Tweet
Hack, green energy is massively subsidized
From the NR article: Of course, wind-energy boosters like to claim that the oil-and-gas sector gets favorable tax treatment, too. That may be so, but those tax advantages are tiny when compared with the federal gravy being ladled on wind companies. Recall that the production tax credit is $23 per megawatt-hour. A megawatt-hour of electricity contains 3.4 million Btu. That means wind-energy producers are getting a subsidy of $6.76 per million Btu. The current spot price of natural gas is about $2.40 per million Btu. Thus, on an energy-equivalent basis, wind energy’s subsidy is nearly three times the current market price of natural gas. Note that it is talking about just the subsidy, and comparing it to the total cost of natural gas.
Another "uncounted" or "hidden" subsidy for green energy is the back-up energy supply (gas or coal fired) necessary to facilitate the use of wind or solar. Neither solar or wind is a reliable source at all times and energy storage is expensive. Because they are intermittent, neither type of green energy is reliable enough to stand alone. At least wind farms are places where the wind is known to blow. Solar is equally expensive, and it only works in places like Abu Dhabi. Again, if either were competitive, why do their principals insist on a subsidy.
Personally, I think advances in battery technology are at least as important as advances in solar cells. A couple of miles from me is the Ludington Pump Storage Project, a large man-made lake built on high dunes overlooking Lake Mich. The project's purpose is to use generating capacity during low demand periods (nights) to pump water up into the lake, and then discharge the water through turbines to generate additional power during high demand hours. It is not terribly efficient, but still cheaper than powering-up and then powering-down.
From the NR article: Of course, wind-energy boosters like to claim that the oil-and-gas sector gets favorable tax treatment, too. That may be so, but those tax advantages are tiny when compared with the federal gravy being ladled on wind companies. Recall that the production tax credit is $23 per megawatt-hour. A megawatt-hour of electricity contains 3.4 million Btu. That means wind-energy producers are getting a subsidy of $6.76 per million Btu. The current spot price of natural gas is about $2.40 per million Btu. Thus, on an energy-equivalent basis, wind energy’s subsidy is nearly three times the current market price of natural gas. Note that it is talking about just the subsidy, and comparing it to the total cost of natural gas.
Another "uncounted" or "hidden" subsidy for green energy is the back-up energy supply (gas or coal fired) necessary to facilitate the use of wind or solar. Neither solar or wind is a reliable source at all times and energy storage is expensive. Because they are intermittent, neither type of green energy is reliable enough to stand alone. At least wind farms are places where the wind is known to blow. Solar is equally expensive, and it only works in places like Abu Dhabi. Again, if either were competitive, why do their principals insist on a subsidy.
Personally, I think advances in battery technology are at least as important as advances in solar cells. A couple of miles from me is the Ludington Pump Storage Project, a large man-made lake built on high dunes overlooking Lake Mich. The project's purpose is to use generating capacity during low demand periods (nights) to pump water up into the lake, and then discharge the water through turbines to generate additional power during high demand hours. It is not terribly efficient, but still cheaper than powering-up and then powering-down.
Comment