I for one cannot abide stripping planet Earth of sand so photon-pumped p-n junction fanatics can impose their solid state fetish upon the whole of humanity. Humanity’s safe and sane future arises from enslaving plants. Steal their photocenter charge separation at the source, redirecting it toward deeds of goodness and utility not cellulose.
We as a species have been devilishly bamboozled into killing termites while allowing carpenters to run free. If you love your fragle and endangered children, anhydropolyglucose must be ended! Terrorists use it to make guncotton. Denim is an ever-present threat to national security because solar power runs riot with our souls. Take the would out of wood!
(This has been a Perry/Palin/Paul for President moment.)
I agree with the sentiment of the link, but I wonder if the numbers are a bit misleading.
Ferinstance, the ratio of fossil fuel subsidies to renewable subsidies is around (for the 2002-2008 period) $72b to $29b, a ratio that’s 30x lower than the fossil:solar ratio shown there. Admittedly, a lot of the renewable subsidies were going to bull crap like corn ethanol, but still…
(My numbers from here: http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf)
But much worse, I think, is the claim that if solar got the same subsidies (either as an absolute-dollar figure OR on a per-watt basis), that somehow solar would be cheaper in 100% of the country. There’s no way in hell that $72b in subsidies could fund installing enough currently-technology solar to cover 100% of our electrical production at a level where it would be cheaper than fossil fuels. I can’t think of any way to frame that “100%” claim that’s not a lie.
I completely agree with the point – we should drop subsidies of fossil fuel (excepting research into how to increase efficiencies) and increase subsidies of solar. Especially via research into how to increase cost/efficiencies, which I think will bear much higher payoffs than simply installing power with current technology. But I think the case has to be made honestly.
Ethanol got over $3b in subsidies in 2006 and that number has been going up since the amount of mandated ethanol has increased. That would seem to take up the lion’s share of those renewable subsidies.
I for one cannot abide stripping planet Earth of sand so photon-pumped p-n junction fanatics can impose their solid state fetish upon the whole of humanity. Humanity’s safe and sane future arises from enslaving plants. Steal their photocenter charge separation at the source, redirecting it toward deeds of goodness and utility not cellulose.
We as a species have been devilishly bamboozled into killing termites while allowing carpenters to run free. If you love your fragle and endangered children, anhydropolyglucose must be ended! Terrorists use it to make guncotton. Denim is an ever-present threat to national security because solar power runs riot with our souls. Take the would out of wood!
(This has been a Perry/Palin/Paul for President moment.)
I agree with the sentiment of the link, but I wonder if the numbers are a bit misleading.
Ferinstance, the ratio of fossil fuel subsidies to renewable subsidies is around (for the 2002-2008 period) $72b to $29b, a ratio that’s 30x lower than the fossil:solar ratio shown there. Admittedly, a lot of the renewable subsidies were going to bull crap like corn ethanol, but still…
(My numbers from here: http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf)
But much worse, I think, is the claim that if solar got the same subsidies (either as an absolute-dollar figure OR on a per-watt basis), that somehow solar would be cheaper in 100% of the country. There’s no way in hell that $72b in subsidies could fund installing enough currently-technology solar to cover 100% of our electrical production at a level where it would be cheaper than fossil fuels. I can’t think of any way to frame that “100%” claim that’s not a lie.
I completely agree with the point – we should drop subsidies of fossil fuel (excepting research into how to increase efficiencies) and increase subsidies of solar. Especially via research into how to increase cost/efficiencies, which I think will bear much higher payoffs than simply installing power with current technology. But I think the case has to be made honestly.
Ethanol got over $3b in subsidies in 2006 and that number has been going up since the amount of mandated ethanol has increased. That would seem to take up the lion’s share of those renewable subsidies.