Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (36463)	8/21/2009 3:49:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

1) we originally were talking about cost of WIND generated power vs. conventional. And I responded about WIND generated power vs. conventional. If you make a point about X, and I respond about X and Y, I still responded about X. 2) your (nice) article made no attempt to quantify subsidy costs for various energy technologies by any common denominator that would allow for them to be compared to each other False. -- Federal Taxpayer Subsidies as a Percent of Total Spending (on each particular form of energy) Oil and gas 0.5% Coal 6.9% <which is mostly on "refined coal", which at the moment produces fairly little energy, conventional coal isn't heavily subsidized> Hydroelectric 0.5% Biomass 0.4% Geothermal 0.5% Wind 11.6% Solar 12.3% -- does quantify subsidy costs by a common denominator. But since you prefer "per unit of energy produced... ------------------------ Windpower: Response to Comment (on 4 cent/kWh wind and interfuel subsidies) by Mary Hutzler April 26, 2009 [Ed. note: Occasionally a comment is important enough to deserve its own post, rather than a reply in the comment section. This is in response to Comment #1 of "A Texas Sized Energy Problem" here.] The Energy Information Administration, an independent agency within the Department of Energy, in its 2008 report, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007, compares subsidies related to electricity production, the sector where wind is used. In table ES5, they show that the traditional fuel sources (coal, natural gas, and petroleum liquids) received $1,081 million in Federal subsidies for electricity production in 2007, while wind received $724 million, a ratio of 1.49. However, in that year, the traditional fossil sources generated 2,865 billion kilowatt hours (kWh), while wind generated 31 billion kWh. On a per unit basis, the traditional sources, received a subsidy of $0.00038 per kWh, while wind received a subsidy of $0.0234 per kWh. Also, the Texas Comptroller’s 2008 Energy Report you cite indicates that in fiscal year 2006, the year in which they calculated subsidies, that Federal subsidies for wind represented 11.6% of total U.S. consumer spending, while the subsidies for nonrenewable fuels- oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear- represented only 0.9% of total U.S. spending. Regarding federal subsidies, the Texas Comptroller’s report that you reference notes: “The rapid growth in wind power that Texas has experienced since 2005 would likely slow if the federal production tax credit (PTC), which is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008, is not extended. (The PTC is a federal subsidy that currently provides a 10-year corporate income tax credit of 2.0 cents per kWh, effectively reducing the cost of wind power.) The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) warns that wind energy developers and manufacturers will stop making investments in equipment and facilities if the PTC is not extended. They also note that wind energy companies are already reporting a decrease in wind energy investment due to the current uncertainty over the extension of the PTC.” Note that the PTC is needed to make the cost of wind competitive with the traditional fossil technologies price-wise, and that the traditional technologies do not get a PTC... masterresource.org