11-27-2012, 11:15 AM
My point (to the extent that it matters) is that solar/wind have to be subsidized to be competitive against all the existing subsidies -- these are often written as indecipherable "tax code", but no energy sources are "priced" to match their real "cost".
Oil and gas companies get massive tax breaks. Coal gets a "free pass" on pollution. Solar panels, too: global "free trade" means someone else can suffer the byproducts of manufacture. Geothermal facilties don't have to "buy" the land (and I somehow doubt they pay "property taxes") because they get magical leases from the state. Wind farms seem to be mostly on private property; I suspect these aren't so much about "energy" as they are about "greenwashing the power monopoly".
It's interesting that the "non-ACC" costs mentioned above are higher than the retail price of electricity in some markets; perhaps the solar subsidies are more meaningful there.
Oil and gas companies get massive tax breaks. Coal gets a "free pass" on pollution. Solar panels, too: global "free trade" means someone else can suffer the byproducts of manufacture. Geothermal facilties don't have to "buy" the land (and I somehow doubt they pay "property taxes") because they get magical leases from the state. Wind farms seem to be mostly on private property; I suspect these aren't so much about "energy" as they are about "greenwashing the power monopoly".
It's interesting that the "non-ACC" costs mentioned above are higher than the retail price of electricity in some markets; perhaps the solar subsidies are more meaningful there.