Back to Home Page

Shedding Light on Solar Subsidies

by Cascade Policy Institute Monday, June 28. 2010

solar power.serendipityThumb Shedding Light on Solar SubsidiesBy Andrew Hillard

If all goes as planned, July will be the start of a sunny future. Next month, Oregon Public Utilities will offer feed-in tariffs, or subsidies, for solar power. Under House Bill 3039, homeowners will be eligible to receive 55 to 65 cents for solar energy, compared to the usual cost of 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. The pilot project intends to boost jobs and clean technology by subsidizing 2,500 homes over 15 years.

However, legislative forecasts, like weather predictions, are often wrong; and in this instance, the sunshine will be short lived. The feed-in tariff has been tested in Spain and Germany. The result was, well, economic thunderstorms. Spain is now cutting 30% of solar incentives to prevent a Greek-style meltdown. Every subsidized “green” job cost Spain 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. Germany’s experience is no different. After 19 years of subsidies, solar only accounts for 0.5 percent of Germany’s total electricity.

In Oregon, feed-in tariffs will be funded by electricity ratepayers, increasing power costs and destroying productive jobs. With 11% unemployment, this is not attractive.

Solar feed-in tariffs are neither new nor progressive. They’ve been tested and shown to have unintended, negative consequences. Even if record rains stop in July, this solar plan does not look bright.

Andrew Hillard is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

tt twitter big4 Shedding Light on Solar Subsidies tt digg big4 Shedding Light on Solar Subsidies tt facebook big4 Shedding Light on Solar Subsidies tt reddit big4 Shedding Light on Solar Subsidies

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 30 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
Back to Home Page
  • Bill

    11% unemployment ?? Really? Spain and Turkey even close to Oregon’s economy? really? What’s the expected negative consequences for Oregon’s economy? people are going to use less power cause it costs more?

    What are the success measures in your opinion for this program to work? What can we do to get off the fossil fuel teat and start using the energy that is above the surface? anything?

    • Steve Plunk

      Spain has admitted it’s solar energy program failed. Subsidies don’t work in the long run and solar energy has been the next big thing since…. well, it’s been more than 30 years and no substantial advances in technology.

      Fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas can and will provide us with future prosperity if we formulate a real energy policy that doesn’t rely on rainbows and unicorns. It’s time for serious people to look at the facts and quit dreaming.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Spain has admitted it’s solar energy program failed. Subsidies don’t work in the long run and solar energy has been the next big thing since

        Yep, totally true and the folly of the Spain program was pointed out quite a bit from the outset.

        AGW would have a little more validity if its predictions came true with even half the frequency that predictions of the folly of its waste of effort and massive costs seem to.

      • John in Oregon

        Steve, Rupert.

        The Spanish subsidies worked so well that Thermotechnic a Spanish “green energy” company found it necessary to send Dr. Calzada, who did the original study, a disassembled bomb to make the point how well it worked.

        Bill. Solar power becomes viable when two things happen. 1] The installed cost of solar falls from the present $15 – $20 per watt to $1 per watt, and 2] High capacity power storage around 80% efficiency is on line.

        Until then solar is a fantasy that only appears viable because of massive taxing to hide its costs.

  • Bob Clark

    The Oregon House of Representative who spearheaded this wrong headed measure is Jules Kopel Bailey, 42d District, just to note responsibility. Right now the going price for longterm market (largely conventional source) electricity supply is probably in the 5 to 10 cent per KWH range. The day to day market price has been approximately around 5 cents for the last year. Now you really have to suspend reality to think rate payers buying power for 55 to 65 cents per KWH isn’t suggesting the environment economy scale has become too tilted in favor of the environment. I just hope folks wake up to the inbalances created by these renewable measures faster than it took Kulongoski to work up the political will to say effectively, “Hey, Oregon state government is spending too much money.”

  • valley p

    “Every subsidized “green” job cost Spain 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. ”

    The single study that made that conclusion was completely debunked. But that doesn’t prevent Catalyst from repeating it as fact.

    “solar only accounts for 0.5 percent of Germany’s total electricity.”

    I believe the real number is just over 1%, which is up from 0% before they started on this program. Their total electrical energy from renewables is now at 16%. Not bad considering they have very little hydro.

    “Solar feed-in tariffs are neither new nor progressive. They’ve been tested and shown to have unintended, negative consequences.”

    Yeah. Too bad we can’t test climate change in advance to see what the negative consequences will be.

    • Bennie

      Man made Climate change is a total farce. Only promoted to line that “Sex starved Kitten’s” pockets. As soon as ALGOREY moves out of his 20K+ square foot home, starts walking instead of flying to all his events, and stops paying for sex with Carbon Credits, will I start considering maybe there’s a small kernel of. You are probably one of those that have buried their heads in to the sand when it comes to Climate Gate. You probably are in favor of all of those useless windmills built in China by a Mexican company. If it weren’t for the massive subsidies (taxpayer funded) none of this garbage would exist, Solar or Wind or even the useless ethanol. WHAT A Colossal JOKE it all is.

    • John in Oregon

      VP you do a good job of espousing the talking points of the CAP which Obama asked for help. Repeat after me.

      CAP completely debunked
      CAP completely debunked
      CAP completely debunked

      Only problem is the Spanish Government completely REBUNKED the study by stating it is correct.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Ok – So most of us probably heard of this scam, maybe to some it is news. Of course this is about the last thing Oregon needs right now, another dopey plan that makes things harder for people.

    The question is what to do about it?

    Frankly I think social pressure and stigmatization would do a lot to counter this program.

    Big ugly solar panels on the roof are hard to hide – So when you put them up its like a red flag that your feel good move is something everyone else had to pay for.

    So if you hear about someone considering this – tell them how you feel.

    Tell them you would have thought better of them.

    Tell them Green Welfare was something you hoped they wouldn’t engage in. Is an Oregon Trail card next in the works? Are there other needs and wants they would like their neighbors to pay for?

    When you see the person pay with an Oregon trail card with a diet of heat and eat meals and soda, that is exactly the same sort of person who puts up these solar panels. They have not a care in the world how they increase the burden of others. They care only for their own gratification, and if you have to pay for it to satiate their needs, too bad. Both should be made to feel more shame. That is societies tool for limiting welfare programs to the truly needy, not loafers as well.

    Would your neighbor feel proud or ashamed if he was using an Oregon Trail card yo buy his groceries?

    If he would feel shame then he should be made to feel the same shame in accepting green welfare to pay for his solar panels.

    Social stigmatization is a valid societal tool. It is the only counterbalance societies have when they institute welfare programs. It should be applied generously in this case.

    • valley p

      Believe it or not, if I chose to use this program to mount solar collectors on my roof and thus do my part to reduce air pollution, I could survive the social stigma you, especially with your reliance on cheap federally subsidized hydro power for your energy sucking business, would attempt to lay on me.

      As George Bush famously said: “Bring it on.”

      I’ll add that its not likely that people using an Oregon Trail Card are going to be investing in solar panels. Now I know Rupert. You did not exactly SAY that the SAME PEOPLE who use Oregon trail cars will put up solar panels. You merely said they are the “same sort of person.” Whatever. Lets leave it at you are the sort of person who makes wild accusations about other people and their motivations, and other people who make accusations like you do a lot of damage in this world.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >other people who make accusations like you do a lot of damage in this world.

        Not as much damage as Green Welfare has done to the world.

        People who want others to pay for Green Welfare aren’t doing jack – the people who pay for it, everyone else, are.

        You want to do your part – Pay for your nonsense if you truly believe in it.

        You want Green Welfare – Learn to live with the social stigma of a welfare queen.

        • valley p

          I have no problem with any social stigma you want to attach to me. Given your own attachment to hydropower welfare, you should deal with the mote in your own eye before accusing others.

    • dartagnan

      “Not as much damage as Green Welfare has done to the world.”

      Statements like that one, and your assumption that people who install solar panels are the same people who rely on Oregon Trail cards, show you are absolutely clueless.

      Yes, the damage done by that little oil slick down in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t even CLOSE to the damage done by “Green Welfare.” And “Green Welfare” costs FAR MORE than maintaining a huge military presence in the Mideast to make sure the Saudi crude keeps flowing

      Rupert, I would feel embarrassed if you APPROVED of something I was doing.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Statements like that one

        Green Welfare has done far more damage to the world than pointing it out has. That was my statement.

        You are going to argue with that?

        Fine – Tell me how pointing out examples of Green Welfare has done more damage than even just the money wasted on it in Spain.

        Illuminate us with your brilliance.

        > and your assumption that people who install solar panels are the same people who rely on Oregon Trail cards, show you are absolutely clueless.

        And given that I never said any such thing, this statement shows you probably should look in the mirror if you are wondering what clueless looks like.

        If you want solar panels I have no problem with it.

        If you want welfare programs so you can pay for it – then people should be rightly outraged at your behaviour.

        It’s one thing to take welfare, its another to be indignant when someone points it out.

        >Yes, the damage done by that little oil slick down in the Gulf of Mexico isn’t even CLOSE to the damage done by “Green Welfare.”

        Actually I think the costs of Green Welfare thus far probably exceeds the costs of cleaning up the spill.

        Even so, I never argued that the cost of Green Welfare exceeded the cost of an oil spill or any other environmental damage so God knows what you are on about here.

        >Rupert, I would feel embarrassed if you APPROVED of something I was doing.

        Well looking at how you imagine things I said that I never in fact did, I would imagine any time you come near a logical argument it causes discomfort.

        • dartagnan

          “Actually I think the costs of Green Welfare thus far probably exceeds the costs of cleaning up the spill.”

          I like the way you slipped in the little phrase “thus far.” That gets you off the hook, because the cleanup of the oil blowout has barely started.

          Care to address the subject of the costs of our military operations in the Mideast (over the last 40 years or so) vs. the cost of “Green Welfare”?

          Fact is, you so-called “conservatives” are perfectly comfortable with massive government subsidies for things you LIKE.

  • John in Oregon

    You know VP it’s not my job to do your current events work for you so you can keep current on the CAP talking points. I will give you a hint. Check out the Spanish governments statements about the cause and solutions to the pending Spanish sovereign debt default. Second hint. Try looking in the UK, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, German or French media.

    But since you raised a specific point in the CAP/Soros “study” lets take a closer look. They made a great deal of noise that the Spanish “research refused to use the input-output methodology designed for central planning, in which all is assumed to be knowable, controllable, and static. That input/output thing has been discredited” outside of Statist government agencies.

    How did that Government central planning thing work out for the USSR, Cuba, and Zimbabwe?

    The Spanish “study relied upon methodology employed by real-world businesses in competitive fields when deciding how to deploy resources.” In other words traditional methods. Which of course explains why the CAP likes the central planning dictatorship model.

    But that isnt even the start of it. The CEI obtained information through a FOIA request. Reported by PJM;

    “A FOIA reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to help cover up two economic studies pointing to the failure of European wind energy programs.” … “Via the FOIA request, the CEI has learned that the Department of Energy” … “turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals.”

    I found this next most interesting;

    “The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute ‘inter-agency memoranda.’ ”

    This tells us that the DOE believes wind industry lobbyists and Soros’s Center for American Progress are extensions of the government. But then we already knew that didn’t we?

    As the Wall Street Journal revealed, if you wish to predict what Obama will say, just read the CAP press releases.

    • valley p

      “You know VP it’s not my job to do your current events work for you”

      I’ll take that as an admission that the Spanish government did not “rebunk” the debunked study cited by Catalyst. The fact that Spain is having national budget problems (as is the United states, which has minimal solar subsidies) leads to no conclusions about solar subsidies and net jobs or net economic effects. And Germany, which has significant solar subsidies (and wind,) is the healthiest economy in Europe. So where does that lead your argument?

      “How did that Government central planning thing work out for the USSR, Cuba, and Zimbabwe?”

      Not very well. And how did the free market in finance and utility deregulation work out for us? Not very well. So what? Should we conclude the free market is useless? I don’t. Nor do I conclude from the Soviet experience that government economic planning is useless. Their version of it certainly is. But the version in Denmark is kicking our butt. And China, which also has a state planned economy, is kicking butt and taking names. Please explain.

      And by the way John I have to add this. A while back you cited Ireland, with its low corporate tax rate, as the model we should follow because their economy was booming. Now they are a basket case, as bad as Greece and worse than Spain. What happened? The bubble burst. It turns out a lot of their economic growth was based on growth, just like us in Vegas and Phoenix and Florida. Too much investment and jobs in constructing things people did not need and could not afford.

      “This tells us that the DOE believes wind industry lobbyists and Soros’s Center for American Progress are extensions of the government. But then we already knew that didn’t we?”

      Uh…no and no, “we” didn’t. Unless you also conclude that private utilities who have nuclear plants, which can’t operate minus government insurance guarantees, are extensions of the government. That argument is a slippery slope. Rupert’s business, which relies on federally subsidized hydropower, would also be considered an extension of government in your model.

    • dartagnan

      “You know VP it’s not my job to do your current events work for you”

      LMAO! The right-wingers’ stock response when they can’t back up their claims.

      • John in Oregon

        dartagan I don’t have a problem answering the question for you. You don’t play this game of looking around and saying water what water? I don’t see any water here.

        The information comes from an internal Spanish Government study which was presented to the Spanish Cabinet.

        Some 10 days ago the Spanish government leaked the results to the Spanish press. US media coverage is PJM and the Washington Examiner.

        The highlights from the *Spanish Government* study:

        > Green energy is 120 percent more expensive, simply due to the extra costs of solar and wind, and the evolution of the market is not going to bring down those costs any time soon.

        > The clean energy sector is slated to receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years, but no one knows where the money is going to come from . In 2009, the subsidies were worth 5 billion euros.

        > Photovoltaic solar power accounts for 53 percent of the extra cost of renewables, whereas it produces only 11 percent of Spain’s renewable energy.

        > Each “green job” comes at the expense of 2.2 traditional jobs.

        BTW feel free to tell VP to wipe the egg off his face.

  • Pingback: www.dogandpuppies.org

  • David Appell

    U.S. government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008.: $72 billion.
    Source: Washington Post, Sept 25, 2009, http://is.gd/dbolp

    Corn ethanol subsidies over the same period: $16.8 billion
    Subsidies to traditional renewables over the same period: $12.2 billion
    Source: Roger Pielke Jr blog, http://is.gd/dbosC

    Global fossil fuel industry subsidies, 2008: $557 billion
    Source: Financial Times, June 6, 2010, http://is.gd/dboxe

  • John in Oregon

    VP. You can take my refusal to do your homework any way you wish. You will anyway. But as they say, you can lead a mule to water but…… Just be prepared to own the egg on your face.

    So you ask *how did the free market in finance and utility deregulation work out for us?*

    Don’t know. Haven’t seen any financial or utility free markets around for years. Unless you mean unregulated Fannie, Freddie, and the FED. But we both know you think the US Banking market is “unbridled capitalism.” So much for your theory of the failure of free markets.

    However I do have to admit that the FED was more involved than I had at first thought. Not based on interest rates which you believe was a cause. I still believe that interest rates were not helpful and not a cause. However the additional FED and Basil II regulations were. Specifically I recently learned of the Recourse Rule with which the FED pressured banks to invest in GSE derivatives.

    Since you mentioned deregulation its useful to look at some of this so called “deregulation”. Will have to be a utility as nothing financial was deregulated.

    California “deregulated” by passing regulations that prohibited utilities owning power plants. PG and E and Southern California Edison sold the plants as ordered. Next California passed more laws to void the utilities contracts to purchase power. PG and E and Southern California Edison tore up the contracts as ordered. Now that the utilities had no power to sell California created a state agency to buy power on the spot market where utilities trade short term power capacity. Hate to tell you this, the politician can say its deregulation but deregulation its not.

    As to the PIGS, of which the “I” is fluid, referred to alternatively as Iceland, Italy, or Ireland. Ireland is an excellent example. Ireland shows even with a successful business environment and high personal tax rates it’s still entirely possible to spend a productive country into destitution.

    Now since you raised discussions from the past, lets talk about Keynes and your claim that we can spend our way to prosperity. Well the decision of the G8 and the G20 is in. Seven of the eight and 19 of the 20 instructed Keynes to take a hike off a tall cliff. And that guy from 8 and 20 that wanted everybody to spend more? To him they just said take a hike south.

    As to your comment that ‘Uh…no and no, “we” didn’t’ know CAP was an extension of the government.

    Did you mean that no you didn’t know?

    Or did you mean that no it isnt so?

    Or did you mean that no the Obama administration didn’t withhold the FOIA requested communications with CAP and lobbyists claiming they constitute ‘inter-agency memoranda’?

    • valley p

      “lets talk about Keynes and your claim that we can spend our way to prosperity. ”

      And where did I make that claim exactly? Keynes theory is that governments can and should pick up the slack in demand by increasing spending in order to put unused (by the private sector) labor and capital to work during downturns. He does not say that means we can simply spend our way to prosperity. He says we can spend our way out of recessions and depressions. If you don’t know the difference you need to study up on macro economics.

      “As to your comment that ‘Uh…no and no, “we” didn’t’ know CAP was an extension of the government.”

      That’s not what you wrote. You wrote that the wind industry and George Soros were extensions of government.

      “Or did you mean that no the Obama administration didn’t withhold the FOIA requested communications with CAP and lobbyists claiming they constitute ‘inter-agency memoranda’? ”

      I mean what I said. That your claim is a slippery slope. That everything and everyone having anything to do with government can be branded an extension of government based on your argument. The fossil fuel legacy energy industry that met with Cheney? We still don’t know who was there because the government refused to tell us. Does that make oil and coal and gas companies extensions of government? Do you really want to argue that position?

      And John..the “Washington Examiner” is your source for all this? Good to see you seek out objective information that does not naturally conform to your bias.

    • John in Oregon

      You can dress it up any way you wish. The Keynes NO VOTE was still 7 to 1 and 19 to 1 and the 1 was asked to take a hike south.

      What I wrote was.
      *”The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute ‘inter-agency memoranda.’ ”

      This tells us that the DOE believes wind industry lobbyists and Soros’s Center for American Progress are extensions of the government. But then we already knew that didn’t we?*

      Your answer to the Spanish Government study is to attack the messenger, > *”Washington Examiner” is your source for all this? Good to see you seek out objective information that does not naturally conform to your bias.*

      No I didn’t say THE source was the Washington Examiner Newspaper. I said the *US media coverage* is PJM and the Washington Examiner.*

      Outside the US the coverage is in;
      The Guardian, UK
      Prospect Magazine, UK
      The BBC
      Reuters
      Scoopit news, New Zealand
      The Financial Times

      Would you like more? Would you like a copy of the original Spanish language document?

      There is something yellow by your left eye, and something white on your nose.

      • valley p

        “You can dress it up any way you wish. The Keynes NO VOTE was still 7 to 1 and 19 to 1 and the 1 was asked to take a hike south.”

        I have not idea what this sentence means. But I’ll repeat my question: Where did I ever claim that Keynes said we could “spend our way to prosperity?” I didn’t call for any vote count. You seem to be arguing with shadows.

        • John in Oregon

          You have forgotten what I said up thread so of course you can’t understand the sentence. For your convince I will restate what I said above.

          *Now since you raised discussions from the past, lets talk about Keynes and your claim that we can spend our way to prosperity. Well the decision of the G8 and the G20 is in. Seven of the eight and 19 of the 20 instructed Keynes to take a hike off a tall cliff. And that guy from 8 and 20 that wanted everybody to spend more? To him they just said take a hike south.*

          In very simple terms.

          > The G8 is the group of the 8 largest economies. The G8 met in summit on June 25-26 in the Muskoka region of Canada.

          > The G20 is the group of the 20 largest economies. The G20 met in summit on June 26/27 in Toronto Canada.

          > The agenda of the G20 summit included Fiscal Restraint and Private Sector Growth.

          > Prior to the summit Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the world cannot depend on the United States.

          > Prior to the summit President Obama said the G20 needed to spend more.

          > Prior to the summit Geithner and National Economic Council Lawrence Summers wrote stronger growth with solid job creation here in the U.S. depends on an expanding global economy. In other words, they wanted the G-20 to commit to expanded spending.

          > As he prepared to depart for the summit, President Obama publicly asked the G8/G20 country’s to adopt the same new harsh financial regulations as the US to prevent businesses from leaving the United States.

          > The G8 and G20 summits concluded.

          > The G8 and G20 announced agreement to cut debt in half.

          > The G8 and G20 announced agreement to encourage growth friendly policies.

          > The G-20 communiqué said they will not take any action to balance trade.

          > President Obama held a press speech and announced the summit was a great success.

          > President Obama flew back to DC

          > Back in DC President Obama approved shutting down One Third of US oil refinery capacity.

          You don’t remember your backing of Keynes spending. Really? You don’t remember telling us it would have worked for FDR but he didn’t spend enough. You don’t remember telling us it would have worked for the Japanese if they had spent fast enough? Really, you don’t remember that?

          • valley p

            “You don’t remember your backing of Keynes spending. Really? You don’t remember telling us it would have worked for FDR but he didn’t spend enough. You don’t remember telling us it would have worked for the Japanese if they had spent fast enough? Really, you don’t remember that? ”

            OK, I see you confusion now. Yes, I support Keynes theory and practice. Your mistake is assuming he (and I) think the US or anyone else can or should “spend our way to prosperity” as you put it. What Keynes and i advocate is *spending our way out of recession* . There is a big difference between the 2. Government spending in a recession puts unused labor and productive capacity (that has been idled by the private sector) to use in the public sector. This accomplishes several purposes. 1) it gives unemployed people something constructive to do with their time and a way to put bread on the table honorably, 2) it increases effective demand for private sector services and products that otherwise have no buyers and 3) it creates useful public goods, like better roads, bridges, school buildings, bicycle paths, sewer and water systems, and so forth that improve overall productive capacity and quality of life.

            Once the private economy has sufficiently recovered, Keynes (and I) agree that public spending should be ramped down, otherwise there might be too much demand for labor and capital, which becomes inflationary. So rather than “spending our way to prosperity,” the correct phrase would be “spending our way out of recession.” Few mainstream economists disagree with the premise by the way.

            On the G20, I agree with Obama and disagree with Germany and other nations who fear inflation more than deflation. To the extent German advice is followed we will prolong our pain and may end up deepening it.

            And yes, deficit spending worked for FDR and the nation, but he did not spend enough until WW2. I’m not sure about the Japanese problem. I think they had a number of structural problems that may have been complex and severe enough that simply turning the tap up may not have helped them. That may also be true for us by the way, but other than Keynes there is no logical way to quickly reduce our currently high unemployment. We can’t export our way out because there are too few overseas buyers. And by the way, that is the German strategy. They plan to export their way out, but will soon find they won’t have enough buyers either.

            Republican/Conservative proposals to date would either deepen the recession by cutting spending, or be ineffectual by cutting taxes, or both.

  • John in Oregon

    I think I have had about enough. There is an old saying, ‘Figures don’t lie but liars quote figures’.

    Above David Appell told us that;
    “fossil” fuels were given $72 billion subsidies. And
    ethanol subsidies were $16.8 billion.

    Its not hard to see the implication. Conventional fuel subsidies received FOUR times the subsidy of ethanol. But, even if the numbers are quoted accurately is that correct?

    Looking closer the first problem is that often these kinds of comparisons consider conventional fuel deducting a cost of doing business is a “subsidy”. That discussion can be complicated so lets just accept David’s number without question.

    It would be helpful to have a few other numbers. For example over the 6 year period David quoted the total conventional fuel market was approximately $10,500 Billion so the “subsidy” was 72/10,500 or 0.68 % of the market.

    The Ethanol market is more complicated. Total subsidies are the sum of federal and state subsides which very from state to state. Additional state requirements that consumers must purchase are an additional subsidy. Various estimates place the subsidy in the range 25% to 35%. Using the center of that range we see;

    Ethanol subsidy 30% / Conventional fuel subsidy 0/68% = 44.

    That is the Ethanol subsidy is 44 times higher than conventional fuel.

    • David Appell

      > That is the Ethanol subsidy is 44 times higher than conventional fuel.

      Your analysis is faulty (it needs to be done on a per-Joule or per-BTU basis), but in any case, so what?

      Ethanol is a very young market. It was an experiment. No one ever claimed it was the final solution to all our problems. Stop acting like it.

      Ethanol was a worthwhile investigation. It was also pushed by the heavily financed & lobbied agricultural industry. We’ve now learned it probably does not work. So let’s move on to the next best, cheapest renewable.

      You live, and you learn. You make mistakes and you correct them.

      –David Appell
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com

  • Rainer Gegenwart

    This short arcticle is not based upon competent information. The argument of loosing jobs by creating “green jobs” is completely wrong and I have no idea where the author got this information from. Mentioning that after “19 years of subisidies Germany has only 0.5 % energy generation from solar” shows that the author does not know the German maket and programms. The current FIT is only a few years old and a real succhess. The years before Germany had only very little subisidies, the market started to grow from 2004 onwards. Compared to the coal and nuclear energy, you must see the complete picture, funding of solar energy was very efficient. Please refer to the relevant german ministry or the German solar lobby “BSW” for serious information.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)