How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Michael Hardner]

An interesting choice of word..."believed". Perhaps what has been forgotten is the very same lesson from the 1970's, the idea that accurate predictions cannot and should not be made. At the very least, warming should not be used to achieve a geo-political or economic objective.

I have not seen anything that says that the climate scientists are dyed-in the wool political types. Far from it, they seem to be interested in the science and if they do have a flaw it seems that they take their work personally.

Accurate predictions should not be made ? Heh, I know you didn't mean to say that. In any case, of course they should make predictions, they should review them, and adjust them over time.

Why have science if not to make our lives better ?

[Michael Hardner]

Michael is a mixture of political and natural science..the two do not mix - politics is artifical (artifice) nature is real...YOU can not expect an accurate reading when the message is mixed.

3 fallacies in your post:

1 ) That I am concerned with the politics. I have hardly mentioned it at all.

2 ) Weather is so complex as to defy prediction. Two lines that both go up on a graph aren't so complex.

3 ) Science is wrong all the time. I would guess that for every Galileo out there, there are many many scientists whose work was far more accurate and on the mark.

[Moonbox]

3 fallacies in your post:

1 ) That I am concerned with the politics. I have hardly mentioned it at all.

2 ) Weather is so complex as to defy prediction. Two lines that both go up on a graph aren't so complex.

3 ) Science is wrong all the time. I would guess that for every Galileo out there, there are many many scientists whose work was far more accurate and on the mark.

I think you should avoid bringing logical fallacy up in your argument...

2) Weather IS incredibly complex. You can predict all you want, but we STILL haven't been able to predict the weather, be it daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or long term, with anything even approaching reasonable accuracy. The fact that you can draw two lines on a graph is irrelevant. You should be embarrassed you even wrote that.

3) "Science" IS wrong all the time, especially when the science in question has to account for 1000000 variables that nobody can control. This is another brutal example of YOUR logical fallacy. What the heck are you even trying to say? That for every lousy scientific conclusion there's probably a good one out there somewhere? Okay sure, but what does that tell us about climate science? Nothing?!?

Edited August 11, 2011 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

1) I don't think that bush-cheney said you were concerned with the politics, merely that global warming science was politically motivated. You either misunderstood his post or went red-herring on us there.

Sorry - my response was to Oleg whom I quoted: "Michael is a mixture of political and natural science"

2) Weather IS incredibly complex. You can predict all you want, but we STILL haven't been able to predict the weather, be it daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or long term, with anything even approaching reasonable accuracy. The fact that you can draw two lines on a graph is irrelevant. You should be embarrassed you even wrote that.

I'm not embarrassed. It's not weather we're talking about but climate change. And if there are two correlated numbers, and one goes up... the other goes up hence the correlation.

3) "Science" IS wrong all the time, especially when the science in question has to account for 1000000 variables that nobody can control. This is another brutal example of YOUR logical fallacy. What the heck are you even trying to say? That for every lousy scientific conclusion there's probably a good one out there somewhere? Okay sure, but what does that tell us about climate science? Nothing?!?

Science corrects and adjusts itself all the time, it is true - but a 180 degree incorrectness that would happen if climate science ended up concluding, say, that increased CO2 doesn't cause warming ?

Those things don't happen very often at all. I can think of Galileo, maybe Einstein's theories... true game-changing bodies of thought that come along only once in a long while.

[MiddleMan]

In an effort to get this thread back on track...

Everyone supports a greener Earth but what is your price?

"Everyone" supports a greener earth? That's a fairly optimistic statement. The only thing the capitalists running this economy support is higher profit. In fact, since higher energy costs would cut into their profits, I'm sure most would be against it.

But on the big picture, Canada is already spoiled with green (and cheap) energy so we're not just willing to pay for it, we already are. If we want a greener planet, the real question is if other countries are willing to pay for it. Maybe the British don't look too willing, but I doubt higher costs for green energy is at the roots of why all those kids are burning down their own city.

PS. I'd be more than happy to debate how much we're screwing up our own planet in a "Let's screw up our planet" thread.

Edited August 11, 2011 by MiddleMan

[TimG]

I'm not embarrassed. It's not weather we're talking about but climate change. And if there are two correlated numbers, and one goes up... the other goes up hence the correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

The number of pirates is inversely correlated with global warming.

Does that mean the we can reduce warming by allowing pirates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiratesVsTemp(en).svg

Science corrects and adjusts itself all the time, it is true - but a 180 degree incorrectness that would happen if climate science ended up concluding, say, that increased CO2 doesn't cause warming ?

A more likely outcome is CO2 does not cause enough warming to create problems that cannot be quietly adapted to. At this point in time the alarmists will be wrong if no catastrophe occurs. Simply warming will not be enough to show that they were right.

You forget that the debate over AGW is not a debate over whether CO2 will cause warming but whether CO2 will cause enough warming to justify massive government intervention into economy.

Edited August 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Correlation is not causation.

The number of pirates is inversely correlated with global warming.

Does that mean the we can reduce warming by allowing pirates?

No, but I intentionally didn't say anything about causation in that post.

A more likely outcome is CO2 does not cause enough warming to create problems that cannot be quietly adapted to.

I haven't engaged in much discussion around that question, as I have said.

You forget that the debate over AGW is not a debate over whether CO2 will cause warming but whether CO2 will cause enough warming to justify massive government intervention into economy.

I concur that that is the main debate. I'm just blocked by the idea that people don't accept the basic conclusions that are a prerequisite to to that discussion.

[TimG]

I concur that that is the main debate. I'm just blocked by the idea that people don't accept the basic conclusions that are a prerequisite to to that discussion.

What you need to do is reframe the debate. I am fairly certain that most people would accept the premise I stated above and would not get to hung up arguing whether CO2 causes warming. I suspect most people who argue that CO2 does not cause warming really mean - it does not significant warming.

[Michael Hardner]

What you need to do is reframe the debate. I am fairly certain that most people would accept the premise I stated above and would not get to hung up arguing whether CO2 causes warming. I suspect most people who argue that CO2 does not cause warming really mean - it does not significant warming.

In any case, this is long due for another (hopefully existing) thread to continue that part of the debate.

[waldo]

What you need to do is reframe the debate. I am fairly certain that most people would accept the premise I stated above and would not get to hung up arguing whether CO2 causes warming. I suspect most people who argue that CO2 does not cause warming really mean - it does not significant warming.

of that what spews from denier blogTown or from right-wing ideologically driven politicos... there is no debate. However, one of the actual/meaningful debates, is one we've touched upon several times through an assortment of previous MLW threads; i.e., sensitivity. Why I do believe an easy MLW search could bring forward gold, real gold... we could start with your previous attempts to tout the wizardry of Lindzen/Choi @<1°C sensitivity level. We could touch upon your infinite wisdom that had you, similarly, touting a sensitivity level of <1°C... what was your support for that, again?

[waldo]

A more likely outcome is CO2 does not cause enough warming to create problems that cannot be quietly adapted to. At this point in time the alarmists will be wrong if no catastrophe occurs. Simply warming will not be enough to show that they were right.

other than your wishful thinking and pimping for BigOil, this is just the same ole, same ole, TimG's AdaptRUs routine!

since you avoided the earlier question... since you use the "alarmist" word again... since one of your most recent posts offered up a clear distinction between scientists and "alarmists"... just who are TimG's "alarmists", given the delineation you offered between scientists and "alarmists". Just who are your alarmists?

[DejectedAmerican]

I'm a techie! I really don't understand where this idea came from that we have to pay EXTRA to be green! There are a lot of things we can do that would SAVE us money!

All these mega-project ideas, like provincial electricity companies building giant wind farms and such, all seem to deliver energy to us little folks FAR more expensively than what we have now!

This only makes sense, I guess. Why on earth would anyone expect that a government scheme would cost us LESS money? It never, ever has before!

If we think about individual generating and conserving schemes, just enough for our own needs, we open up a lot more opportunities. The big problem is a sufficiently large battery bank. Car batteries are a very poor choice, as they tend to go bad if you drain them too deeply. Tow motor and electric golf cart batteries work well!

The batteries used and being developed for electric and hybrid cars are an excellent choice! Right now they are very expensive brand new but surely they will start to show up in autowreckers and the like!

You do have to have some knowledge and talent to safely "roll your own" but it can be well worth it. If manufacturers offered more products for this market people could start to save some real money for themselves. Canadian Tire has started to offer home windmills and solar panels but they are still more expensive than buying from the regular power grid. It only makes sense for cottages up north, perhaps on islands where there is no conventional electricity available. Again, the "system" wants us to pay a premium.

Still, things are starting to change. Even 5 years from now might show a very different picture.

My first post. Hello all. I am an American looking to flee the country due to radical right-wing fundamentalists taking over our government. I am hoping to find a home in Canada if you would have me. My country is going down the toilet and I just lost my job to third-world slave labor so things are getting bad for me. I just hope the hyper-conservative wave does not roll over Canada else I have no place else on Earth to go because no one wants to take in American immigrants. I feel like I am in prison.

Anyway, on green energy, I ask you to consider this:

If your government mandated that ALL power-using structures had to install solar panels and that all grids had to be interconnected, there would be enough power to handle almost all the country's power needs. Think about it. It would be a living grid. Not everyone in your country is home all day using power which means that those who are not home using power are lending it to those who are. This can be reinforced with wind-farms (the Canadian tundras are perfect for this), wave generators on the coast and dams. There would be no such thing as blackouts and power would be super cheap, problem is there is less profit in it for mega corporations looking to hoard the world's resources.

Think about it. It is beyond plausible to accomplish but there is one caveat--Costs will go up before they come down. You have to be willing to endure that 5-10 years of economic discomfort before it comes down in price and that is the problem in America. We do not seem to want to give up Netflix, cable TV, smartphones, video games, movies, fast food for even a little while for a better long term outlook. We have become diseased with greed and narcissism. There is this sentiment that there will always be someone else to "take care of it" and are not willing to take a step or two back for the greater good.

The collective will always be more powerful than the individual which is why the powers that be in my country push individualism down our throats. They represent the minority of billionaires and millionaires and they benefit from the polarization. Don't fall for it.

I would appreciate any info any of you can provide as how I go about migrating to your wonderful country. I am a talented graphic artist and budding amateur photographer. I have a 140 IQ and can learn anything. I am open to any decent job that would enable me to afford a small apartment and maintain basic needs like food and utilities. Please help me. My country is turning into an evil empire and I want no part of it.

Edited August 12, 2011 by DejectedAmerican

[Sandy MacNab]

... within the realm of climate science there are only 3 or 4 scientists who don't absolutely agree with the mainstream position...

Holy cow! If you really believe that you are very ignorant and cannot be taken seriously. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you had an apocolyptic brain fart.

It's obvious you have limited knowledge about the science or the "consensus" regarding man-made global warming. So, I took a little time out and found some great educational material for you.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

Browse through these &/or ask a grandchild to help you browse the whole web. There are thousands of other credible sites where superbly qualified scientists can help you learn the truth - if you really want to.

[TimG]

other than your wishful thinking and pimping for BigOil, this is just the same ole, same ole, TimG's AdaptRUs routine!

Actually, the magical thinking comes from alarmists who actually believe that it is possible to anything significant about emissions.

Adaptation is not a choice: it is the only option on the table.

[Michael Hardner]

Holy cow! If you really believe that you are very ignorant and cannot be taken seriously. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you had an apocolyptic brain fart.

It's obvious you have limited knowledge about the science or the "consensus" regarding man-made global warming. So, I took a little time out and found some great educational material for you.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

Browse through these &/or ask a grandchild to help you browse the whole web. There are thousands of other credible sites where superbly qualified scientists can help you learn the truth - if you really want to.

You have bought into the big lie. One glance at this list and I can tell these aren't climate scientists.

[dre]

Correlation is not causation.

The number of pirates is inversely correlated with global warming.

Does that mean the we can reduce warming by allowing pirates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiratesVsTemp(en).svg

A more likely outcome is CO2 does not cause enough warming to create problems that cannot be quietly adapted to. At this point in time the alarmists will be wrong if no catastrophe occurs. Simply warming will not be enough to show that they were right.

You forget that the debate over AGW is not a debate over whether CO2 will cause warming but whether CO2 will cause enough warming to justify massive government intervention into economy.

You forget that the debate over AGW is not a debate over whether CO2 will cause warming but whether CO2 will cause enough warming to justify massive government intervention into economy

Thats not true. AGW skeptics have tried to cling to virtually every possible area where theres plausible deniability. Many deny that there even IS warming. Many deny that if there is that CO2 has anything to do with it, and many believe that man has nothing to do with increased CO2 levels anyways, and many of them just dont care if theres warming.

Its an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach.

At this point in time the alarmists will be wrong if no catastrophe occurs.

Well... thats an arbitrary group of people that you defined, that lives inside your head. Not everyone that favors action based on climate change believes in any of the dozens of doomsday scenarios. And theres no agreement among even those people who DO believe the results might be catastrophic how far away in time those things are likely to occur.

[TimG]

If your government mandated that ALL power-using structures had to install solar panels and that all grids had to be interconnected, there would be enough power to handle almost all the country's power needs.

Wrong. We would still need all of the power plants we need today to provide power when the sun don't shine. The difference is these plants would be much more expensiuve to run because they are not running all of the time. In fact, in the UK power companies are now asking the government to subsidize fossil fuel plants that are needed to back up the mandated renewable power.

Think about it. It is beyond plausible to accomplish but there is one caveat--Costs will go up before they come down. You have to be willing to endure that 5-10 years of economic discomfort before it comes down in price and that is the problem in America.

It is not even remotely plausible. Every country that has tried ends up wasting billions and has nothing to show for it. When someone comes up with an alternate power source that does not need government subsidies then we will use it. Until then, we keep doing what we are doing. Edited August 12, 2011 by TimG

[DejectedAmerican]

Wrong. We would still need all of the power plants we need today to provide power when the sun don't shine. The difference is these plants would be much more expensiuve to run because they are not running all of the time. In fact, in the UK power companies are now asking the government to subsidize fossil fuel plants that are needed to back up the mandated renewable power.

It is not even remotely plausible. Every country that has tried ends up wasting billions and has nothing to show for it. When someone comes up with an alternate power source that does not government subsidies then we will use it. Until then, we keep doing what we are doing.

Hello, Tim. Pleased to make your acquaintance. I think that you may not be well versed on solar technology. With all due respect, allow me to educate.

In Iceland, a company came up with a solar collection technology that collects UV light even at night. They are not solar panels but rather solar "sheets". These are close to the texture and consistency of roofing shingles. They are not as efficient during the day as standard panels but they collect 24 hours per day making them MORE efficient per day.

Then there is solar-thermal which is 200% more efficient that standard photovoltaic technology because it uses the HEAT generated by the sun to spin turbines that generate electricity. That heat can get so intense during the day that it persists during the night.

Another aspect you may have not considered is that the sun is still shining on the western part of he country in the evening while the east is dark and vice versa in the morning meaning that those who are still sleeping and using less energy can take up the slack for those waking up in the morning. Add to that support from wind and wave generator technology and there is never a problem with over-consumption and energy gets cheaper. You can put miles on wind generators in the tundra and the wind there is pretty much constant. Problem is too many corporations want the oil and diamonds in that region. Think about that for a bit.

I just ask that you consider the facts. If you wish, I will post multitudes of links to support my position. It may be better for you to do your own research. Just google Solar technology. It is far more advanced than you think. The only thing that ever held it back has been funding and you can thank politicians in all countries and oil companies for that.

It is beyond plausible. The problem is no one is willing to make a few sacrifices to allow for the transition. You are of course entitles to you position, I just respectfully ask that you do more research before you render a final judgement. The problem in the US is that most are not willing to put in the time to educate themselves on these matters and put too much trust in sound bites and "experts" which all seem to contradict each other allowing people to choose which position they will take rather than finding out for themselves. It seems to me that you have made broad generalizations without any factual support for you claims. I do not fault you for this nor do I criticize. I just ask that you check this stuff out for yourself. It is fascinating and, for me, gives me a shred of hope for the future of humanity.

Edited August 12, 2011 by DejectedAmerican

[Wild Bill]

My first post. Hello all. I am an American looking to flee the country due to radical right-wing fundamentalists taking over our government. I am hoping to find a home in Canada if you would have me. My country is going down the toilet and I just lost my job to third-world slave labor so things are getting bad for me. I just hope the hyper-conservative wave does not roll over Canada else I have no place else on Earth to go because no one wants to take in American immigrants. I feel like I am in prison.

Anyway, on green energy, I ask you to consider this:

If your government mandated that ALL power-using structures had to install solar panels and that all grids had to be interconnected, there would be enough power to handle almost all the country's power needs. Think about it. It would be a living grid. Not everyone in your country is home all day using power which means that those who are not home using power are lending it to those who are. This can be reinforced with wind-farms (the Canadian tundras are perfect for this), wave generators on the coast and dams. There would be no such thing as blackouts and power would be super cheap, problem is there is less profit in it for mega corporations looking to hoard the world's resources.

Think about it. It is beyond plausible to accomplish but there is one caveat--Costs will go up before they come down. You have to be willing to endure that 5-10 years of economic discomfort before it comes down in price and that is the problem in America. We do not seem to want to give up Netflix, cable TV, smartphones, video games, movies, fast food for even a little while for a better long term outlook. We have become diseased with greed and narcissism. There is this sentiment that there will always be someone else to "take care of it" and are not willing to take a step or two back for the greater good.

The collective will always be more powerful than the individual which is why the powers that be in my country push individualism down our throats. They represent the minority of billionaires and millionaires and they benefit from the polarization. Don't fall for it.

I would appreciate any info any of you can provide as how I go about migrating to your wonderful country. I am a talented graphic artist and budding amateur photographer. I have a 140 IQ and can learn anything. I am open to any decent job that would enable me to afford a small apartment and maintain basic needs like food and utilities. Please help me. My country is turning into an evil empire and I want no part of it.

As a graphic artist I guess you don't have a lot of hands-on electronics experience. TimG has already set you straight on part of the problem. Another is that you can make everyone's house its own solar generating station but you can't just feed it directly to the grid. Present power grids are nowhere near advanced enough to accept power from so many points and distribute it properly across wide areas, according to demand.

So you need to spend billions upgrading your grid, billions on the individual installations and as Tim pointed out, billions on backup power.

It would be far more cost effective to develop generation methods for everyone's house. It won't help the urban apartment dweller but it would help those who live in houses, enough to reduce demand on the main power grid and save the costs of expanding it.

Anyhow, it's flattering to hear how you find our country attractive but you should consider a few things first. Our unemployment is also high! When manufacturers moved their factories out of the US they never moved them to Canada. They moved them OUT of Canada as well! Those jobs went to China, India, Russia and Mexico. They are not waiting for you here!

From the media. I would suppose that the best employment picture is in Alberta, with all the money floating around from the oilsands and the oil companies. I hear they have such demands for workers that restaurants can't even get enough waitresses, despite paying much higher wages than you would anywhere else. Of course, the cost of living is probably higher in proportion as well. Perhaps some posters from that part of the country will chime in and give you more advice.

I live in Ontario and I wouldn't suggest you come here. Unemployment is high and we have LOTS of graphic artists all fighting for too little business to make a living! I build and repair guitar amps for a living and I get 2 or 3 "graphic artists" offering to pay their bill by building me a website every week! How many webpages does a guy like me need? Obviously there are too many of them chasing too few customers.

Also, being a quick study is no longer as useful as it was. Today, our society has become very focused on "certification". It doesn't really matter if you can do the job. You must have taken courses and have a certificate saying you can do so. This has expanded to such a point that it's really getting rather ridiculous. A farmer friend of mine found that he needed a different 6 week course and a certificate to sell firewood from his farm than the one he took to make it legal for him to cut firewood on his own farm! He learned very quickly to sell only to his neighbours, who were personal friends and would keep it quiet. He cuts his own firewood but doesn't mention it to anyone else, so that no one will charge him for not renewing his tree-felling license.

Good luck!

Edited August 12, 2011 by Wild Bill

[TimG]

I just ask that you consider the facts. If you wish, I will post multitudes of links to support my position.

I know the facts. I have done the research. And the fact is most renewables are not remotely cost effective and people are not willing to pay the sky high power bills that go with them.

In the few cases where renewables are cost effective they are limited by geography - i.e. when geography cooperates they are great but the technology is useless to teh majority of people without the right geography.

BTW, there is a simple test to determine if a someone selling renewable technology has something worthwhile. Check if subsidies or mandates are required to sell it. If subsidies are required it is worthless technology.

Lastly, all renewables have maintainance costs and depreciation. It is never a one time cost. You have to keep paying to replace worn out equipment. If you spent 20 years deploying millions of solar panels by the time you finished you would need to replace the first ones you installed. IOW. costs go on forever.

Here is a good article that gives you an idea of the costs involved:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

It puts the cost at $100 trillion sucked out of the global economy at a time when governments are scrambling to pay for their existing commitments. No one will pay that price. It is a lot more than going without a few lattes.

Edited August 12, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

Hello, Tim. Pleased to make your acquaintance. I think that you may not be well versed on solar technology. With all due respect, allow me to educate.

In Iceland, a company came up with a solar collection technology that collects UV light even at night. They are not solar panels but rather solar "sheets". These are close to the texture and consistency of roofing shingles. They are not as efficient during the day as standard panels but they collect 24 hours per day making them MORE efficient per day.

Er... what are you talking about? What UV light at night? Starlight? Gamma rays from radioactive decay of trace elements in our atmosphere? Reflected UV moonlight? Light pollution from cities? The net irradiance from any of these sources is negligible for the purposes of power generation. Perhaps you meant IR light, which is emitted by all objects, night or day, but it is still far too low of an irradiance to be worthwhile (you would get thousands - millions of times less energy at night than during the day, essentially pointless).

Then there is solar-thermal which is 200% more efficient that standard photovoltaic technology because it uses the HEAT generated by the sun to spin turbines that generate electricity. That heat can get so intense during the day that it persists during the night.

Yes, solar thermal turbines are a more efficient energy source than solar electric, but it loses many of the advantages of solar panels. Solar panels have the advantage of being scalable to very small sizes, allowing individuals to install them in their homes, etc. Solar thermal generating stations, to be efficient, must be large, like other central power plants. Still, there may be a place for this kind of energy source as part of our energy infrastructure. I believe a pretty large one is being built (or maybe has been built by now) in Australia.

Another aspect you may have not considered is that the sun is still shining on the western part of he country in the evening while the east is dark and vice versa in the morning meaning that those who are still sleeping and using less energy can take up the slack for those waking up in the morning.

The continental US has three time zones only, a 3 hour difference is not enough for what you're talking about. Of all countries, only Russia really spans far enough across to do what you're talking about. Realistically, you'd need an international collaboration to build a global infrastructure. Unfortunately, it's irrelevant, since transmission losses over such large distances make it unfeasible. You're talking gigawatts in energy just wasted heating up wires spanning thousands of miles across the middle of nowhere. Not to mention, you're screwed on a cloudy day.

Add to that support from wind and wave generator technology and there is never a problem with over-consumption and energy gets cheaper. You can put miles on wind generators in the tundra and the wind there is pretty much constant. Problem is too many corporations want the oil and diamonds in that region. Think about that for a bit.

There is value in preserving untouched arctic wilderness, rather than converting it to a giant wind farm. And again, transmission from arctic regions to major population centers thousands of miles away would be prohibitively inefficient.

It is beyond plausible. The problem is no one is willing to make a few sacrifices to allow for the transition.

Superior energy sources have never historically been and should not be about making sacrifices. New technologies get implemented on a large sale only as they become commercially viable. Furthermore, the government already provides significant subsidies to reduce the cost of solar, wind, and other renewables as well as investing substantially in R&D. In that sense, we are already "sacrificing".

Edited August 12, 2011 by Bonam

[waldo]

BTW, there is a simple test to determine if a someone selling renewable technology has something worthwhile. Check if subsidies or mandates are required to sell it. If subsidies are required it is worthless technology.

oh my! “Worthless”! Uhhhh... about all those fossil-fuel subsidies… a dated one-year old article – feel free to provide more timely info: Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables, figures show - New analysis shows that government support for fossil fuel industry is about 10 times that offered to renewable energy firms

Despite repeated pledges to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and criticism from some quarters that government support for renewable energy technologies is too generous, global subsidies provided to renewable energy and biofuels are dwarfed by those enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry.

That is the conclusion of a major report released late last week by analyst Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which analyses subsidies and incentive schemes offered globally to developers of renewable energy and biofuel technologies and projects.

The report concludes that in 2009 governments provided

subsidies worth between $43bn (£27bn) and $46bn to renewable energy and biofuel industries

, including support provided through feed-in tariffs, renewable energy credits, tax credits, cash grants and other direct subsidies.

In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that

$557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry

.

without regard to taxation, consumption or production subsidies... per the IEA, just with R&D alone, the subsidies for fossil fuels and renewables are almost on par:

as we've been down this path before, don't bother back-peddling to your 'per energy unit' comparative go-to... quite naturally, with an existing many decades old production/infrastructure/consumer base, there is, obviously, more energy being produced from fossil-fuel sources.

[waldo]

You have bought into the big lie. One glance at this list and I can tell these aren't climate scientists.

that is quite the list... a lot of the usual suspects... quite the absence of actual scientists actively working/publishing in climate science related pursuits. One wonders why the infamous Oregon Petition wasn't dredged up!!! Plus we got a bonus link to that nutbar Donna Laframboise's site - I recall another MLW thread where we (ok... I) had some real fun with her groups failed citizen auditor endevour.

[TimG]

as we've been down this path before, don't bother back-peddling to your 'per energy unit' comparative go-to... quite naturally, with an existing many decades old production/infrastructure/consumer base, there is, obviously, more energy being produced from fossil-fuel sources.

No matter how much you wish to deny it - the subsidy per unit of energy produced is the only metric that matters. So go ahead and rant and rave about the miniscule developed world fossil fuel subsidies. It is not going change the fact that any government that tries to subsidize renewables has pissed money down the drain and ends up paying a political price once consumers get the bill.

[Keepitsimple]

Please help me. My country is turning into an evil empire and I want no part of it.

Funny.....the Left wingnuts in Canada said the same thing about our Prime Minister Stephen Harper - hidden agenda, evil empire. It's really not so bad. Don't run away when the going gets tough. Take some tough medicine and fix the place.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Keepitsimple