The feed in tariffs have supported wind and solar to the tune of EUR 5 billion/year for the last several years.
A 2006 study from Management Information Services on The US Energy Subsidy Scorecard showed that total federal incentives (of which R&D expenditure is only a part) from 1950 to 2003 (covers pretty much the entire period that nuclear or wind have been a factor for energy, first 1954-1956 for the first commercial reactors) totalled $63 billion for nuclear power, $111 billion for renewables, $81 billion for coal and $87 billion for natural gas (2003 dollars).
All energy gets tax breaks, incentives, R&D funding etc... Wind and solar get plenty and should get plenty of funding. Nuclear should be and is funded. There should carbon/coal disincentives to match the external health and environmental damage of coal.
The spending and research of the past is done and we should pick the development and research projects based on current merit.
For nuclear, MIT annular fuel for upgrading existing reactors by 30-50%, Fuji molten salt reactor, and the venture funded Uranium hydride reactor
For wind Kitegen, FLodesign's MEWT, Superconducting wind generators
$8-22 trillion will be spent over the next 25 years on energy infrastructure. This money can be used for a massive shift to nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal.
This is pretty disingenuous.
Germany, with 20'000 MW installed (and just under half of total European capacity over the past few years), and, to use round numbers, 40 TWh/a produced, sees a total payment, under the tariff (@8c/kWh) of EUR 3bn per annum.
But that's the payment for electricity, of which only a small component can be called "support." Given that
(i) electricity prices have been close to 5c/kWh, so nay support could only apply to the difference, ie 3c/kWh;
(ii) that 5c/kWh price exists only because cola and gas-fired plants do not pay (yet) for their externalities. Carbon emissions pricing is likely to add 1-2c/kWh to that market price, which will again need to be deducted from the "support" to wind;
(ii) the wind tariff is a fixed tariff, ie a capped one, and thus has value as an option against higher electricity prices;
(iii) wind is a zero-cost marginal producer and thus lowers the prices of electricity for everybody else when wind is blowing, by moving the balance lower in the dispatch curve (studies in Denmark show that the gain to electricity consumers in that country are already higher than the cost of the subsidy);
:: ::
As to numbers that compare subsidies today to current production, they are just as disingenuous; comparing a nascent industry to a well established one with a huge installed base will inevitably skew numbers against the new industry; it might be more interesting to compare subsidies per MW installed during the period; given that Europe has been installing roughly 50% wind / 40% gas / 10% other (in nominal MW) over the last few years, the numbers will suddenly look A LOT more favorable to wind.
Why should the installed capacity get ANY subsidies today?? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Feed in Tariff's at wikipedia
Feed in tariff is an incentive structure that boosts the adoption of renewable energy through government legislation. The regional or national electricity utilities are obligated to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources such as solar photovoltaics, wind power, biomass, and geothermal power) at above market rates.
Feed in tariff presentation
Not just Germany but Spain and Denmark have big feed in tariff systems. Many other european countries and canada also have feed in tariff systems (they are just smaller programs)
Estimated impact on end use electricity prices (according to european commmission) Between 4% and 5% for Germany and Spain Around 15% for Denmark
Back in 2001: The Netherlands (more than EUR 1.5 billion), the UK (circa EUR 1.5 billion) and Germany (circa EUR 1.8 billion) provided substantial off -budget support to electricity consumption. The Feed in tariff support has gone up since then.
European Environment Agency figures in 2004 gave indicative estimates of total energy subsidies in the EU-15 for 2001: solid fuel (coal) EUR 13.0, oil & gas EUR 8.7, nuclear EUR 2.2, renewables EUR 5.3 billion.
Ren21 in France (pro-renewables) calls feed in tariffs support. The European Environment Agency estimated at least $0.8 billion in on-budget support and $6 billion in offbudget support for renewable energy in Europe in 2001. A large share of the off-budget support was due to feed-in tariffs, with purchase obligations and competitive tendering representing other forms of off-budget support
Nah. Due to (1) the rise in the "market" price of electricity and (2) the reduction of the feed-in tariff rate, the surplus part of the feed-in tariff has actually gone down.
And you don't seem to get Jérôme's argument. The feed-in tariff support (yes it's support, you don't need to make such a fuss about a word) is in fixing the purchase price at an above-market price, and making purchase obligatory. But the extra cost for the consumer is NOT the total sum of money paid out under the feed-in tariff (which you quoted for 2001), but the total sum minus what the same amount of electricity costs at then current market prices.
The above is even a static picture. As shown by several studies in Germany (both modelling and practical), taking market mechanisms into account, it is actually the case that renewables brought to the market with feed-in tariffs can decrease prices: when there is a short-term shortage and spot prices shoot up, constant-priced renewables will reduce the price gains. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The 3 billion Euro/year figure from Jerome. 40 billion kwh X 3 cents per kwh. 1.2 billion. It only had Germany and not the Spain and Denmark subsidies. Spain and Denmark combined have about the same wind as Germany. So that would double up differential only subsidy. 2.4 billion.
The solar PV tax credit is about 8 times the market rate. So subtracting out that part of the subsidy is not that different.
About 2 billion kwh for solar in Germany at 30 cents per kwh or a 25 cent premium. Some figures I have seen for the solar feed in tariff are 71 cents/kwh. 400 million more including the solar part. Double that for the rest of Europe or triple to get to the world figure.
So 2.4 billion for wind (europe only) and 800 million for solar europe only for the differential above market price for $3.2 billion Europe only feed in tariff estimate. About 30 other countries have feed in tariffs for renewables. US, Canada, Japan and other countries also have subsidies.
Most utilities in the USA charge 2-32 cent/kwh added charges for wind. Figure from the American wind energy association
Plus there is the 1.5 cent per kwh production tax credit
Wind production incentives
Also, I don't agree with the subtract carbon emissions from that total. The carbon emissions should be counted as an externality or subsidy for coal, oil and natural gas. Otherwise it would be an adjustment for nuclear. Some estimates for Solar have fairly high greenhouse gas emissions although still better than coal and natural gas
The Solar PV incentives swamp the market price figure.
So solar and wind should be supported, but it is not true that they are not getting enough support. Coal and oil are the things that should be penalized and shifted away from and it will take support for every other energy source to make that happen in a timely way.
Estimated impact on end use electricity prices according to european commmission. Feed in tariff increased electricity prices between 4% and 5% for Germany and Spain and around 15% for Denmark.
Average retail price of electricity by state
International electricity costs by country based on IEA stats
