Comments on: Don’t Stop with Fossil Fuels: End Energy Subsidies Altogether

By: Bobbie Jay

Bobbie Jay — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:52:55 +0000

I believe TonyfromOz. "a common myth" is a reference line of the left. Thank you, TonyfromOz!

By: Commodities Broker | Drumbeat: October 7, 2009 | Commodities Options | Commodities Futures | Commodities Prices

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:43:08 +0000

[...] Don’t Stop with Fossil Fuels: End Energy Subsidies Altogether Ending subsidies for fossil fuels is a good idea but it should be coupled with policy that eliminates subsidies provided to all energy sources. Subsidies create complacency within the industry and direct money that could be used more efficiently elsewhere. The private sector investment in energy research is actually larger than many might think. True breakthroughs in energy technology take time but the private sector has been generating marginal improvements in efficiency for decades. [...]

By: TonyfromOz

TonyfromOz — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:22:10 +0000

A common Myth!

For 23 months now I have been researching and writing about just this thing.

As far as I know very few commentators ARE actually looking at this in relation to costings, so I am most definitely not following other commentators.

I go to the source, and I have gone to literally thousands of sources.

At EVERY one of those, when the costings are accurately worked out those costings for renewable power plants actually are in that vicinity, even taking into account the lifetime supply cost for the coal at coal fired power plants, and the fuel at nuclear plants.

On an electrical power delivery equivalency basis, for actual supply of power to the grid, renewables DO cost seven to ten times that of coal and nuclear power methods of power generation.

By: Will S., Leesburg, V

Will S., Leesburg, V — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:04:48 +0000

So after the Bush administration showered the coal/oil/gas industries with obscene amounts of funding (to mature industries with large R&D budgets), now the Heritage Foundation belatedly says that such giveaways are wrong, and by the way stop giving them to renewable energy startups, as they are starting to compete with many of the Heritage Foundation's donors and their profits.

Tony from Oz wrote;

Renewable energy "costs seven to ten times more than current methods, even nuclear power"

This is a common myth amongst commentors who read unsourced comments by other commentors. To understand the difference in costs, one needs to understand all the variables that come into play. See 6 specific cost scenarios at the link below, starting at page 26;
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/10722…

By: Joe, NYC

Joe, NYC — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:41:32 +0000

For once I agree with the Heritage Foundation. Agreed. Let's end ALL energy subsidies and let the market decide the winner. But ALL subsidies need to be quantified. That includes the billions we spend every year to have our military protect the shipping lanes so we can move Mideast oil. Count EVERYTHING, and we'll be paying $13 a gallon for gas. That's not expensive either. It's the REAL cost.

By: Bobbie Jay

Bobbie Jay — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:10:53 +0000

There's too many honest solutions that avoid the consequences of his government made crisis. He accommodates unreliable ideas as he, himself is.

By: TonyfromOz Coomera Q

TonyfromOz Coomera Q — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:51:17 +0000

Coal fired power generation and Nuclear power can effectively provide large scale electrical power for 24 hours of every day.

Wind and both forms of Solar Power can only ever supply power for eight hours a day at best.

Think about that as you look forward to what we are being told will be one of the coldest winters in the North East for years.

Those renewable methods to generate power cost seven to ten times more than current methods, even nuclear power, and will never replace the power being currently delivered from coal fired or nuclear power.

The only way they can even afford to be constructed in the first place is with the injection of huge Government subsidies both at the construction end and during the actual power consumption phase.

If there are no subsidies from Government, they will NEVER pay for themselves, never turn a profit (for anybody) and even if the true cost to consumers is passed on, projected to be around seven to ten times higher than current methods, they will still never pay for themselves. They are more fragile, more difficult to maintain, last only half as long, cover huge areas, have huge problems with infrastructure to connect to existing grids, supply marginal levels of power at considerably smaller levels than large coal fired or nuclear plants, and take three times longer to construct in the first place.