From Wikipedia:

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[5] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels.[6] History shows that no energy sector was developed without subsidies.

 

-----signature-----

The specific operations we're are subsidizing aren't economically viable. That is precisely why we subsidize them.

Why did you think we did it?




How is paying companies to produce bad technology going to build anything? Wouldn't we be better off if we saved our money and waited for them to come up with good technology and then spent our money on that? Money we spend today on bad technology is money we can't spend tomorrow when the good stuff comes along.




They're not subsidized to lower the price. They're subsidized to keep Americans in jobs that would otherwise disappear. The subsidies don't lower the price.

 

-----signature-----

What’s more impressive is the idea stemmed out of a theory by 13-year-old Adiean Dywer who previously hypothesized that a design based on trees would produce more energy. While Dywer did not succeed in his personal experiment, this hunch proved to be useful with a more careful measurement and data calculations by the MIT team. Ah, another example of technology inspired by nature.

 

-----signature-----

The cost of energy is tied to the world market. Subsidies have little effect other than helping companies remain profitable. They won't dramatically change prices, but will result in shut down parts of the these companies.

I say bring it on. Stop subsidizing old technology and start subsidizing new. There should be no net change in jobs if you subscribe to the theory that for ever so many thousand dollars = 1 job.

 

-----signature-----

Actually not how the evolution of tech like this works.. . It evolves if you spend money on it, it's something we actually need so it's more or less in the governments interest to help it evolve much like governments helped things like the steam engine and internet along because the state saw the usefulness of trains and the internet. This is much the same thing.

 

-----signature-----

1) I thought it was because oil and gas have a huge lobbying effort. *shrug* After all, they have to keep making those record profits. Interesting, then, that the profits they earn in just one year are more than enough to pay for what you, the taxpayer, are still subsidizing. Just one oil and gas company earns over $40 billion in profit - how is anything they do not economically viable?

2) Solar isn't bad technology. You keep saying it, but won't make it true. The sun gives us more than enough power on a daily basis to run everything. For free. Why would you dig into the ground to get something that falls on us every day, and doesn't require us to destroy the biosphere in the process?

3) If you are willing to pay the subsidies, why not switch it to the future technology, now that the existing one can stand on it's own? You might actually create new jobs, while the oil and gas companies might actually have to innovate, rather than living off your dime.

 

-----signature-----

He's using a lovely bit of circular logic here.

It's bad tech because it is subsidized (despite the fact that oil and gas are also subsidized...).
It's subsidized because it's bad tech (with only outdated information and personal opinion to back it up).

You'll never get anywhere arguing with him, because he'll individually refute your points with these two circular logic bits, over and over, without ever bringing relevant new data to the table.

 

-----signature-----

some friends of my parents have an entirely energy independent home from solar alone. they arent even connected to the grid. cost them about $15K to set up though.

 

-----signature-----

Here's a new TED talk on battery technologies, involving liquid metal batteries. They've created scalable batteries, with the intention of getting up to 2 MWh of storage capacity.

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

 

-----signature-----

Actually it evolves faster if you refuse to pay for crappy stuff but promise to pay for good stuff if they can invent it.




Ah, you're talking about funding research and development. That is definitely not the same thing as buying a bunch of products that aren't economically viable.

I'm okay with the government funding vital research and development so long as the government holds any patents produced.

 

-----signature-----