whining about how unfair it is some energy sources get public funding goes into full retreat once it touches his precious fossil fuels.

You can dislike new energy sources all you want but don't bitch to me about fairness.  Fossil Fuels are massively subsidized world wide.

What? 

[Iormlund]

The biggest subsidy coal receives is in the form of Medicare and other health expenses. Without that it might actually be true what Valmy says.
As it is, subsidies per kWh are not even close. Not to mention alternative sources cannot be relied upon to supply energy whenever you need it. We burn coal and gas, we split atoms, because there is no just viable alternative.

[Maximus]

We just don't have any energy source yet that compares to fossil fuels. It's more portable than electricity( and more reliable than wind, solar etc), more efficient than ethanol, cheaper and easier to produce than any other liquid fuel out there, more plentiful than hydro(estimated reserves of coal in the US will last us more than 200 years at current consumption). These are the kinds of reasons we still use it, not because of subsidies.

On the flip side, it does have a detrimental effect on the environment, and the supply is finite, even if we don't agree where that point is.  If we wait to find another source until we need it, it will be too late. Better for us it becomes uneconomical due to obsolescence than from scarcity.

[The Minsky Moment]

Isn't comparing absolute amounts in subsidies beyond pointless? What's important is comparing subsidy per MW generated.

It is very relevant because it goes directly to the fundamental question about what the government's priorities are as opposed to what they should be. 

We are already in agreement that there the energy markets are nothing resembling laissez faire, so the question is - if the government is going to spend $3 billion in taxpayer money how should it be spent?  And it is very hard to see the argument that it should go to coal instead on something else that generates fewer environmental externalities.

I don't see how subsidy/MW is relevant to the question.

[The Minsky Moment]

At the end of the day taking away a $3 billion a year subsidy to coal and even giving it to solar isn't going to turn us into a nation fueled by solar panels. It just isn't enough money to transform the economy. That is my point.

That may be true but it has nothing to do with the relative size of $3 billion in funding relative to the overall size of the economy.  The question is whether X amount of funding could result in sufficient progress with respect to say solar to transform it into a more efficient and workable alternative.  It may be that no amount of money can do that or it could be (in theory) possible that only a few tens of millions might do it.  If the latter were true than it would indeed be the case that only a few millions would be enough to transform the entire economy.

[Cecil]

The biggest subsidy coal receives is in the form of Medicare and other health expenses. Without that it might actually be true what Valmy says.
As it is, subsidies per kWh are not even close. Not to mention alternative sources cannot be relied upon to supply energy whenever you need it. We burn coal and gas, we split atoms, because there is no just viable alternative.

Funny thing about coal is that it contributes more to our intake of radiation than nuclear power.

[DGuller]

It is very relevant because it goes directly to the fundamental question about what the government's priorities are as opposed to what they should be. 

We are already in agreement that there the energy markets are nothing resembling laissez faire, so the question is - if the government is going to spend $3 billion in taxpayer money how should it be spent?  And it is very hard to see the argument that it should go to coal instead on something else that generates fewer environmental externalities.

I don't see how subsidy/MW is relevant to the question.

To me it seems very relevant.  The bottom line goal is about producing energy for the cheapest price per unit (ideally factoring in the externalities, of course).  That's how competitiveness of various forms of energy is ultimately judged, and that's the criteria upon which rational decisions are made by individuals.  To judge how subsidies skew that decision, we need to look at subsidies per energy unit.

How the $3 billion should be allocated, assuming it's a fixed numbers doled out between various forms of energy, is an entirely different question, and of little relevance to this discussion.

[The Minsky Moment]

The bottom line goal is about producing energy for the cheapest price per unit (ideally factoring in the externalities, of course). 

not necessarily there are other considerations such as sustainability.  Of course if you define externality broad enough you can sweep everything in, but then again no one has provided any cost/MW calculations that sweep in such externalities so it is a moot point.

[alfred russel]

Of all the things we are spending on right now, $3 billion for solar may be stupid, but hardly the most outrageous. The same goes for coal. I really don't care; the money is pissed away anyhow.

I was recently at a paper mill where the company is getting tens of millions in tax refunds for using an alternative fuel mixer credit stuffed into a highway bill for something that was already standard practice in the industry. The credit expires this year (I think it was just recently enacted). No positive benefit whatsoever, but billions gone for the taxpayer. Hooray for Congress.

[Admiral Yi]

They are there; for example if some of the coal is liquified, then you can get fat "synfuel" subsidies; the various "clean coal" iniatives have brought in hundreds of millions in federal R&D support money over the years. 

Total coal related subsidies for 2007 are estimated in excess of $3 billion.

Liquified coal doesn't compete with renewable energies in electricity generation I assume.  And clean coal doesn't lower the cost of coal-generated electricity vs. renewable.  It subsidizes a reduction in the pollution externality.