G20 nations are providing $US88 billion a year in subsidies just for fossil fuel

Oil and coal need to be subsidized to compete with renewable energy:

And the subsidies are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power. And they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious climate deal in 2015. But these subsidies – for finding new reserves of oil, gas, and coal – are just a fraction of the subsidies paid for fossil fuels production and use, which totalled $US775 billion in 2012, compared to just $US101 billon in subsidies for renewable energy in 2013. This is despite the fact that renewable energy subsidies created $2.50 of investment for every dollar in subsidy, compared to just $1.30 in investment for every $1 in fossil fuel subsidies, underlying how reliant fossil fuels are on state and other subsidies.

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

And yet oil and coal energy are cheaper to the public than solar.

There must be something else in play.

a reply to: xuenchen

OK so you posted your opinion,

do you have any proof that you can cite to back it up?

a reply to: AlaskanDad

It's true , Where i am in Canada our rates just went up and they used the excuse that the rates are going up because of the investment/reliance on wind/solar energy.

This may have some bearing on what is going on or is a way to weaken investments into fossil fuels until it can be picked up for pennies on the dollar .

The heirs to the fabled Rockefeller oil fortune withdrew their funds from fossil fuel investments on Monday, lending a symbolic boost to a $50bn divestment campaign ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change.

The former vice-president, Al Gore, will present the divestment commitments to world leaders, making the case that investments in oil and coal have an uncertain future.

With Monday’s announcement, more than 800 global investors – including foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers, religious groups, healthcare organisations, cities and universities – have pledged to withdraw a total of $50bn from fossil fuel investments over the next five years.

www.theguardian.com... a reply to: AlaskanDad

Well, I do agree we need to think about solar and wind an hydroelectric, but this needs to be reasonable. In northern Europe some of these things are not really reliable. The ice can cause problems with weight on the props of wind turbines, the ice and snow can cause a reduction in hydroelectric during the winter and cause extra costs, and solar is hard with snow and less sun.

I agree we need to utilize these three, but I also know that we cannot totally be dependent on them.

As far as subsidizing coal, coal is not really that expensive compared to some other options and these plants are usually pretty reliable. I also do not understand why the coal needs to be subsidized, that does not seem necessary. I think that we need to examine our electrical waste and not replacing light bulbs in northern hemisphere homes where the wasted heat actually helps to heat the house. Now in the south, this is a viable option, they don't have the eighteen hour days in the summer time.

I think the biggest waste is air conditioning. People keep their homes cool all day when they are gone. Plant some trees around the home to help to cool the house instead.

subsidized my left toe

Have you seen how much tax they put on it and we can see that OPEC can do what ever they want with the price when told too just to upset Russia but it seems like the plan did not work and prices will soon go back up.

They need to start putting even more stuff in the drinking water or else they will be stopped using force from doing more fracking me thinks.

Drink your cool-aid and none of this will matter.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: xuenchen

OK so you posted your opinion,

do you have any proof that you can cite to back it up?

The proof would be by default.

Somebody can show the cost per kilowatt with solar is cheaper?

The free energy myth is a scam......there is no free energy.....
All the alternatives are not cost effective......
Try running your chain saw in batteries and see how many trees you can cut........its not happening baby....just not happening...

originally posted by: stirling
The free energy myth is a scam......there is no free energy.....
All the alternatives are not cost effective......
Try running your chain saw in batteries and see how many trees you can cut........its not happening baby....just not happening...

How many trees do you NEED to cut?? And there's such a thing as muscle power, which worked great before batteries were invented. Grow hemp and bamboo and you won't need to cut trees.

How about underground or otherwise shielded houses, superinsulation, locating in an area not known for severe weather, fresnel lenses combined with small turbines and battery backup, sensible house sizes (sorry, House Beautiful and craven developers everywhere)... I could go on and on, but 'codes' get in the way. All designed to keep you paying through the nose.

Watch the Garbage Warrior movie and find out what happens when all-too-uncommon sense meets the Code Nazis. Wanna go off grid? Too bad, pay fines, get evicted.

Renewable energy is by definition a necessity going into the future. We can easily power the globe for eternity with wind, solar, tidal, and especially geothermal energy.

It just requires investment in the common good. Sadly we only engage in investment for the good of the corporate bottom line. I wonder when people will wake up to the fact that investing in the common good is necessary.

The cost of renewable energy is dropping:

German electricity consumers will for the first time see a drop in the fee added to their bills to fund renewables, a boost for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has pledged to curb the cost for voters. Germany’s four grid companies set the EEG Umlage charge paid through power bills at 6.17 euro cents (7.8 U.S. cents) a kilowatt-hour next year, down from 6.24 euro cents now, according to a joint statement. The fee has risen more than fivefold since 2009, helping make household power bills the second-highest in the European Union.

source


Installed Solar Power Prices Continue To Drop In US, Still Much More Expensive Than In Germany

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has released its latest "Tracking the Sun" report, Tracking the Sun VII. The analysis uses data from 300,000 residential, commercial, and utility-scale solar installations to examine the installed price of solar across the US. The installations surveyed cover 80% of the grid capacity of US solar PV installations through 2013. The key finding of the report is as follows: "Installed prices continued their precipitous decline in 2013, falling year-over-year by $0.7/W, or 12-15% depending on system size range. Among projects installed in 2013, median installed prices were $4.7/W for systems ≤10 kW, $4.3/W for systems 10-100 kW, and $3.9/W for systems >100 kW."

source

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Hopefully it keeps dropping. We should have been building up renewable energy for decades by now. The high cost excuse is incredibly weak.