Comments on: U.S. Federal Energy Subsidies Visualized

By: Federal Energy Subsidies « onlytakeyourshare

Federal Energy Subsidies « onlytakeyourshare — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:04:33 +0000

[...] http://ecopolitology.org/2010/03/08/think-renewables-need-huge-subsidies-federal-energy-subsidies-vi... 70.2 billion dollars of federal money went to subsidize traditional fossil fuels. Only 12.2 [...]

By: RJ Haffke

RJ Haffke — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:28:30 +0000

If we only factor in the direct spending and tax breaks we’d be missing a big piece of the puzzle. If we factor in all of the indirect subsidies over the years, the statistics would skew to a more comparable figure. For example we are now spending upwards of 800B a year in defense spending to primarily “protect America’s vital interests in the middle east” as many a past President have proclaimed… So if we factor in those costs of protecting our existing energy supplies, the per BTU for non-electricity energy would be much different… Not to mention the social and environmental costs that should probably be valued and added in as well to paint the whole picture and true cost per unit of output (oil spills, fracking, CO2 emmissions etc).

By: Zufechten

Zufechten — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 05:21:49 +0000

Howard, would you happen to have any more recent info?

By: Howard

Howard — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:33:41 +0000

This is a second look at subsidies that might be more enlightening – by the way I am not a political scientist or sociologist – I am a geologist and professional engineer. Here is what the subsidies really amount to on the bais of per million BTUs in $ for energy other than electricity:
coal – $0.04, natural gas & oil – $0.03, ethanol & biofuels – $5.72, geothermal – $0.02, solar – $2.82.
Now let’s look at electricity generation on the same basis, i.e., $/megawat hours: coal – $0.44, natural gas and oil – $0.25, nuclear – $1.59, biomass – $0.89, geothermal – $0.92, hydroelectric – $0.67, solar – $24.34, wind – $23.37.

These are numbers published by the Energy Information Administration. If you disbelieve my numbers they are in 2007 $ and are found on the internet – “Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007.

I hope this will be helpful in explaining to the readers the actual cost of subsidies based on usage and not total $. There is a great deal of difference.

By: Howard

Howard — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:41:29 +0000

By far the largest subsidies are for alternate energy sources – fossil fuel makes up about 90% of the fuel usage in most countries – wind, solar, biomass, biothermal, ocean tidal are subsidized far more than fossil.
It is simple – go by units consumed not by totals. Fuzzy math and thinking.

By: Timothy B. Hurst

Timothy B. Hurst — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:19:31 +0000

Phil-

You’re right, total dollars spent does not tell the complete story. But it tells a story nonetheless. In terms of your quest for a comparison of subsidies based on $ spent per MW of output, such data does exist, although I haven’t seen it presented in graphical form.

You might try poking around the EIA site — it is a wealth of knowledge.

For example, here is one chart that compares levelized cost of energy output from different fuel sources:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 00:49:16 +0000

I’m working on a research project and would like to see this on a percentage basis. In trying to be objective as possible, I’m concerned that this graphic does not consider the existing energy mix. I’d love to see a graphic that looks at federal subsidy per megawatt generated (fossil vs. renewable) and another graphic needs to consider subsidies for fossil vs. renewable in the mobility sector, which would be very challenging to capture. That said, total dollars spent do not tell a complete story.