Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10555Re: Energy subsidies

Expand Messages
  • SusanD
    Apr 8, 2011
      Yes, and usually the subsidies we see and can calculate are just the direct hand-out amounts and don't even consider externalized expenses such as military dollars spent to protect the industries, especially in foreign countries.

      I know that in the case of nuclear energy, which I am more familiar with than some of the others, they have successfully externalized their waste storage and security back onto the government via lawsuits and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and have very little fiscal responsibility in case of accident here via the Price-Anderson Act. CNN Money did a great video about this aspect:

      http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/the-possible-cost-of-an-u-s-nuclear-disaster/

      This reduces their overhead since they require virtually no liability coverage and causes their operating cost to have yet another unfair advantage over more standard business models and their necessary expenses. I'm sure other, older industry has taken advantage of similar resources.

      I think that anytime you have newer and cleaner power industries having to compete with old, mature industry, the old industry--outright subsidies or not--have such financial advantage because they simply benefit from what one of the earlier posters called something like the revolving door between industry and government. In each case, they have had decades to draft legislation to protect their interests, lower their corporate expense at a price to the tax-payer and milk more and more services out of the government at all levels.

      I wish there was some data as to the REAL cost per unit of energy produced, with all the externalized costs added back in.

      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <public@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have not heard this argument before. Could you explain?
      >
      >
      > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Bill or Dorothy Swann <dbswann4@> wrote:
      > >
      > > The dollars in subsidies need to reflect pounds of carbon emitted. Annual
      > > 42,600,000,000,000 #'s for ancient stored solar energy.
      > >
      > > Thanks,Bill S
      > > Ph 832-338-3080
      > > www.watt-tracker.com
      > > www.promotingevs.com
      > > www.hstech.biz
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@>
      > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 12:26:13 PM
      > > Subject: RE: [hreg] Energy subsidies
      > >
      > >
      > > Kevin:
      > >
      > > Great statistics. I assume that the $312 Billion is an annual figure spent on
      > > oil and gas subsidies worldwide. I wonder what they mean by “consumption
      > > subsidies?” That term makes me think the number for total subsidies for oil and
      > > gas is much larger. Few offer the full details on these figures.
      > >
      > >
      > > Tyra
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > >
      > > From:hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kevin
      > > conlin
      > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:38 AM
      > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [hreg] Energy subsidies
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > This came across my screen this morning....
      > >
      > > --Although fossil fuels are mature and renewables currently cost more,
      > > fossil fuels still gobble up the lion's share of subsidies. The fossil
      > > industry worldwide benefits from $312 billion in consumption subsidies.
      > > Renewables only get $57 billion. (Note: This sort of stat will make fossil
      > > advocates switch from arguing that 'subsidies are wrong' to 'larger
      > > subsidies to larger industries make sense.')
      > >
      > > Heliosolar Design, Inc.
      > > Kevin Conlin
      > > PH: 281-202-9629
      > > kevin@
      > >
      >
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic