Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
I prefer to keep related discussions in one thread so I will post this here.
.
Your assertion is that the US government is favoring coal to keep solar and wind out of the market. But this is interesting. USA federal subsidies for electrical production by source. This is from 2007 but I will try to find something newer. But shows that the USA was very early on trying to pay the way for wind and solar to take off. Solar and wind each recieved 15 times as much incentive as nuclear and 55 times as much as coal.
.
"For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour."
.
https://www.instituteforenergyresear...bsidies-study/
.
.
.
. |
How about you rework the graph to represent the volume-sales-weighted subsidies?
What you've presented looks like Arthur Andersen-esque statistics.Phantasmagoric ledgerdemain.