“Green Energy” … NOT So Cheap
Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)
Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new “Manhattan Project” for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.
Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.
An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.
The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.
By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other “alternatives.”
The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.
All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of “green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.
WSJ
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
This is something that I’ve been saying the whole time. Natural gas and Nuclear power are so far our best chances for alternate power. Just think of what we could do with the money saved from “green” methods. Hell we could actually start raping Alaska for oil tomorrow. And yet the libs are so concerned about what a Polar Bear might think about us drilling for oil to even give a shit about our economic security. I say drill, drill, drill, and look for ways to mass-produce Hydrogen fuel. It’s the best option. Allows for decent power, longer range, no pollution, and is not much more dangerous than a gas tank of gasoline. Plus you don’t have to worry about disrupting the food supply, or funding oil-loving terrorists.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:45 amEnvironmentalism is not about supplying green energy.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:54 amIt is about stopping man’s access to any kind of energy at all.
The goal of true environmentalists is to take man out of the
environment, leaving glorious nature free of us and all of our
“sinful” ways. Like that question to the aliens in Independence Day:
“What do you want us to do?” Answer: “Die”.
If you think I’m making this up - I am not. Go to
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org and look up environmentalism.
Wind and solar energy are not supposed to work. They are supposed
to bog us down until we give up. Look at how animated those people
are becoming because biofuels are working even a little bit - they
want that shut down too. These people are sick and they are
a determined enemy. They are at least fair - they hate all of humanity, not just infidels.
Stop supporting Al Gore and his left wing eco terrorists
May 12th, 2008 at 8:15 amThe era of cheap energy is over. No Congress and no President is going to change that. None of the oil in Alaska, Dakota or offshore is “cheap”.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:20 amWhat is happening now is the battle over who or what gets to pick the winners and losers of our energy future. The Dhimmis do not give a fuck about polar bears or glaciers. As has always been the case, they seek state control in whatever form they can wrangle. I’ve yet to hear or read a coherent statement from a Dhimmi member of Congress regarding energy (or any subject anymore really). Regardless, anything that they do say always net-nets down to that simple reality. State control.
What’s the point of having an energy policy when we’re not allowed to use any energy? This article hits it spot on.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:51 amLet the eco-terrorists hug their trees and sing kumbaya. Put some adults in charge of energy policies and decisions for a change.
Like it or not, this country depends on fossil fuels. You can either buy it from OPEC or some other third party or can drill for it and save money. Which is it going to be?
This whole green goracle crap is a national suicide campaign hosted by a rich anarchist who’s looking to parlay his family fortune on a scam.
F*ck him and the anarchists. Time to purge this nation of oxygen breathers and take back our country and common sense.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:15 amYou don’t know how frighteningly accurate you are in profiling the typical eco-nazi. Eco-nuts absolutely hate humanity—except themselves, who they see as righteous saviors who have all the answers to the cancer (the cancer being humanity) they think that they see.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:51 amIf we are trying to become independent of mideast oil, why are we producing Ethanol, but not 1-Butanol? 1-Butanol can be run in a regular gasoline engine with no modifications and is only 10% less efficient than gasoline, whereas Ethanol is about 40% less efficient. A study in 2006 said while gas prices were about $2.69/gallon, Butanol could replace it at 89 cents/gallon. Also, Butanol produces very, very low emissions. So, I say again, I’m confused. Why are we producing Ethanol and not 1-Butanol?
May 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm