I thought the whole point of subsidizing solar/wind is because there is lower EXTERNAL COST (to the environment, hence to all of us) to producing same? And that we wanted to shift from the dirty to the cleaner, renewable energy? So, what is really wrong with a higher subsidy for clean, renewables?
Elaine D. Ingulli
Professor of Business Law,
Richard Stockton College of NJ
________________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Schneyer [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Evironment & Energy
Also, a cost-per-MWH comparison is misleading. If you compare the total subsidies to fossil fuels to the total subsidies for renewables, the former dwarfs the latter. Naturally the cost per MWH is higher for renewables, because renewables are a new energy generation source, and naturally are currently producing fewer MWHs. As the number of renewable generators grows, the cost per MWH reduces dramatically. But the subsidies for renewables are start-up capital for a future industry. The subsidies for oil, gas & coal are simply removing market pressures for an industry that is already mature.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith A Maxwell
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Evironment & Energy
But what about the TRUE publicly borne costs of coal? I will wager that the 44 cents does not include the environmental and social costs of producing energy via coal. The externalities are gigantic.
Keith A. Maxwell, J.D.
Nat S. and Marian W. Rogers Professor (Emeritus)
Professor Emeritus Legal Studies and Ethics in Business
University of Puget Sound
Tacoma, WA
Adjunct Professor of Business Law
Dixie State College
Saint George, UT
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daren Bakst [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Evironment & Energy
I’d agree that we shouldn’t subsidize oil and coal. However, our subsidies for coal and other fossil fuels are far less than with wind and solar (it isn’t even close).
Here’s data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA):
Cost of Federal Subsidies by Source
Coal: $0.44 per MWh
Natural Gas: $0.25 per MWh
Nuclear: $1.59 per MWh
Wind: $23.37 per MWh
Solar: $24.34 MWh
See Table ES5: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html
_________
BTW: Shaping capitalism more democratically doesn’t sound like capitalism. Again, I agree, get rid of the subsidies. If we do get rid of subsidies alternative energy sources like wind and solar wouldn’t exist.
--
Daren
On 4/16/10 2:31 PM, "Miller, Carol J" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This week I have been really involved with our Public Affairs Week. This morning Robert Kennedy, Jr. gave a great speech here about the economic and environmental advantages of using alternative energy and the need to evaluated the external costs of coal and oil. Capitalism needs to be reshaped more democratically – without subsidizing oil and coal, alternative resource development would be cheaper. He noted the security contradiction in fighting wars in the Middle East while helping to fund them for the "enemy" through purchases from the Middle East oil producing countries. One of the companies his board oversees is making electric cars for Israel – the goal of which is for Israel to be completely using electric cars in three years (with plug-ins by parking meters, etc.). It was a long speech that touched on many dynamics of the environmental quality and energy generation. He is also a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
As a kid, I remember writing RFK, Jr. a poem when his father was killed in 1968 – hoping that he would carry on the legacy. In the environmental arena, he has.
Carol Miller
|
