Comments on: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 5 Times Larger than Wind Energy Subsidies (12 Times Larger than Renewable Energy Subsidies)

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:19:00 +0000

Good work, Bob. Connecting the dots. Something we don’t seem to teach our kids well enough in the US.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:24:00 +0000

Here’s an interesting little tidbit…

Remember back in November when US forces accidentally killed 24 Pakistan troops and Pakistan closed down all US shipping through their country?

“”with the supply lines closed, the U.S. has been forced to use more costly transportation routes through Russia and Central Asia. [Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta has estimated the cost at an extra $100 million a month.” ”

Seven months. $700 million dollars, just in “extra” shipping costs.

And, remember why we are in Afghanistan? (Here’s a hint: oil. Trace it back to us supporting dictators in the Middle East, stationing our troops there, and invading Kuwait).

If we had to pay for the oil wars at the pump….

By: Bill_Woods

Bill_Woods — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:19:00 +0000

No, they come from oil-exporting countries choosing to sell oil products domestically at prices far less than they could have gotten if they’d sold the oil on the world market.

Since the IEA was addressing primarily “consumption” subsidies, government supports that make the price of gasoline and other fuels artificially cheap for citizens, the calculations were relatively straightforward and consistent from country to country. IEA just subtracted the difference, or “gap,” between the price consumers paid in each high-subsidy country and the actual price on the world market. That gap expands or contracts depending on global oil prices, the size of the discount citizens enjoy, and the size of a nation’s population.

http://theenergycollective.com/mariannelavelle/87511/fossil-fuel-subsidies-why-we-crunched-numbers

By: Bill_Woods

Bill_Woods — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:14:00 +0000

US subsidies for the years 2007 and ’10 (for electricity, so not including oil) are listed here (see Table ES2): http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

National Geographic has a nice map of fossil fuel subsidies for 2010 here: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/global-energy-subsidies-map/

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:03:00 +0000

I’m pretty sure you are wrong.

The cost of our three Middle East oil wars are not included in the oil subsidy total.

—

It’s looking more and more like the main storage technology will be batteries. Not CAES.

By: DengieBoy

DengieBoy — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:19:00 +0000

This article makes the classic mistake of quoting the UK as having fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies.
In fact, what the OECD refers to is the reduction in Value Added Tax that is allowed to domestic electricity consumers and low energy use business’s. This low useage tax rate reduction also applies to heating oil, coal and gas and is intended to encourage conservation and make supplies more affordable for low income consumers. With the astronomical costs of energy here in the UK, THIS IS NOT A SUBSIDY.
However, just to make the point, this tax rate reduction from 17.5% to 5% applies to all electricity supplies, including renewables!
This is just another myth perpetuated by our wind lobbyists to justify the massive 100% to 200% subsidy their industry receives here in the UK.

By: irandom

irandom — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:24:00 +0000

If memory serves the exaggerated petroleum subsidies come from including bridges and military spending. Although, Europe is the main beneficiary of our excursions into the middle ages east. I have no problem with depreciating a hole in the ground quickly or slowly, the same way I have no problem with depreciating a windmill. An investment is an investment. Until a buffering system is viable like compressed air or liquefied air, the intermittent renewables will be hard to integrate with baseload power requirements.

By: mk1313

mk1313 — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:16:00 +0000

Googling US subsidies you get rates from 3-7 times more for fossil fuels as compared to renewables in the US depending on the source and how they calculate it. That agrees pretty well with the UK. I’m disappointed you make a comment like that without doing 5 minutes of checking for yourself. By the way, the USA isn’t the only place in the world, nor by any stretch of the imagination the most important. The internet is global so you might just want to broaden your viewpoint.

By: rkt9

rkt9 — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:09:00 +0000

Looking at it from another perspective, the larger subsidies for fossil fuels could be justified in that the sale of fossil fuels is taxed and brings in a lot of revenue for Federal, State and County governments.

The Department of Energy anticipates that “Crossover” will occur sometime between 2015 and 2016, that is when Solar will be cheaper than fossil fuel. We are on the cusp of a new energy revolution, our focus should be on these new energies! I don’t see the use in beating a dead horse.

Chances are we will have to subsidize fossil fuels to an even larger degree in the future as we undo the damage they have perpetrated on the earth, and dismantle their infrastructure, making the “Superfund” look like small potatoes.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:56:00 +0000

Yes, have to agree the mismatch in title and content kept me from sharing.

By: Seth Goodman

Seth Goodman — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:57:00 +0000

I appreciate attention being given to the existing fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S., but this article is a little misleading. No, quite misleading. Everything quoted and referenced is referring to either UK figures or international multi-country studies. I don’t see how this ties in at all with arguments that FOX news or the GOP are making regarding U.S. spending or subsidies on renewable energy. I agree with the authors premise that government subsidies are being largely misallocated, but at least use relevant U.S.-based quotes and statistics!