Featured Blog Posts All Blog Posts
 

What We Really Need From Congress

By Dana Blankenhorn
December 10, 2010   |   13 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

13 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 13
awb
December 10, 2010
You know, if renewables would just have the same lobbying dollars as Big Fossil and Utility, everything else would sort itself out pretty quickly. And pigs would fly.
No image available
Comment
2 of 13
Anonymous
December 11, 2010
The author writes:
"Most of the "subsidies" given to the fossil fuel industries are buried deep within the tax code, and have been there for decades. Companies have learned to rely on them in their long-term planning, and most of their planning is long-term.
In size they dwarf anything even contemplated in the renewable space."

Well, subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are only on the order of $10 Billion/year. Does this really dwarf anything even contemplated? I very much doubt it. We should also remember that renewables received considerable funding that is directed by government but funded by ratepayers--this type of funding does not appear in the usual tabulations of renewable subsidies, but it should. And then there are set asides such as RPS requirements that have huge value to the industry. Consider the CA requirement for 33% renewables (not counting large hydro!) by 2020--the fair market value of this type of government support greatly exceeds the few paltry dollars given to the fossil fuel industry.

After one considers state and local support, ratepayer mandated funding and the value of set asides, renewables receive much more than the fossil fuel industry in absolute terms. Once one evaluates this support on a per unit of energy basis the advantage for renewables is overwhelming.

Arguing for additional support is reasonable, as is asking for long-range consistency, but claiming that the fossil fuel industry receives much more just isn't true. Why clutter up a pitch for funding with inaccurate whining?

Steven
Comment
3 of 13
December 13, 2010
The idea that subsidies to fossil fuel industries amount to $10 billion/year is as insane as it is laughable. http://www.gizmag.com/government-subsidies-fossil-fuels-renewables-biofuels/15907/ Tax breaks alone amount to nearly $10 billion/year. http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

And do we have to talk about the wars we fight for access to oil and gas reserves? No wars have been fought for access to the Sun, the wind, or the heat beneath our feet. We should beat our swords into plowshares and put our money on harvesting these things.
No image available
Comment
4 of 13
Anonymous
December 13, 2010
Regarding Dana's comment #3:

1) It is nonsense to equate the war with energy costs. For instance, we are in Afghanistan to prevent it from serving as a terrorist haven and that country has negligible oil and gas resources.

3) Here is a review article citing many surveys of fossil fuel subsides (of varying quality):
D. Koplow and J. Dernbach, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26 (2001) 361.

Or, for a reasonable upper bound on fossil fuel subsidies in the US we could look at the study by the environmental law institute (http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm), which I consider a biased survey that includes lots of things as subsides to the fossil fuel industry which it shouldn't. Even if we accept their inflated totals of 72 Billion over a 7 year period we still get a figure of ~$10 Billion per year. Once you eliminate the figures for the strategic petroleum reserve and funds to assist poor people in heating their homes you get about $8 Billion per year. I could quibble with quite a lot of what of other stuff they include (and neglect on the renewable side of the ledger), but even if you count ALL of their items you get only ~$10 Billion per year for US subsides to the fossil fuel industry.

I also point out that nearly all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry come in the form of federal tax breaks.

If one considers Federal and state subsidies, mandated funding billed to ratepayers, and the market value of RPS and other set asides, the renewable industry is already do ing MUCH better than $10 Billion/year.

It is at best disingenuous to be suggesting that the fossil fuel industry is receiving greater support than the renewables industry.
Steven
Comment
5 of 13
December 13, 2010
Yes, anonymous, if we take everything out of the equation, then fossil fuel subsidies can be considered as negligible. That war in Iraq had nothing to do with oil. The fact that Afghanistan is a great alternative for a pipeline from Central Asia means nothing. (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.)

I think you're a good example of the political fight that lies ahead. It doesn't matter to you what supporters of renewable energy argue. Whether it's climate change, national security, or economic growth. There will be counter-arguments by those who benefit from the present system and want those benefits to keep flowing.

But our economic rivals aren't listening to you. They're going ahead. They're growing. And if we don't get our incentives geared to growth and not stagnation, our positions could easily be reversed.

That's what I'm arguing for, our nation's self-interest and my childrens' economic future. What alternative do you offer, but reliance on what the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela produce for us (even if we produce it as well).
No image available
Comment
6 of 13
Anonymous
December 13, 2010
Dana writes in comment #5:
"The fact that Afghanistan is a great alternative for a pipeline from Central Asia means nothing."

The notion that we have military forces in Afghanistan because it might make a good location for a pipeline is a conspiracy theory of insane proportions. (I note that after 9 years no pipeline is under construction--the idea that we would invade a country to secure a pipeline AND not have a single second on construction on it within a 9 year span is insulting.) Perhaps Dana was asleep since 9/11/2001.

Dana also writes: "I think you're a good example of the political fight that lies ahead. It doesn't matter to you what supporters of renewable energy argue..."

This is flawed reasoning. Merely because I have the temerity to question your inaccurate claims regarding subsidy data does not imply that I oppose any specific renewable energy goal.

Dana also writes: "That's what I'm arguing for, our nation's self-interest and my childrens' economic future."

I suggest that instead of making irrational tirades about wars being equivalent to subsidies to fossil fuel companies and making spurious comparisons between renewable and fossil fuel subsidies you present a positive proposal involving the benefits of the program you hope the public will finance. It is hard to convince people to support even reasonable plans when employing flimflam.

continued...
No image available
Comment
7 of 13
Anonymous
December 13, 2010
continued from comment #6:

Finally, Dana writes: "What alternative do you offer, but reliance on what the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela produce..."

Well, I would like to see greater funding for renewables as well. I'd also like to see some long range strategic funding rather than the short-term programs we now have (for example, I see no reason why the production tax credit for wind should not be guaranteed for a 10 year time period). Most particularly, I'd like to see increased R&D funding for technologies that are not far along on the development curve (e.g., enhanced geothermal). It is shortsighted to be putting nearly all our efforts into wind and solar PV when these will not suffice to address climate change concerns. Renewables technologies are going to need funds on the order of hundreds of Billions of dollars and it is a counterproductive distraction to be whining about the trifling few billions that go to the fossil fuel industry (much of it for programs with strong political support). And ranting about how the wars on terrorists are a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry just makes one sound like a crackpot....
Steven
Comment
8 of 13
December 15, 2010
Dana, thanks for being so optimistic. As you noted in another entry somewhere, I have difficulties with this. A couple of thoughts:

Careful what you wish for. You can't put up a solar panel, dig for coal, or even wipe your butt in dignity without lots of movement by diesel powered vehicles. Consider my piddly pole-tracking PV array (steel from Korea=bunker fuel, all material delivered by 6 mpg big rigs, bulldozer to dig trenches etc...) which strained my pathetic middle class salary and produces a mediocre amount of electricity. Luckily, it's supposed to increase the value of my home for which there is no longer a market.

I'm not sure that the oil versus renewable E paradigm is helpful. Perhaps we should ask: Do we want to use the last of our affordable oil to run giant SUVs from the suburbs to Wal-mart and back and bomb people or should we use it to gain traction in alternatives that make sense in the future?

How these fools can't see that the US military is set up to police the oil supply and dangerously attempt the impossible task of maintaining global hegemony is beyond me. But that's the majority opinion.
Comment
9 of 13
December 21, 2010
Article 18.

Treasurynet.US

18.1 - The Congress and the Treasury of the United States, having the lawful power to issue sound money fully backed by domestically derived silver, domestic hydrocarbon reserves, renewable energy, and other domestic natural resources, are expressly prohibited from taxing the just wages, salaries, pensions, or other lawful remuneration of Citizens, or from borrowing any money, currency, credit, debt, stocks, bonds, or any other financial instruments and derivatives, under any circumstances including war....

Treasurynet.US

OpenSecrets.Org

Treasurynet.Org
Comment
10 of 13
December 26, 2010
Steven, in comment #4----" 1) It is nonsense to equate the war with energy costs. For instance, we are in Afghanistan to prevent it from serving as a terrorist haven and that country has negligible oil and gas resources. "-------

This is not true. This war was in the planning stages three years before 9/11. The strategy was laid out by John J. Maresca, VP of internation affairs Unocal Corp. in a statement to the

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

in Washington DC.

Where he makes reference to a "stable government"---read "puppet regime" willing and able to exchange protection and favors for $$$.

There are large reserves of petroleum in Turkmenistan----but no way to get them out. The same geologic formation that is producing oil there also extends into Afghanistan.

The TAPI pipeline is under construction right now, and has been for sometime now.
Comment
11 of 13
December 26, 2010
Steven---here is the transcript of Mr. Maresca's statement.

http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/Maresca2USG.html
No image available
Comment
12 of 13
Anonymous
December 26, 2010
Sure Fred--the US, and its 40+ coalition allies converged on Afghanistan to facilitate a pipeline that would be modestly beneficial. How many inches of this pipeline have been built in this alternative universe you seem to inhabit?
Steven
Comment
13 of 13
December 26, 2010
The clam looked around. All he could see was mud.

"There is no such thing as a mountain!" he declared emphatically.

Then he closed his shell, and went back to filtering his breakfast.

The bird sighed and flew away.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Dana Blankenhorn

View Dana Blankenhorn's Profile
About: Dana Blankenhorn has covered business and technology since 1978. He covered the Houston oil boom of the 1970s, began making his living online in 1985, and launc... more »

Advertise With Us

AllEarth Renewables SMA America, LLC AREDAY Standard Solar Inc. Ingeteam Grundfos Direct Sensors Renewable Energy World Africa
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters