Although wind and solar proponents still claim costs are falling, the reality is the opposite. Offshore wind developers, especially, are clamoring to renegotiate contracts they signed previously, including guaranteed price adjustments for increasing costs, and relaxing the domestic content requirement so they can claim the additional 10% ITC.
Despite spiraling deficits – almost $2 trillion in the fiscal year that ended this past October – green energy subsidies will be financed with still more government debt. With the increase in interest rates to normal levels, financing costs will soar, adding an estimated $500 to $800 billion to the bill costs, almost as much as the subsidies themselves.
I don’t believe this. Green energy is “cheap” and “unlimited” and I cannot be convinced otherwise.
Get the absolute fuck out of here with this Fossile Fuel FUD. I don’t even know where to start, but I suppose I will begin with the fact that this “news source” is a Fossil Fuel Dark Money site evangelizing Fossil Fuels. This isn’t some neutral source…
Do your own critical thinking Lemmings. Renewable subsides are in the 2 figure Billions and Fossil Fuel subsidies are still more than 10 times that, amounting to TRILLIONS in your tax dollars over the decade. Unlike this bullshit article, there’s ample evidence across government agencies and reliable news sources.
Solar has quickly become the cheapest energy resource, even cheaper than NG which the US cranks out like crazy. Wind is close behind. Coal is dying… even among the energy producers, they are replacing coal plants with NG because natural gas is cheaper and more profitable.
The thing is, it’s true that offshore projects have struggled. You’ve ignored that and said that the article is bullshit.
I actually think the article is FUD, but the examples they use are based.
I could, just as easily as you did, say your articles are lib bullshit and dismiss everything you say. The thing is this line of discussion is flawed. Don’t ya think?
here they come
Ah yes… more of the “both side of the argument”. Let’s pick this apart and there’s absolutely nothing “lib” about my claims that this is a bullshit “article”. Let me bullet point this:
- The title is misleading and hyperbolic. There is absolutely nothing “crippling” about the economic costs of subsidizing green energy. In fact we subsidize Fossil Fuels to the tune of 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars PER YEAR. The article lays out that we will be on the hook for between $500B and $1T by 2046… If my math is right, that’s 23 years out. At the lower end, that’s just over $21 BILLION PER YEAR for Green energy. It’s a pittance comparatively. We are talking orders of magnitude more “crippling economic costs” of subsidizing by Fossil Fuels vs. this one target for cost overruns. This alone means the article is FUD. But it goes further in basically singling this one piece of the green energy pie out and then editorializing how this impacts the US… I won’t even go into how much of the money is spent on those very green jobs that the article purports as a “jobs killer”
- By the way, that differencial in costs to subsidize make this gem from the “article” posted kind of hilarious:
Despite spiraling deficits – almost $2 trillion in the fiscal year that ended this past October – green energy subsidies will be financed with still more government debt.
- The “realcleanenergy” org is 100% fossil fuel backed. There’s no neutrality, there’s no big picture of energy independence, or even a whiff of something like Global Warming, and zero comparison of the Trillions we pump into “drill drill drill” that always ignore the military costs to secure those resources and the carbon footprint that results
- I’m not calling the article “conservative bullshit” - it absolutely makes itself clear on this point just by looking at the rest of the articles posted by this entity. It’s 100% biased. BTW, Reuters very regularly centers out in terms of left/right leaning: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters So I’ll put my articles against this any time.
I actually think the article is FUD, but the examples they use are based.
If you think the article is FUD yourself, and this example is “based”, I implore you to look at who’s saying it and why. Fossil Fuels want to live and linger as long as they can because it makes a handful of people very wealthy at the expense of our environment. I’m not dismissing the article. I’m saying I can pick it apart with facts and I’m saying look at the comparables for how much we spend to keep Fossil Fuels alive. If we didn’t spend 7.5 Trillion in a decade on fossil fuels and instead put that into green energy or just let those die out, we wouldn’t need to subsidize Green Energy… it would win as the lower cost alternative. Renewables are winning today despite the money being thrown into oil and coal and NG!
Now, I invite you to explain exactly where my line of discussion is flawed. I have ample articles, many by our own military, GAO, and can even find begrudgingly admitted articles in right-leaning news to back it up. I’m not trying to slam you personally - in fact I hope to share just how influential stuff like this is because it’s looked at uncritically or one piece of the article resonates for a person and they take the rest as gospel.
One of the reasons i posted it is because it’s not a common position, but one that appears to correspond with legislation. For example, California just passed a measure to reduce subsidies for rooftop solar.
then to your points(ordered to match the ones provided):
- the first one is whataboutism
- couple things for the second: 1 - yeah, probably a fossil fuel funded source. 2 - does that mean they’re wrong? American Oil predicted climate change in the 30s. They weren’t wrong then. Who gets to choose when they’re right and when they’re wrong?
- covered in the the previous bullet
- I said the examples are based, not the article
if someone has motivation to say something, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. it means something else.
OK, I’ll bite one more time:
i posted it is because it’s not a common position, but one that appears to correspond with legislation. For example, California just passed a measure to reduce subsidies for rooftop solar.
Well, we’re switching venues to Solar, but for this specific comparison, the legislation for “Net Metering 3.0” was driven by PGE and Utilities because they don’t want to compete. And saying “corresponding to legislation has it backward” - legislation should lead to outcomes that people want. This was an incredibly unpopular decision in California, especially home owners with rooftop solar. In this case, a huge marketing FUD campaign to curtail rooftop solar is the cause, so it’s a bit like saying “if enough fossil fuel folks throw money at killing offshore wind and legislation follows, then clearly the legislation was right”
the first one is whataboutism
Come on… really? I’m literally pointing out that this article headline is screaming that $20B/Year subsidy for offshore wind will crush our economy and add to our debt and that by that VERY SAME MEASURE, the subsidies for Fossil Fuels are an order of magnitude larger, but you’ve seen no outcry from the article saying those subsides impact our deficit almost 40x as much. I’m making a 1:1 comparison using the article’s own criteria. That’s not whataboutism. I didn’t go “solar and wind good, oil bad” to make my argument. I’m saying it takes a dishonest tone to imply this $20bn subsidy is a jobs killer or deficit crusher when your own backers get far far more of those same subsidy dollars!
couple things for the second: 1 - yeah, probably a fossil fuel funded source
OK, I guess we agree on something.
2 - does that mean they’re wrong? American Oil predicted climate change in the 30s. They weren’t wrong then. Who gets to choose when they’re right and when they’re wrong?
Wrong about what? If I’m sticking to the article and not going off on this other tangent, then the article is saying that offshore wind is going to soak up more subsidy dollars to get off the ground? I’ll 100% take that on good faith that they aren’t misreporting and that it will indeed cost more for these projects than originally anticipated.
American Oil predicted climate change in the 30s. They weren’t wrong then. Who gets to choose when they’re right and when they’re wrong?
Is this an argument? I never once claimed that the article was wrong about offshore wind taking more dollars. If you want to delve into who and when “someone” gets to choose what’s right and what’s wrong, 97% of scientists agree that human activity (namely Carbon) injected into the atmosphere on a massive scale in the last 150 years. That consensus was reached and has been proven out in global temp rises over the last 30 years, the last 10 of which surpassed each other in terms of “record hot”. So I guess we let scientists who know their shit decide based on the science experimentation and analysis.
covered in the the previous bullet
I disagree that your previous argument covers this.
I said the examples are based, not the article
You did at that. I never disagreed. Offshore Wind is going to be pricier than anticipated. ANYTHING done on water ends up costing more. That one item doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s a fossil fuel backed propaganda arm using one example to smear all renewables and the political agenda to get more renewables on line in face of us rapidly crossing an agreed 1.5 deg. Celcius increase that will change the face of human history.
if someone has motivation to say something, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. it means something else.
This is a pretty self-service statement, isn’t it? I guess I’ll say thank you for sharing this article and discussing it. The article takes one mildly negative piece against one renewable resource and tries to bury the lede of it’s own industry subsidation. Are the wrong about that one negative? I didn’t say they were. I’m saying it’s FUD and propaganda by an industry deathly afraid of losing their cash cow. I’m not making this personal about you, not even for posting. I think it serves as a useful example for critical thinking and how we can all be manipulated to share the bullshit someone wants us to spread along with a small nugget of truth…
thanks for engaging. i think we agree on many of these things. the only difference I’ll lean into is that this piece correspondes to legislation.
I think it does correspond as I described. Should it? Another thing we agree on.
Why are literally every single one of your Lemmy comments about oil or green energy? Do you really expect people to believe that you’re being genuine with any of this, especially with this half-assed non-reply to such a lengthy comment?
I’m interested in energy in general. Seems like you picked up on that. It’s a complex topic that combines physics, chemistry, economics, politics, and our ecosystem.
When replying to others on Lemmy, it’s good to get to the point or have a TLDR. Seems like you picked up on my tendency to do others this favor as well.
Frankly, I don’t care what people think of me or if they think I’m genuine. I derive my sense of self and esteem from my self. With that said, I enjoyed chatting with the other Lemmy. Hope they did too
deleted by creator