Subsidies for Oil and Gas Nonexistant Compared to Wind and Solar

[LowDown]

Why does the government subsidize oil and gas production? Oil and gas gets a tiny amount of government funding, less than one one-thousandth of the funding that wind and solar gets relative to production. The effect is for the government to give these industries a small rebate on the billions of taxes they pay. What's the point?

The point is in part to control the industry, to encourage oil and gas producers to follow certain policies the government likes by offering them some money. This means mostly pro-environmental policies advocated by environmentalists, such as getting oil and gas companies to put R&D money into alternative energy ideas.

Wind and solar subsidies are different. Without them those industries could not exist. They would lose money for every watt-hour they sold to the grid.

A megawatt hour costs about $150 at the meter. Oil, coal and gas get about $0.62 in government subsidies per megawatt hour. Hydropower gets $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.28 and solar $775.64.

Some have said that subsidies on wind and solar were merely seed money, something to get the industry going until it could make it on its own. But it's pretty clear that "making it on its own" isn't even remotely in sight for these forms of energy production. Taxpayers are paying a lot of money over and beyond what they pay to utilities to have part of their energy produced in this way apparently as a form of religious atonement or something.

Doing if for religion actually makes more sense than the "scientific" rationale for it, which is to reduce carbon emissions. This is because it would mean that we are paying $35 billion a year over and above utility costs to reduce carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere by an amount that can't even be detected.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why does the government subsidize oil and gas production? Oil and gas gets a tiny amount of government funding, less than one one-thousandth of the funding that wind and solar gets relative to production. The effect is for the government to give these industries a small rebate on the billions of taxes they pay. What's the point?

The point is in part to control the industry, to encourage oil and gas producers to follow certain policies the government likes by offering them some money. This means mostly pro-environmental policies advocated by environmentalists, such as getting oil and gas companies to put R&D money into alternative energy ideas.

Wind and solar subsidies are different. Without them those industries could not exist. They would lose money for every watt-hour they sold to the grid.

A megawatt hour costs about $150 at the meter. Oil, coal and gas get about $0.62 in government subsidies per megawatt hour. Hydropower gets $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.28 and solar $775.64.

Some have said that subsidies on wind and solar were merely seed money, something to get the industry going until it could make it on its own. But it's pretty clear that "making it on its own" isn't even remotely in sight for these forms of energy production. Taxpayers are paying a lot of money over and beyond what they pay to utilities to have part of their energy produced in this way apparently as a form of religious atonement or something.

Doing if for religion actually makes more sense than the "scientific" rationale for it, which is to reduce carbon emissions. This is because it would mean that we are paying $35 billion a year over and above utility costs to reduce carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere by an amount that can't even be detected.

I somewhat agree with this. It is how the "public" money is spent that could make the difference. Subsidizing production of existing (admittedly substandard) technology is indeed foolish (basically hoping for an "accidental" discovery) yet funding basic research and trying to develop commercially viable advances in "alternate energy" technology are not in the same category. Much of the work is now on the demand side - tyring to make totally electic carts that are as good as the IC and or hybrid models now in use. That is all well and good iff we had a cleaner and cost efficient system of electirc energy producton/distribution first.

The question, IMHO, is which public investment in new discoveries will actually pay off (establishing priorities). I would rather see (more) public R&D support directed into curing/preventing cancer, heart disease, diabeties or alzheimer's than trying to invent a better windmill, algae pond or solar tower design. We have always had compteting interests, those that want to make the most money from current technology and those that want to replace (upgrade?) it with some "better" alternative. This is definitely true in medicine - you can make much, much more money managing symptoms (selling pills forever) than in comming up with an actual cure for a given disease. With energy that is less true since we want energy use to continue, we simply want a cleaner and more cost efficient way of generating it, thus there is commercial interest in finding that alternative.

 

[KLATTU]

I can't read that articles but I was under the impression that the oil and gas industries got NO subsidies, if yo define subsidy as an actual paymrnt from the Government.

 

[rocket88]

Why does the government subsidize oil and gas production? Oil and gas gets a tiny amount of government funding, less than one one-thousandth of the funding that wind and solar gets relative to production. The effect is for the government to give these industries a small rebate on the billions of taxes they pay. What's the point?

The point is in part to control the industry, to encourage oil and gas producers to follow certain policies the government likes by offering them some money. This means mostly pro-environmental policies advocated by environmentalists, such as getting oil and gas companies to put R&D money into alternative energy ideas.

Wind and solar subsidies are different. Without them those industries could not exist. They would lose money for every watt-hour they sold to the grid.

A megawatt hour costs about $150 at the meter. Oil, coal and gas get about $0.62 in government subsidies per megawatt hour. Hydropower gets $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.28 and solar $775.64.

Some have said that subsidies on wind and solar were merely seed money, something to get the industry going until it could make it on its own. But it's pretty clear that "making it on its own" isn't even remotely in sight for these forms of energy production. Taxpayers are paying a lot of money over and beyond what they pay to utilities to have part of their energy produced in this way apparently as a form of religious atonement or something.

Doing if for religion actually makes more sense than the "scientific" rationale for it, which is to reduce carbon emissions. This is because it would mean that we are paying $35 billion a year over and above utility costs to reduce carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere by an amount that can't even be detected.

I think what you've said is somewhat correct. Solar and wind need more attention and subsidies if we ever hope to develop those technologies. Oil and gas do not. Oil companies are highly unlikely to put much into alternative energies because they have a vested interest (profit) in the status quo.

Someday, no matter when you want to put the date, there will be no more oil. When we're down to squeezing the last few drops, violence will erupt worldwide if there's no source to take its place. Do you want to have to shoot someone for that last gallon of gas? Without the new technologies, that will happen, I guarantee you that.

 

[Fisher]

I think what you've said is somewhat correct. Solar and wind need more attention and subsidies if we ever hope to develop those technologies. Oil and gas do not. Oil companies are highly unlikely to put much into alternative energies because they have a vested interest (profit) in the status quo.

Someday, no matter when you want to put the date, there will be no more oil. When we're down to squeezing the last few drops, violence will erupt worldwide if there's no source to take its place. Do you want to have to shoot someone for that last gallon of gas? Without the new technologies, that will happen, I guarantee you that.

Fear monger much? We already have the technology--we just don't deploy it. Wind was used for power before oil. The same nuclear power reactors that move our carriers can move supply ships; the same moonshine people drink can be used to run engines. It is just a matter of having the will to do it, and to shed the yoke of big corporations that dictate technology by limiting our options to that which they currently provide because it is the most profitable. The government isn't trying to give people a way to provide any of these things for themselves because the people who pay for their campaign don't want you off the grid or not using their products. The government is only interested in large-scale commercial applications that can be taxed and pool money to the politicians. As they run out of money to exert influence, other technologies will break out.

 

[longview]

I think what you've said is somewhat correct. Solar and wind need more attention and subsidies if we ever hope to develop those technologies. Oil and gas do not. Oil companies are highly unlikely to put much into alternative energies because they have a vested interest (profit) in the status quo.

Someday, no matter when you want to put the date, there will be no more oil. When we're down to squeezing the last few drops, violence will erupt worldwide if there's no source to take its place. Do you want to have to shoot someone for that last gallon of gas? Without the new technologies, that will happen, I guarantee you that.

Oil and gas companies do have a vested interest in alternative energies, as they are energy companies.
The processes that create inorganic hydrocarbons, have a far greater chance of being scaled up
to produce sustainable energy, than the current crop of wind and solar.
The oil companies already have the expertise to move these technologies forward.
The main problem with electricity, is it's lack of storage, each KW generated, must be
used within a few milliseconds, or it is wasted.
Storing electricity as hydrocarbons is a viable path forward.
Without a high density, portable energy supply, 4 out 5 people alive would die of starvation.
This may sound ugly, but we are not yet ready to ween our selves off hydrocarbons.
The good news is that we can make our own.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

 

[LowDown]

I think what you've said is somewhat correct. Solar and wind need more attention and subsidies if we ever hope to develop those technologies. Oil and gas do not. Oil companies are highly unlikely to put much into alternative energies because they have a vested interest (profit) in the status quo.

Someday, no matter when you want to put the date, there will be no more oil. When we're down to squeezing the last few drops, violence will erupt worldwide if there's no source to take its place. Do you want to have to shoot someone for that last gallon of gas? Without the new technologies, that will happen, I guarantee you that.

We've got the technologies. The only question is how much we have to pay for energy. If we have to pay retail for wind energy without subsidies, for example, it's not going to leave us much in the way of a standard of living. The third world household where they can only afford to power one light bulb and play a radio for a few hours a day comes to mind.

In addition, there is no substitute for the energy required for things like hauling freight and plowing/harvesting/irrigating for agriculture. To move away from carbon fuels in those areas is to move to an earth that would not be able to support anything like the current human population. Hopefully, the transition would be very gradual so that people have time to adjust.

A form of renewable energy that is portable, dense, stable, safe and cheap is going to be necessary if we are going to continue to live in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Ethanol and methanol are as close to that goal as we've gotten.

 

[uncleray]

Not sure if comparing subsidies relative to production is a fair measure
due to the large differences in the scale of production.
Oil/gas is old and established and solar is new and not much of a track record yet.
Two quick points:
One, Oil/gas is still a finite resource. Do they REALLY need subsidies anymore?
Two, Solar is renewable and the price is dropping
Solar Power's Massive Price Drop (Graph) | CleanTechnica
Shouldn't that be our focus?
However, I would like to see some sort of sunset law, (sorry for the pun) so that
we're not stuck with a solar-subsidy.

 

[KLATTU]

.
Oil/gas is old and established and solar is new and not much of a track record yet.
Two quick points:
One, Oil/gas is still a finite resource. Do they REALLY need subsidies anymore?
.

Even though oil and gas are old, the methods to getting at the various forms thay take( fracking/shale) are not.

Liberals are tilting at inefficient windmills if they think any politician ever is going to purposely raise energy prices .
Especially since those cost increseases hit the poorest people the hardest.
And oil and gas companies recieve minimal tax breaks, beyond what all corporatiions get

 

[mbig]

Not sure if comparing subsidies relative to production is a fair measure
due to the large differences in the scale of production.
Oil/gas is old and established and solar is new and not much of a track record yet.
Two quick points:
One, Oil/gas is still a finite resource. Do they REALLY need subsidies anymore?
Two, Solar is renewable and the price is dropping
Solar Power's Massive Price Drop (Graph) | CleanTechnica
Shouldn't that be our focus?
However, I would like to see some sort of sunset law, (sorry for the pun) so that
we're not stuck with a solar-subsidy.

Wind and Solar, besides mostly old hydro, do disproportionately more Public good - No emissions, little cost after - and should get disproportionately more Public money IMO.
Much of it TO Make them more efficient.

On your point of old/new using newer but similar numbers:
PolitiFact Georgia | Energy subsidies claim needs more context
7/30/13

"...According to these numbers, solar energy’s subsidy was nearly 157 times greater than coal. Wind was 116 times greater than oil and gas. Nuclear was six times greater than oil and gas. "This data illustrates the disproportionate amount of federal subsidies renewables are receiving compared to other energy resources," Southern Co. spokesman Tim Leljedal said. Leljedal added: "While we are continuing to expand our renewable energy resources in a manner that makes sense for customers, we recognize that the subsidization of wind and solar at current levels is not sustainable."

Elias Hinckley, an attorney who teaches energy policy at Georgetown University and has done work for Georgia Power, believes Fanning’s claim needs considerable context. Hinckley said comparing the support for newer energy resources such as solar and wind with coal and gas is akin to measuring the popularity of Coca-Cola in Atlanta against Pepsi.

"Comparing young technologies to old, established, regulatory-protected assets is Silly if you're working on a unit of energy used basis -- the point of subsidies is (or at least should be) to create a fair playing field where an unnatural advantage exists," said Hinckley, a partner at Sullivan & Worcester LLP, based in Washington.

Hinckley added: "Coal, for example, has had the benefit of free emissions for a century (longer if we go beyond electric production to thermal/steam use), which has never been, and can't on a retroactive basis, be properly priced."

Mark Thurber, an author and scholar on the economics of energy, agreed that wind and solar receive more in government subsidies. But Thurber, an associate director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, questioned the validity of such comparisons for some of the Same reasons mentioned by Hinckley.

We followed up with Southern Co. concerning the criticism. We also wondered whether Fanning’s comparison is fair since the federal government boosted subsidies for renewable energies in the 2009 economic stimulus package. Leljedal noted that no one disputes subsidies for renewable energies are higher than other forms of energy. Leljedal added: "While the amount of subsidies can vary from year to year, that fact remains that subsidies are required to make renewable energy cost-competitive with other generation resources."

To sum up, Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning claimed government subsidies for renewable energies such as wind and solar are 100 times greater than they are for older forms of energy such as coal and oil, and 50 times greater for nuclear energy. One chart backs up Fanning’s claim on solar and wind, but not nuclear. Another report does not. Some experts noted that renewable forms of energy haven’t been developed as long as others and need the help. Coal and natural gas have been receiving subsidies for far longer than solar energy, wind and nuclear energy, which is an important point.

Fanning’s general point that renewable energies are getting substantially greater financial support from Uncle Sam at this point in time is on target. But the specific numbers he used aren’t entirely correct, and his claim needs some context to be fully understood."
Our rating: Half True.

 

[gslack]

IMHO, ANY subsidies to energy providing/generating businesses is a bad idea, and refelcts a bigger problem that the government or companies are trying to avoid facing.. Cost for service. Any such endeavor will inevitably lead to more and more subsidies to offset continued rising costs. As strong as coal and oil are, and they are still subsidized, should tell us that it is a never ending cycle..

It's a BS scam perpetrated by energy companies, and their bought and paid for government officials whom we elect. We haven't learned from it, and elected officials need ever more money to get TV time so they can be re-elected, so the cycle continues and now it's spreading into other areas as well... Now Obama care plans to do the same thing for health care.. It's insane to think that it will lead to anything but abuse of the system.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

IMHO, ANY subsidies to energy providing/generating businesses is a bad idea, and refelcts a bigger problem that the government or companies are trying to avoid facing.. Cost for service. Any such endeavor will inevitably lead to more and more subsidies to offset continued rising costs. As strong as coal and oil are, and they are still subsidized, should tell us that it is a never ending cycle..

It's a BS scam perpetrated by energy companies, and their bought and paid for government officials whom we elect. We haven't learned from it, and elected officials need ever more money to get TV time so they can be re-elected, so the cycle continues and now it's spreading into other areas as well... Now Obama care plans to do the same thing for health care.. It's insane to think that it will lead to anything but abuse of the system.

I have no problem with gov grants to universities to work on alternative energy but these subsidies to prop up failing business enterprises are a huge waste of tax dollars and tend to be nothing more than political payoff.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have no problem with gov grants to universities to work on alternative energy but these huge subsidies to prop up failing business enterprises are a huge waste of tax dollars and tend to be nothing more than political payoff.

I agree. Supporting those trying to invent a better mouse trap is different than trying to prop up production of a design known to be commercially non-viable.

 

[longview]

I agree. Supporting those trying to invent a better mouse trap is different than trying to prop up production of a design known to be commercially non-viable.

You guys don't get it, liberal think is that the outcomes doesn't matter,
just how good you felt when you spent the other peoples money.:mrgreen:

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Why does the government subsidize oil and gas production? Oil and gas gets a tiny amount of government funding, less than one one-thousandth of the funding that wind and solar gets relative to production. The effect is for the government to give these industries a small rebate on the billions of taxes they pay. What's the point?

The point is in part to control the industry, to encourage oil and gas producers to follow certain policies the government likes by offering them some money. This means mostly pro-environmental policies advocated by environmentalists, such as getting oil and gas companies to put R&D money into alternative energy ideas.

Wind and solar subsidies are different. Without them those industries could not exist. They would lose money for every watt-hour they sold to the grid.

A megawatt hour costs about $150 at the meter. Oil, coal and gas get about $0.62 in government subsidies per megawatt hour. Hydropower gets $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.28 and solar $775.64.

Some have said that subsidies on wind and solar were merely seed money, something to get the industry going until it could make it on its own. But it's pretty clear that "making it on its own" isn't even remotely in sight for these forms of energy production. Taxpayers are paying a lot of money over and beyond what they pay to utilities to have part of their energy produced in this way apparently as a form of religious atonement or something.

Doing if for religion actually makes more sense than the "scientific" rationale for it, which is to reduce carbon emissions. This is because it would mean that we are paying $35 billion a year over and above utility costs to reduce carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere by an amount that can't even be detected.

You are speaking truth again, I thought I told you about doing that with the liberal crazies....... :caution:

 

[ttwtt78640]

You guys don't get it, liberal think is that the outcomes doesn't matter,
just how good you felt when you spent the other peoples money.:mrgreen:

That is not limitted to liberals, by any meams - one only need look at border security, the FIT code, education (not even a federal power under the constitution), immigration law enforcemnt, the national/deficit debt "ceiling", direct federal income redistribution progrms, or the "war on drugs" to see massive federal policy failures from both parties. The huge federal nanny state is a bipartisan creation.

 

[Threegoofs]

The subsidies oil companies get are largely in the form of tax credits and tax breaks, some unique to the energy industry, and all developed by oil lobbyists and generous campaign contributions (AKA The American Way).

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-oil-industry-tax-breaks-20110512

 

[KLATTU]

The subsidies oil companies get are largely in the form of tax credits and tax breaks, some unique to the energy industry, and all developed by oil lobbyists and generous campaign contributions (AKA The American Way).

NationalJournal.com - Breaking It Down: Oil-Industry Tax Breaks - Wednesday, May 29, 2013

So I was right. They don't get any cash subsidies and they get minimal unique tax breaks.

 

[Threegoofs]

So I was right. They don't get any cash subsidies and they get minimal unique tax breaks.

If you consider billions 'minimal', I guess you are right. Brilliant analysis, as usual.

 

[KLATTU]

If you consider billions 'minimal', I guess you are right. Brilliant analysis, as usual.

In the context of the federal budget, yes, billions are minimal. But most of the tax breaks pigiignoramt liberals wail about are given to all corporations. The only one that applies specifically to oil companies doesn't even add up to a billion.
Big Oil's $4B tax break in doubt as Obama, Boehner tangle - Apr. 26, 2011

Intangible drilling costs: This lets the industry write off about $780 million a year for things like wages, fuel, repairs and hauling costs.

All industries get to write off the costs of doing business, but they must take it over the life of an investment. The oil industry gets to take the drilling credit in the first yea

780 million? PFFFFFF,The Obama's probably went through that much this week on theire vacation.