Hugh subsidies are lavished on wind and solar energy in a newly enacted Federal bill. More pork for crony capitalism. More high-priced electricity for the customers.
The proponents of wind and solar energy say that subsides for fossil fuels and nuclear are bigger than those for these so-called renewable energy systems. Forbes posted “Why is solar energy getting 250 times more in Federal tax credits than nuclear “by Robert Bryce. Bryce’s posting shows that this is not the case.
“According to a December 21 estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the extension of the solar sector’s investment tax credit (ITC) will cost the American treasury another $7 billion between now and 2030. (The ITC may also be used for offshore wind projects.) The extension of the wind industry’s production tax credit (PTC) — which like the ITC was supposed to be phased out — will cost another $1.7 billion. Those billions will be added to the $27 billion in ITC credits that were already designated for the solar sector and $34 billion in PTC that will be collected by Big Wind between now and 2029. (Those last two numbers are from the Treasury Department.) “
“Given the tens of billions of dollars that are being lavished on solar, wind, and other politically popular energy programs — tax credits for fuel cells, carbon capture and sequestration, and “two-wheeled plug-in electric vehicles” also got extensions in the budget bill — I decided to seek an answer to a simple question: which energy technology gets the most in federal tax incentives? “
“The answer, by two country miles, is solar energy.
In 2018, the American solar industry got roughly 250 times as much in federal tax incentives as the nuclear sector, when compared by the amount of energy produced. Coming in a close second is the wind sector, which got about 160 times as much as nuclear. “
EJ = Exajoule An exajoule is a measure of energy. Exa is 10 to the 18th power. An exajoule is equal to 277.8 terawatt-hours
“In 2018, as shown in the graphic, America’s nuclear sector received about $13.1 million in tax incentives per EJ while the solar sector soaked up $3.3 billion per EJ – or 253 times the amount given to nuclear. The wind sector got $2 billion per EJ, or about 158 times as much as nuclear.
Congress is allocating yet more money for solar and wind even though America’s nuclear sector is producing about twice as much carbon-free electricity every year as wind and solar, combined. Despite its importance to America’s climate goals, the nuclear sector is foundering. Numerous reactors have closed over the past few years and more will be shuttered in the months and years ahead. In New York, the Unit Three reactor at Indian Point will be shuttered in April. In Illinois, Exelon EXC -1% is planning to shutter two nuclear plants. In California, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is slated for closure in 2025.”
I recommend that you read Bryce’s full posting by clicking this link.
I am agnostic about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in climate change. Theoretically it is a player but the positive feedback that is claimed for it, looks to be exaggerated. Especially when nature’s negative feedbacks are ignored. Moreover, nuclear energy appeals to me in that it satisfies my desire to have something that can be reliably making electricity for a long, long time into the future. It will extend the availability of fossil fuels to make valuable products, not just heat—perhaps the Earth will make natural gas and oil at an equilibrium with the fossil fuels withdrawal. Who knows?
One would think that the Greens would welcome nuclear energy based upon their crusade to eliminate man-made CO2 emissions. But they don’t. And they say that their programs are science based?
Sorry I had started writing CD.
When you wrote: “I am agnostic about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in climate change. Theoretically it is a player but the positive feedback that is claimed for it, looks to be exaggerated.” I began to question if you had read: The Greenhouse Effect OF Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is proven to be an absolutely wrong idea by the observed fact that the atmospheric temperature has never been measured to be less than its dew point temperature measured at the same place and time. Hence the atmospheric temperature can never the less than the measured. So the atmospheric temperature can never be 33C less than that which is measured for any reason.
Hence, atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can not have any influence upon global warming and climate change. Do you agree?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry I will read it (again, I think). I have read essays from both “yes it is a green house gas and no it is not” sides. So many experts, so many differing opinions.
That is why I am agnostic. For example, I read postings on Science and Environmental Policy Project. Happer and van Wijngaarden stuff and McKitrick, and many others. Clearly skeptics.
Can you ABSOLUTELY prove them to be wrong? And why are they so misled? Do you think they have not read the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide or similar essays?
Well thanks for your comment.