For example, natural gas power generated 44.9 quadrillion British thermal units in 2022, 45% of total energy generated economywide, but received $2.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies that year. That means for every million British thermal units (MMBtu) produced by natural gas, the industry received about $0.05.
By comparison, in 2022, the solar industry generated about 0.6 quadrillion British thermal units, less than 1% of total energy produced economywide in the U.S., but received $7.5 billion in subsidies. That means the solar power industry received $11.9 per MMBtu
Why don’t we just forget about all this renewable power nonsense! Let’s rip out all the dams, wind turbines and solar panels, they’re ugly and they kill fish and birds!
We oughta drill, dig and burn all we can while it’s cheap… who CARES about the grandkids, let 'em deal with IT! … It’s not OUR problem!
It’s pretty simple. There are incentives in place to help the solar industry get off the ground. You incent behaviors and technology you want the world to move to. No reason to incent the natural gas or oil industries that are already up and running. Fox News couldn’t figure that out?
It appears Fox is referring to a report released by DOE. Where did they misrepresent it or error in referring to it?
" The report — authored by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) and published in August — represents the first of its kind since 2018. The EIA analyzed data from 2016 through 2022, and determined that, during that time period, the federal government doled out $183.3 billion in direct and mainly indirect taxpayer subsidies, more than half of which came over the last three years."
I wonder if we had had a Manhattan Project urgent type endeavor to pursue solar energy during the Carter years would we be where we are now? Perhaps the push to achieve affordable scaled commercial solar energy would have accelerated the technologies of Silicon Valley even faster back then?
As I understand it, oil keeps the US dollar in play ( until it doesn’t). Military force helps too. But money is money. Maybe we will see Exxon doing much more solar in a few decades. Meanwhile, communities do not recycle basic refuse items like plastic and metal and glass. It all comes down to money and who will pay for conservation of materials, energy, space, etc.
The newly released emails reveal that, internally, some staffers pushed back against a press even from the White House to move ahead with the loan. Solyndra’s largest private investor is George Kaiser, a bundler of campaign donations for Obama in 2008.
It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles. For example, according to the company’s security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production.
In 2010, Obama visited the Solyndra factory and cited it as a role model for his “stimulus” program, saying “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”
Despite the pressure DOE was under to issue a loan guarantee, our boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman never even considered overruling that committee. As a result, the Bush Administration did not issue a loan guarantee to Solyndra – or anyone else.
In 2009 however, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act armed the loan guarantee program with millions in taxpayer dollars and the new Administration wanted to show it could do what the former one hadn’t. Late that year DOE issued Solyndra a $530 million loan guarantee. President Barack Obama even visited the company to tout the program.
It took Solyndra only 24 months to burn through the DOE money and declare bankruptcy. The federal government took a massive financial loss.
Thats pretty much all that you need to know. I don’t really care what side you are on…that’s a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Its roughly 10% of the Federal budget back in 2009-2010.
The point of the discussion is the alleged failure of green energy as compared to the continued successful and alleged lower costs of fossil fuels. You attempted to make it a taxpayer-specific discussion.
My comment to you points out the fact that not only is big oil big synomonus with big money, but is also points out that big oil money has a slimy pro-corruption aspect to it. Do you really think the Saudis granted a $2B loan to Javonka out of the goodness of their hearts?