The problem is they are very high-cost unreliable sources of energy that
don't and can't displace fossil fuel generation. If it weren't for
renewable energy mandates in states, even the large subsidies wouldn't have
been enough to drive these sources of energy. BTW: I have no problem with
renewable sources that have proven to have some success, such as hydropower
(Hydro can be used for peak demand because it is dispatchable, unlike wind
and solar).
I don't think there should be any subsidies, so if these other sources are
desirable, they will be used on the grid without any mandates.
I don't know what "dirty" means, but coal is far cleaner and getting
better--not sure what issues there are with nuclear and natural gas.
Energy policy (electricity sector) used to be based on low-cost reliable
sources of electricity--undermining that principle undermines our economic
competitiveness (energy is an input in every good or service) and is
regressive in nature.
Daren Bakst
On 4/17/10 8:53 AM, "Ingulli, Elaine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
> Iąd agree that we shouldnąt subsidize oil and coal. However, our subsidies
> for coal and other fossil fuels are far less than with wind and solar (it
> isnąt even close).
>
> Hereąs 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 doesnąt 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 wouldnąt 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
|
