Energy subsidy fact check: coal 41%, wind 32%, solar 19%, nuclear 2%

[wtmusic]

Calculated relative to net generation.



"Do We Need Energy Subsidies?

...Do some simple long division, and you see that refined coal – which apparently means coal-based synthetic fuels – wind, solar and nuclear power get very generous subsidies per unit of energy generation. For every per billion KWH of generation, coal gets $30 million in subsidies, wind gets $23 million, solar gets $14 million and nuclear gets $1.5 million.

It would be interesting to see another column on the chart showing tons of CO2 displaced by the fuel–assuming that’s a key goal of the subsidy–to see what, exactly, we are getting for our tax expenditures.

If the goal is to reduce CO2, should we be spending on wind or solar or nuclear? Which holds the greatest future promise? What about geothermal? Or wave power? Will electric cars decarbonize transportation for effectively than advanced biofuels? Of course no one knows the answer to those questions, which is why industry-specific subsidies are potentially so wasteful. We’re surely better on some of the wrong horses."

http://theenergycollective.com/marcgunther/60096/do-we-need-energy-subsidies?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[NYC_SKP]

1. It looks to me like the numbers in the table don't match the claims in the subject line or article.

Solar gets $14 million for 1 BkWh, that looks right.

But at $30M per BkWh, coal subsidies would be $58,380 million, right?

What am I doing wrong here, cuz I want to believe this is right and I'd share it with others.

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

2. He's combining coal and refined coal to get that figure. nt

[jpak]

3. Did that include taxpayer costs of spent fuel disposal? Nope- cuz we the people own that spent fuel

and have to pay for most of the cost of dealing with it

Nucular socialism

try again

yup

[Wilms]

4. Bingo! n/t

[txlibdem]

5. We can clearly see that coal has it's hands deep into the taxpayers pockets

Seems like the politicians are on a short leash in favor of Big Coal.

Thanks for posting!

[The Croquist]

6. No. Refined Coal companies have their hands deep into the taxpayers pockets

Unrefined coal is #9 of 12 in subsidies per energy output. It looks to me to be a political statement rather then a practical solution. I was surprised to see how good bio-fuels looks compared to other "green" energies. I wonder if that can be expanded or if it's already pretty much maxed out.

Municipal Solid Waste (#12 of 12) is also very low.

[txlibdem]

7. True, about double any of the other energy sources

But there would be no refined coal without coal power generation. Or at least very little. The two really are the same in effect. Looks like the coal lobby had a hand in crafting the wording for the list of subsidies as well so coal doesn't look like the hog it truly is.