The leftist Luddites and Malthusians for years have cried that traditional energy has gotten most of the federal support in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. 
Well, it just isn’t true.
For the graph people……
But, that’s not even the whole story. Not even close. Now, readers familiar with the climate wars already know this, but for the uninitiated, the billions of dollars spent on the renewables, comes to well, here….
It comes to 4.1% of our net generation. I’m not counting hydro because it is discouraged by the lunatics, even though it is often the cheapest forms of electric generation. Look at solar! It doesn’t generate squat! Now look back up to the subsidy chart! We get this….
. Initially, Cape Wind announced it had a deal to sell half the electricity to National Grid for a price beginning at 20.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, approaching double the national average retail rate. Massachusetts state regulators turned that down, but in November 2010, the state accepted a contract with National Grid at a price beginning at 18.7 cents a kilowatt-hour.
I’m glad they’re friends of the earth or something, they sure aren’t any friends of the electric consumer….. that would be the rest of us. BTW, the average rate in the U.S. is about 11-12 cents kWh.
Note! Before some numbnut jumps up and blathers about oil, first of all, it isn’t has heavily subsidized as renewables and secondly, and most importantly, it is a stupid comparison. Petroleum products producing electricity in the U.S. is almost non-existent.
Adopting renewable energy is about as smart as bailing banks out and then demanding that they make more bad loans.
suyts space 
Mere facts do not count. Today in the SMH we have this:
I especially like it because not only is gas now a form of renewable energy but also you can turn the wind on and off when you want.
A couple minutes search easily shows that the wind is disinclined to actually blow when its very hot or very cold. This one was best since it demonstrated this problem using the AMO’s own data.
Lol, very nice. Gas has some wonderful properties. Wind energy is the dumbest idea, and they keep doubling down on it!
But, I wouldn’t be interested in base load either. Coal is best for that, and China and Germany seem to be the only ones interested in using it.
“I’m glad they’re friends of the earth or something, they sure aren’t any friends of the electric consumer” (about Wind power)
google Lowell mountains.
They like mountains so much they build more of them. (from concrete)
They also like human oil spills. Don’t seem to mind artificial mountains. Gives them somewhere to Occupy I guess.
Cute, kinda like laying down asphalt. I’d be tempted to run a steamroller over it a few times to pack it down.
Hydro needs to be discounted because it has also maxed out. Pretty much every river capable of being damned and producing has been.
Worse, the pinheads are actually dismantling some!
Hydro also has some issues as well. In Southern Brazil, where the Parana river is full of dams (including the 14GW Itaipu Dam) there were power cuts a few years ago during a drought. There can be other issues as well. The Aswan high dam stopped the silt travelling down the Nile. As a result the Nile Delta is shrinking.
Well done James. That data is going straight into my “rebuke the bastards” file.
Thanks! And good! The more we can get this stuff out, the soon we can start scrapping the pinwheels and suncatchers!
We in Britain beat you Americans at something. Onshore wind power attracts a subsidy of $64 per MWh. Offshore wind power is double that – $128.
That is before the extra bonuses to stop producing when the wind is strong, but the demand is low.
An example of how much this can generate. Off the North Devon coast is planned the world’s biggest offshore windfarm – with up to 1390MW capacity. If it achieves just 26% output, the subsidy will be $400m a year, paid for out of electricity bills.
Lol, to all the Brits out there, nicely done! 😀 Though I think we can claim the massively stupid title with our subsidies on solar….. 😦
Somehow, I really do not think we want to reclaim bragging rights on that UK Victory. 😉
Lol, no, but I think some of our people will try.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
SPANKING THE BIG LIE
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/22 « Free Northerner
NY State heavily subsidizes solar. But there is (or was, before the shale gas boom) a certain logic to this. NY State is not a great place to generate power: the only time you get a lot of solar power is in the early afternoon of high summer days. These also happen to be the hottest times of day, and the times of peak power demand for a/c. So, subsidizing expensive solar at that time is not as irrational as subsidizing wind power in the middle of the night, when there’s plenty of spare capacity in the system: through tax credits, NY provided itself with a swing producer that comes online at precisely the time needed.
The problem is, a lot of the subsidies came about when gas was over $10/mcf, when offsetting that spare capacity made sense. With gas cheap today, the solar subsidy is a loser. It does, however, make sense for a homeowner like me: my subsidized cost of solar power is about 8c/kWh. I pay about 20c/kWh with all charges included. Generating an average of 500 kWh monthly, I can expect to pay off my panels in 6 years (not great, but OK). Haven’t taken the leap yet, but I will.
Electric, welcome. I hope your comment didn’t wait in moderation too long. Now that you’ve commented, you don’t have to be stuck in moderation any longer just comment and it will appear.
Panels on individual homes makes some sense, to a degree. However, as we see in Germany, a wide adoption can cause some instability on the grid. 20c is way too expensive.
It is ironic that the attack on coal led to such nat gas exploration.
I think it’s actually 22c/kWh. We pay all these fees to subsidize solar, of course.
The point I was trying to make is that SOME subsidies can make sense. NY is well supplied with power, except on those REALLY hot summer days when the demand for A/C goes through the roof. Paying people to install what in essence became generators that would turn on only when the peak demand called for them was a good idea.
An intriguing interplay can also take place. If one gets time-of-day pricing, it is possible, in states like California, to generate via solar only 1/3rd of the power one uses, and yet pay nothing. Generate power at midday in the summer via solar when demand is high and get credit for 20 c/kWh. Use power at night, when it costs 1/3 to 1/4 that amount. Your net credits more than offset your usage. Whether this makes sense overall is a different matter.
The biggest problem, over all, is governmental interference with market processes. That includes environmental ones. Nothing would keep my power generation or usage cleaner than my suffering in court for the torts I would inflict upon others. We have had, for too long, subsidy of one group by another via the power of government. Take away those subsidies and you’ll see cleaner skies AND cheaper power.
Yes, you’re exactly right. The TOU (time of use) billing structure is an insipid invention, but in the scenarios you use, would benefit the individual. However, as you’ve apparently already reasoned, this can’t be widely adopted.
And, you’re right about govt. interference. I’m not sure about the cleaner skies. Most of the particulate from coal burning was removed in the 70s by environmental regs. What you see coming out of their stacks today is steam. CO2 is also released, but it is colorless. Nat gas burns pretty clean without govt. interference, and of course nuclear and hydro don’t really emit anything. Although you’d hear from the enviros that dams cause a methane release.
22c/kWh is ridiculous. Without the recent regs, coal would cost about 2c/kWh to generate, assuming close proximity to the coal. I would assume it would be about that for nat gas, today. Nuclear would run about 5c, and hydro less than all of the above. Add about 2-3cents for transport, and about 2c for distribution and that should be your cost.