CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website in the world. Subscribe today!


Biomass wind energy subsidies

Published on February 10th, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan

26

HUGE Push to Save Renewable Energy Subsidies (Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Biomass, & Hydro)

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 10th, 2012 by Zachary Shahan 

 
Sign the two letters to Congress below to help prolong key renewable energy industry incentives that will continue to create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs!

Every renewable energy industry in the country—wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, biomass,…—are working hard right now to get some critical government subsidies continued. It’s quite odd that this clean energy industry has to work so hard for government support the fossil fuel industry has had for over a century.

There are a couple of key policies these renewable energy industries are pushing and you can help them do so here:

  • a renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) — send a short message to your congresspeople via that link
  • the 1603 Treasury Grant Program — same deal–contact your congresspeople about this important renewable energy program via the link.. all the cool kids are doing it!

Here’s more info a few statements on these programs:

wind energy subsidies

Wind

“The PTC is the primary policy tool to promote wind energy development and manufacturing in the United States,” the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) writes. While it is set to expire at the end of 2012, the wind industry’s long lead times to develop projects and order wind turbines from manufacturers means that the credit has already effectively expired for the industry. Congress has a choice to make: extend the PTC this month, and keep the wind industry on track to employ 500,000 people, or halve the work force, including tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs that will not return to this country.”

“America needs homegrown energy resources to power the nation, and with our economy struggling, we’re in dire need of American jobs. Wind energy delivers in both of these areas. The renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) is an effective tool to keep electricity prices low and encourage development of proven clean energy projects. However, the PTC expiration is looming and we need to act fast to protect wind industry jobs.”

geothermal energy subsidies

Geothermal, Hydro, Biomass

This week, “executives from the hydropower, geothermal and biomass power industries called on Congressional leaders to extend the production tax credit through 2016 for hydropower, geothermal and biomass,” a joint letter on the Geothermal Energy Association’s website states. “The three industries operate in parts of the country not often associated with renewable energy – particularly the Southeast and Mountain West – and company and trade association leaders expressed concern for a looming crisis that has put thousands of jobs in these states at risk. The call comes as opponents of renewable energy tax policy place the future of these industries in jeopardy.”

“The group called for the immediate passage of H.R. 3307: American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act of 2011, which covers all renewable technologies, and is sponsored by Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA8] and Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3] with over 60 bipartisan cosponsors, including 16 Republicans.”

“The geothermal industry has added over $1 billion in new power projects to the grid since the Congress extended the PTC to geothermal energy in 2005, bringing several thousand drilling, construction and operating jobs to often rural areas with high unemployment,” said Karl Gawell, Executive Director, Geothermal Energy Association notes. “But with a project lead time of 4 years or more, the geothermal industry has already reached its so-called tax credit cliff, even if the legal deadline is 2013. This is not just undermining projects in 16 states with new geothermal power projects, it is also costing vendors lost orders in over 46 states that supply geothermal projects. It is more critical than ever for Congress to adopt a longer time frame for geothermal incentives. We urge action now to extend the tax deadline from 2013 to at least 2016.”

Much more on this, from these three industries above, in the letter linked above.

Solar

The solar energy industry is working to extend a separate incentive, the 1603 Treasury Program. From the Solar Energy industry Association (SEIA):

“The 1603 program is hands-down one of the most successful policies ever enacted to deploy clean energy.  In only two years, it has generated over $22 billion in private sector investment to jump-start more than 22,000 renewable energy projects across the country. This has created tens of thousands of new American jobs.”

Again, you can contact your senators in Congress on SEIA’s site.

“Please take a few moments to contact your Senators TODAY.  We need to stand together to let Congress know that extending the 1603 Program is critical to keep America working,” SEIA writes. It’s true—we do. The fossil fuel industry has the money. But we have the people power. We can be sure the fossil fuel industry will continue investing in Congresspeople in order to get a nice return in subsidies of various kinds. We have to show up online and elsewhere to make sure renewable energy gets at least equal treatment.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.


Related Posts



  • http://twitter.com/onahunttoday Sandra Pucillo

    We need the clean energy wind turbines provide along with their waste free and pollution free energy there will be10’s of thousands of jobs – jobs the economy sorely needs! Manufacture, deliver, build, and maintain wind turbines offshore Lake Erie in NE OHIO

  • http://www.flash-ebrochure.com/EBrochures/24597_Green_Cage_Security_3/index.htm Green Cage Security, Inc.

    From the perspective of an passionate aviator and a private pilot, we as a nation simply have to start taking the lead into implementing clean energy technologies into all aspects of our society. Just as we did with aviation in the first part of the 20 th century. Early aviation was supported by our government. Could you imagine where would be as a nation if we didn’t make those investments into aviation. Just look at the role aviation played militarily.Look at the return on our investment. Embracing clean energy technologies will have more of a direct impact with every person in our country.This is nothing more than a classic power struggle for a transfer of industrial wealth.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Great analogy. Another on to keep in mind & use for educating the govt-subsidy-confused. :D

  • Anonymous

    Reply to Mr. Green Cage. The data is NOT flawed given the date of the data, Present conditions and if implemented immediately would be the result. But that scenario is very highly unlikely to occur. Historically new technology declines in costs as its implemented and cost is not necessarily the only consideration.

    I apologize to anyone I may have offended. My comments were not my viewpoints and were to stimulate discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Utilities across the country are installing “smart meters” which in addition to other capabilities allows the utilities to implement Time of Use” pricing meaning utilities will bill more during the day “peak” to recapture the premium cost for electricity for that time. Those who have home solar panels will realize the benefit of their systems. For journalists, comparing the peak cost of power to solar is a more accurate comparison than utility average retail.

  • Anonymous

    I respectfully suggest Mr. Shahan that maybe you take the time to really read the comment.

    “According to an Energy Information Administration study based on 2008 data, the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 a megawatt hour, $23.37 that year for wind, 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power. If Renewable Energy was as prevalent as fossil fuels, we couldn’t afford the subsidies.” That is the United States Energy Information Agency that is one of most reputable sources to cite.

    Solar, geothermal, biomass and wind all produce electricity, oil is a transportation fuel and less than 1% is used in the US to generate electricity. The massive subsidies given to oil is IRRELEVANT in the context of this comparison. You can build a 1000 RE facilities (electricity) and it won’t affect oil usage one iota. Yet you counter with links citing graphs comparing Oil & Gas Industry without any sources of information identified or assumptions.

    You can remove natural gas from above, which is used to generate electricity in this comparison so that nothing refers to O&G and it won’t change the result. If Renewable Energy was as prevalent as fossil fuels in producing electricity, we couldn’t afford the subsidies.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      I read the comment. I forgot the link shared didn’t address coal.

      Your claim that we couldn’t afford renewable energy is only that, though, a claim. Additionally, no one is saying to subsidize it up to that point. The subsidies have been great at getting some nascent industries going and helping to reduce costs tremendously in the process. This is their purpose.
      You continue to ignore externalities. Yes, I’m aware of who the EIA is and that they do as well — but that doesn’t change the limitation of not including those.

      The subsidies given to RE produce jobs, lower costs, and help to create a more secure and efficient future for millions or billions. The subsidies to fossil fuels serve no useful purpose.

      Intent is important when evaluating something, not only numbers.

      • Anonymous

        I like to engage in debates and throw in an indisputable fact to illicit a discussion. What I said is a true statement based on current numbers. But historically the price of new technology declines as it is adopted and my CSP process has cut costs If you read one other comment, solar pv is almost there. If we are trying to change for the greater good, cost should not be that important and I agree fossil fuel should not be subsidized. Jobs will be created, but the plan is to shut coal facilities down and those jobs will be lost. But that’s life.

        • http://www.flash-ebrochure.com/EBrochures/24597_Green_Cage_Security_3/index.htm Green Cage Security, Inc.

          Well then, would you agree that the data you quoted from was flawed because it didn’t factor the externalities which affects the total cost that is part of the cost equation.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          For sure.

  • Anonymous

    Reply to Green Cage Security: I cite a simple fact not from a think tank but from the United States Energy Information Agency just to watch you people go ballistic and irrational.

    Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Biomass produce electricity. Oil is a transportation fuel and a fossil fuel but less than 1% is used in the states for power generation and not a valid comparison.

    I don’t think much of either political party. But when you bring politics into private industry its only for two reasons, subsidies or move the project through regulatory hurtles.

    You are foolish to believe a few wind or solar plants will prevent Climate Change. That requires a World Wide Consensus and Plan and neither exist, not even a sincere effort. A few more jet fighter aircraft in the air negates a solar plant. GHG rose 5.9% last year the highest rate since the industrial revolution began.

    Finally all of my retirement is invested in wind and solar

    • Anonymous

      China places one coal fired power plant in service a week in addition to their renewable energy efforts.

    • http://www.flash-ebrochure.com/EBrochures/24597_Green_Cage_Security_3/index.htm Green Cage Security, Inc.

      robertemery, the foundation for my posting in response to your raving rants about “us” people who actually support policies that are intellectually sound. First, I ask you this If our government has historically overwhelmingly supported fossil fuels such as coal and oil, do you think that their foundation for their support would reflect that they are being willfully ignorant of the benefits of much cleanlier methods? In other words do you think they will have a foundation of policies that shows where the ends are not justifiable by the means. So you can safely conclude that their policies that support fossil fuels, have been compromised by the Fossil Fuel loyalist who pour millions into both political parties.

      Second, I never mentioned the other ” lets distract them” talking point of (Climate Change) that distracts most Americans from solving the simple equation of concluding on what policies are the most rewarding for the return on our tax dollars from an long term perspective.

      You apparently didn’t want to analyze the long term quantifiable benefits as oppose to the long term quantifiable damages. I don’t think one could honestly deny that when you extract coal and oil from the earth you are polluting the oceans and the air we breathe at that precise moment. Also would you rather breath the air that’s filled with the exhaust gases from a conventional fossil fuel powered automobile or breath in the air from an electric powered automobile, it’s just that simple no talking points included.

      • Anonymous

        Now calm down and take a deep breath. I simply cited information from the United States Energy Information Agency. If we are going to shift to RE energy and it costs more, then that’s the price we pay for clean air. I didn’t hear anyone say the obvious. As more RE is implemented, the price will come down.

        Coal is no longer used as transportation fuel but is used to generate electricity. The plans are already in place to phase it out unless of course paid lobbyists.

        Now oil is a different story. Its a transportation fuel and provides the source of many plastics, pharmaceutics etc. There is not enough land and water for biofuels to replace oil. One can build all the RE (electricity) but it won’t effect oil usage any without significant numbers of electric vehicles.

        I have been developing solar and biomass for 30 years so my perspective is somewhat different than yours. The government was not interested in funding solar until the stimulus grants. One $2 billion dollar project is 20% equity, 30% government grant and 50% low interest loan. When the government funding was announced politically connected corporate interests using 30 year old designs received the funding. Innovated ideas (csp solar not pv) were not funded and went to China and India

    • Wahlink

      Interesting point about oil being predominantly a transportation fuel. Thats true, however, the way I see it as cars become more electrified they will increasingly be powered by grid connected solar, hybrid batteries etc so if plugin hybrid and electric cars can get better traction in the market they increasingly valid to this question.

      Out of curiosity how would you propose we as a society reduce greenhouse gas emissions if you think these are irrelevant technologies?

      • Anonymous

        We all live on this one little rock and are affected here by China commissioning a coal fired power plant every week or wars that negate clean energy efforts. Its too late to prevent Climate Change, its here. But we can mitigate it so our children may have a life. However, that requires everyone to buy in and a Plan. Presently, there isn’t a comprehensive Plan even in the US, maybe a policy, not a Plan. Some countries speak of Climate Change mitigation out of one side of their mouth and plan to exploit Arctic oil resources when the ice melts out of the other side. By virtual of unique circumstances,I have access to information most people don’t. Climate Change is caused simply by too many people on this rock for the natural resources, the planet can no longer mitigate our pollutants and the SOLUTION is BIRTH CONTROL. Does contraceptives ring a bell with anyone?

        • Ralph

          Ask the folks in Nome how bad the ice is melting. Its burying them. No warming since 1997 according to the IPCC. The gig is up.

  • Anonymous

    In reply to Tyler: I simply recited facts in regards to misinformation.

    I am a former Luz Project Manager with engineering and construction of the worlds first utility scale solar power stations, involved with development of projects in Egypt and India since then, involved n minister level meetings in Spain And Germany regarding solar development and have US Patent on a solar direct state generation process incorporated into plant under construction in China. The US does Not support development. With the exception of solar PV, these plants use technology developed in the 80s with a new coat of paint. The new technology, solar trough direct steam generation was specifically exempted from gov funding. So while those in the US pat themselves back, the realities are different.

  • Anonymous

    stop all subsidies..if they cant make it in a free market place, we don’t want it. only stupid liberals want to take money from me and give to fat cats in the clean energy game.. screw em

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      The fossil fuel industry gets massive subsidies and has for over a century.
      “Stop all subsidies” — great, but not going to happen, so clean energy should get its fair share.

      • Anonymous

        According to an Energy Information Administration study based on 2008 data, the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 a megawatt hour, $23.37 that year for wind, 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power. If Renewable Energy was a prevalent as fossil fuels, we couldn’t afford the subsidies.

        • TylerSterner

          Renewable energy will become as prevalent as fossil fuels. When that happens renewable energy will not need subsidies. If the U.S. doesn’t support renewable energy we will fall behind the rest of the world.

        • http://www.flash-ebrochure.com/EBrochures/24597_Green_Cage_Security_3/index.htm Green Cage Security, Inc.

          robertemery, while you were gathering your data from a think tank that’s supported by the fossil fuel loyalist. Have you once considered to factor into the subsidy equation of governmental support, the infinite quantifiable cost of damages that are directly related to the extraction and transportation of fossil fuels. I’m sure that you have heard of the talking point that is the drum beat of a certain political party(the party that ironically opposes the expansion of clean energy) with regards to passing debt on to our children’s children. However passing on poor air quality and poor water quality that will shorten their children’s very own life and affect their children’s quality of life is not intellectually considered. So I say, why are they so concern about passing on a high national deficit, when the future generations will not live long enough to pay off their student loans. Need I mention to bring down a national deficit.

          This is not about the simple debate of Free markets and government subsidies. The truth of the matter, is that the so call Free Markets adhere to and are governed by the simple business logic of Profitability vs. Not Profitable, and Governments that seek infinite relevancy adhere to the adoption of policies that ensure their infinite sustainability to their citizenry. Just take a stroll into ancient history and their you will find great civilizations that fell only to their own will. This is a simple business decision as to which method of harvesting raw energy will yield a higher and constant quantifiable positive ROI (Return On Investment).

          This is not about siding with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, this IS about siding with common intelligence.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          You’re not looking at historical subsidies though. There’s a diff btw the level fossil fuels and nuclear are today and what they got in their first couple decades. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/27/early-fossil-fuel-nuclear-energy-subsidies-crush-early-renewable-energy-subsidies/

          Furthermore, the EIA is not taking into account some of the biggest subsidies — those industries not internalizing health and long-term risk costs, and the govt not stepping in and doing its duty to correct for those externalities.

        • Wahlink

          Please provide a link so we can subjectively look at this study.

Back to Top ↑

© 2014   Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.



Back to Top ↑