“Federal subsidies to support renewable energy formed nearly half of all federal energy-related support between fiscal years 2016 and 2022. Traditional fuels (coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear) received just 15 percent of all subsidies between FY 2016 and FY 2022, while renewables, conservation and end use received a whopping 85 percent.” (Mary Hutzler, below)
A fallacious argument in the energy/climate debate is that wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels in electric generation. It must be wrong because government subsidies are front-and-center for on-grid dilute, intermittent energies. And it is wrong if the federal accounting is examined (below).
Actually, the relatively small subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal turn negative, dramatically, when the Biden Administration anti-fossil-fuel agenda is added, 225 actions worth.
Mary Hutzler of IER (and former acting head of the DOE’s Energy Information Agency) prepared this analysis less than a year ago for the Institute for Energy Research.…
“Our affection for Texas runs deep, but so does our concern over its grid. It’s time for a candid conversation about the state’s energy policies—one that acknowledges the true costs and challenges of a blindly pro-renewables approach and seeks solutions that ensure the resilience of the grid and the well-being of Texans.” (Doug Sheridan, below)
Texas is turning to government-aided natural gas to fix its broken political grid. Yes, wind and solar did that in one of the natural gas meccas of the world.
Doug Sheridan, a reliable voice on social media, posted this at LinkedIn:
It was big news last week that the Texas PUC received 125 applications for 56 GW of new gas-fired generation. The legislation behind the initiative—which appropriates $5B in state grants and loan guarantees to the plants—was intended to spur 10 GW of new gas-fired capacity on ERCOT.…
“This conference is not about free market reform; it is about centrally planned wholesale markets for electricity, as well as open-ended subsidies for wind, solar, and batteries, all at the expense of thermal generation and free-market order.”
The title says it all: Integrating Science and Law & Economics to Inform Energy Policy in a Decarbonized Future.” And the conference is loaded with electricity statists and ‘clean’ energy activists, all experts (as in expert failure and scientism), with plans to tweak/expand government planning in a failed, failing government system. In political terms, it is Biden’s “all of government” all the way.
The premise of the two-day conference is flawed. “Science” in the title suggests the scientific (physical and social) debate behind Net Zero/forced energy transformation. “Law & Economics” is a discipline that certainly questions the vague idea of “decarbonization.”…