FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Subsidies for green
Subsidies for green
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax? " More funding for renewable energy is good news. Where's your confusion come from on this? | |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax?" "More funding for renewable energy is good news. Where's your confusion come from on this?" He doesn't seem confused, just annoyed. More funding for renewable energy might be a good thing, if it got us more energy. But this is just the government paying more money to get the same amount of energy. Paying more and getting nothing in return is a bad thing. | |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax? More funding for renewable energy is good news. Where's your confusion come from on this? He doesn't seem confused, just annoyed. More funding for renewable energy might be a good thing, if it got us more energy. But this is just the government paying more money to get the same amount of energy. Paying more and getting nothing in return is a bad thing." Your comment doesn't reflect the news and the information on the UK gov website. | |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax?" "More funding for renewable energy is good news. Where's your confusion come from on this?" "He doesn't seem confused, just annoyed. More funding for renewable energy might be a good thing, if it got us more energy. But this is just the government paying more money to get the same amount of energy. Paying more and getting nothing in return is a bad thing." "Your comment doesn't reflect the news and the information on the UK gov website." I don't know what you're reading, but I'm commenting on this story - https://theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/uk-to-offer-higher-subsidies-for-offshore-windfarms-after-crisis-talks We used to give wind farms a subsidy of £44 per MWh, and now that has increased to £73 per MWh. That means we'll get the same amount of electricity, but pay two thirds extra for it. That's not a good thing. | |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax? More funding for renewable energy is good news. Where's your confusion come from on this? He doesn't seem confused, just annoyed. More funding for renewable energy might be a good thing, if it got us more energy. But this is just the government paying more money to get the same amount of energy. Paying more and getting nothing in return is a bad thing. Your comment doesn't reflect the news and the information on the UK gov website. I don't know what you're reading, but I'm commenting on this story - https://theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/uk-to-offer-higher-subsidies-for-offshore-windfarms-after-crisis-talks We used to give wind farms a subsidy of £44 per MWh, and now that has increased to £73 per MWh. That means we'll get the same amount of electricity, but pay two thirds extra for it. That's not a good thing." Have a look on the UK gov website. The objective isn't an immediate increase in production. It's not like we have wind farms sitting there waiting for this policy to come about before being turned on. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"So wind power is cheap and again you have tried and failed to make the point you think you were making." If wind power is cheap, why are the government paying a subsidy for it? And why were the wind farm companies refusing to build more new wind farms until the subsidy was increased? | |||
"If wind power is cheap, why are the government paying a subsidy for it? And why were the wind farm companies refusing to build more new wind farms until the subsidy was increased?" Because the companies who are investing shareholder capital to build the farms cannot attract enough capital to make it viable. Put it another way. If you were a shareholder, would you invest 50K for a small % dividend, or a larger one ? I should imagine the last thing any shareholder wants is the price to be so low for generation they make diddly squat on their investment. This increase in payment for generation attracts investment. It also ensures no one energy production supply chain is much cheaper that the others. If they are all about the same, it's a level playing field and equitable. That prevents others from collapsing. | |||
"If wind power is cheap, why are the government paying a subsidy for it? And why were the wind farm companies refusing to build more new wind farms until the subsidy was increased?" "Because the companies who are investing shareholder capital to build the farms cannot attract enough capital to make it viable." But we all know that the energy market is run on marginal cost pricing. That means that the amount paid for each unit of electricity is the cost of whatever the most expensive generation method is. The most expensive method is gas, and that won't change any time soon. If wind energy is cheap, people should be queueing up to invest, as they are guaranteed to be paid more than it costs to generate their electricity. "Put it another way. If you were a shareholder, would you invest 50K for a small % dividend, or a larger one ?" Are you saying that the government should be subsidising an industry with the sole purpose of making investors richer? "This increase in payment for generation attracts investment. It also ensures no one energy production supply chain is much cheaper that the others." How does the increase in subsidy help to decrease the efficiency of a given supply chain, thus making it less cheap than the others? And why is it a good idea to prevent an 'energy production supply chain' becoming too cheap? | |||
"Have a look on the UK gov website." You might have to give me a bit more of a clue. The government website is rather large. | |||
"Have a look on the UK gov website. You might have to give me a bit more of a clue. The government website is rather large." Ah the classic post a link tactic. You're a smart chap, I'm sure you can find it if you Google the story. The UK gov website is one of the first that comes up. | |||
"Have a look on the UK gov website." "You might have to give me a bit more of a clue. The government website is rather large." "Ah the classic post a link tactic. You're a smart chap, I'm sure you can find it if you Google the story. The UK gov website is one of the first that comes up." Don't worry. I'm well aware that you're allergic to links. I meant tell me which search term to use. I tried various alterations of 'wind subsidies up to £73', and I only got old government links. What do I need to search for to get the thing you've been reading? | |||
"Have a look on the UK gov website. You might have to give me a bit more of a clue. The government website is rather large. Ah the classic post a link tactic. You're a smart chap, I'm sure you can find it if you Google the story. The UK gov website is one of the first that comes up. Don't worry. I'm well aware that you're allergic to links. I meant tell me which search term to use. I tried various alterations of 'wind subsidies up to £73', and I only got old government links. What do I need to search for to get the thing you've been reading?" You can try: "Press release Boost for offshore wind as government raises maximum prices in renewable energy auction" | |||
"Have a look on the UK gov website." "You might have to give me a bit more of a clue. The government website is rather large." "Ah the classic post a link tactic. You're a smart chap, I'm sure you can find it if you Google the story. The UK gov website is one of the first that comes up." "Don't worry. I'm well aware that you're allergic to links. I meant tell me which search term to use. I tried various alterations of 'wind subsidies up to £73', and I only got old government links. What do I need to search for to get the thing you've been reading?" "You can try: "Press release Boost for offshore wind as government raises maximum prices in renewable energy auction"" I found this - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-offshore-wind-as-government-raises-maximum-prices-in-renewable-energy-auction But that matches what I was saying up above. | |||
"Have a look on the UK gov website. You might have to give me a bit more of a clue. The government website is rather large. Ah the classic post a link tactic. You're a smart chap, I'm sure you can find it if you Google the story. The UK gov website is one of the first that comes up. Don't worry. I'm well aware that you're allergic to links. I meant tell me which search term to use. I tried various alterations of 'wind subsidies up to £73', and I only got old government links. What do I need to search for to get the thing you've been reading? You can try: "Press release Boost for offshore wind as government raises maximum prices in renewable energy auction" I found this - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-offshore-wind-as-government-raises-maximum-prices-in-renewable-energy-auction But that matches what I was saying up above." Indeed. The point isn't for immediate cheaper energy. | |||
" Are you saying that the government should be subsidising an industry with the sole purpose of making investors richer?" Governments have been using taxpayers money to subsidise many industries over the years. In 2012, the government spent 58 Billion on Corporate Welfare for example. Goodness knows what it is now. Much of this is not transparent. I am suggesting that said market distortion is artificially inflating the prices of energy, so they do not fall too low. This attracts shareholders and capital. | |||
"Are you saying that the government should be subsidising an industry with the sole purpose of making investors richer?" "Governments have been using taxpayers money to subsidise many industries over the years. In 2012, the government spent 58 Billion on Corporate Welfare for example. Goodness knows what it is now. Much of this is not transparent. I am suggesting that said market distortion is artificially inflating the prices of energy, so they do not fall too low. This attracts shareholders and capital." So do you differ from the poster above, and accept that wind power is in fact quite expensive? So expensive in fact, that we have to pay companies a subsidy in order to make the proposition viable. | |||
"Are you saying that the government should be subsidising an industry with the sole purpose of making investors richer? Governments have been using taxpayers money to subsidise many industries over the years. In 2012, the government spent 58 Billion on Corporate Welfare for example. Goodness knows what it is now. Much of this is not transparent. I am suggesting that said market distortion is artificially inflating the prices of energy, so they do not fall too low. This attracts shareholders and capital. So do you differ from the poster above, and accept that wind power is in fact quite expensive? So expensive in fact, that we have to pay companies a subsidy in order to make the proposition viable." The IMF estimated that in 2022 the fossil fuels industry received $7 trillion in subsidiaries. Throwing a few quid to green energy to help it compete seems like a good idea on the short and medium term. Plus, we need to transition to renewable sources of energy so we can reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. There is a fairly urgent need to tackle climate changd. It also helps us to achieve energy independence and aren't reliant on externally priced fuel sources. | |||
"Are you saying that the government should be subsidising an industry with the sole purpose of making investors richer? Governments have been using taxpayers money to subsidise many industries over the years. In 2012, the government spent 58 Billion on Corporate Welfare for example. Goodness knows what it is now. Much of this is not transparent. I am suggesting that said market distortion is artificially inflating the prices of energy, so they do not fall too low. This attracts shareholders and capital. So do you differ from the poster above, and accept that wind power is in fact quite expensive? So expensive in fact, that we have to pay companies a subsidy in order to make the proposition viable. The IMF estimated that in 2022 the fossil fuels industry received $7 trillion in subsidiaries. Throwing a few quid to green energy to help it compete seems like a good idea on the short and medium term. Plus, we need to transition to renewable sources of energy so we can reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. There is a fairly urgent need to tackle climate changd. It also helps us to achieve energy independence and aren't reliant on externally priced fuel sources. " *Medium and long-term. Short term is just the right thing to do. | |||
"Are you saying that the government should be subsidising an industry with the sole purpose of making investors richer? Governments have been using taxpayers money to subsidise many industries over the years. In 2012, the government spent 58 Billion on Corporate Welfare for example. Goodness knows what it is now. Much of this is not transparent. I am suggesting that said market distortion is artificially inflating the prices of energy, so they do not fall too low. This attracts shareholders and capital. So do you differ from the poster above, and accept that wind power is in fact quite expensive? So expensive in fact, that we have to pay companies a subsidy in order to make the proposition viable. The IMF estimated that in 2022 the fossil fuels industry received $7 trillion in subsidiaries. Throwing a few quid to green energy to help it compete seems like a good idea on the short and medium term. Plus, we need to transition to renewable sources of energy so we can reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. There is a fairly urgent need to tackle climate changd. It also helps us to achieve energy independence and aren't reliant on externally priced fuel sources. " What does climate change have to do with this? I thought this was about how much renewable energy costs. | |||
"The IMF estimated that in 2022 the fossil fuels industry received $7 trillion in subsidiaries." We've already had this discussion. Most of that figure comes from outside the UK, so isn't something that the UK government can affect. The UK government doesn't pay any subsidies to fossil fuel companies. The few tax breaks that fossil fuel companies get are also available to all other UK companies. Plus, fossil fuel companies pay twice as much corporation tax as normal companies do. "Throwing a few quid to green energy to help it compete seems like a good idea ..." I'm not arguing about the subsidy, I'm asking why people keep saying that wind power is cheap, but then argue that no one will invest if we don't give them an incentive. Those statements don't seem to match up. | |||
"The IMF estimated that in 2022 the fossil fuels industry received $7 trillion in subsidiaries. We've already had this discussion. Most of that figure comes from outside the UK, so isn't something that the UK government can affect. The UK government doesn't pay any subsidies to fossil fuel companies. The few tax breaks that fossil fuel companies get are also available to all other UK companies. Plus, fossil fuel companies pay twice as much corporation tax as normal companies do. " Indeed. But you can see why this is necessary to get the industry moving " Throwing a few quid to green energy to help it compete seems like a good idea ... I'm not arguing about the subsidy, I'm asking why people keep saying that wind power is cheap, but then argue that no one will invest if we don't give them an incentive. Those statements don't seem to match up." Who keeps say this? And it will make it cheaper in the medium and long term. | |||
"I'm not arguing about the subsidy, I'm asking why people keep saying that wind power is cheap, but then argue that no one will invest if we don't give them an incentive. Those statements don't seem to match up." "Who keeps say this?" In this thread, Morley started it by saying that "cheap green energy was a hoax", then _ired_up came in and said "So wind power is cheap". But I was talking about the forum in general, where lots of people claim that wind power is cheap, but needs subsidies. One particular poster I remember used to do this all the time, often making those claims in adjacent sentences. But he never was very Easy to understand. "And it will make it cheaper in the medium and long term." Not the medium term. Those subsidies are to be paid for a number of years, and will obviously involve more cost until the subsidy period is up. But it will improve things in the long term, assuming that some method of storage can be found to make all these 'renewables' usable on calm nights. | |||
"I'm not arguing about the subsidy, I'm asking why people keep saying that wind power is cheap, but then argue that no one will invest if we don't give them an incentive. Those statements don't seem to match up. Who keeps say this? In this thread, Morley started it by saying that "cheap green energy was a hoax", then _ired_up came in and said "So wind power is cheap". But I was talking about the forum in general, where lots of people claim that wind power is cheap, but needs subsidies. One particular poster I remember used to do this all the time, often making those claims in adjacent sentences. But he never was very Easy to understand. And it will make it cheaper in the medium and long term. Not the medium term. Those subsidies are to be paid for a number of years, and will obviously involve more cost until the subsidy period is up. But it will improve things in the long term, assuming that some method of storage can be found to make all these 'renewables' usable on calm nights." Imagine if renewable energy received $7 trillion a year in global subsidiaries instead of fossil fuels. The points are. 1. The main reason moving to renewables is not for economic reasons. 2. Fossil fuels are artificially low in price because of the $$$ given out to the industry. | |||
| |||
"If all subsidies or perceived subsidies were withdrawn from all areas and all companies paid the same tax who would survive and would any thrive. Completely level playing field as such" What do you reckon? How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year? | |||
"If all subsidies or perceived subsidies were withdrawn from all areas and all companies paid the same tax who would survive and would any thrive. Completely level playing field as such What do you reckon? How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year?" In the UK the fossil fuel industry received £80b between the years 2105-2023, whilst the renewable industry received £60b. I make that 25% extra over 8 years, or 3% per year. Am I missing something in hearing ' how do you think the fossil fuel industry would cope without subsidies'? | |||
"If all subsidies or perceived subsidies were withdrawn from all areas and all companies paid the same tax who would survive and would any thrive. Completely level playing field as such What do you reckon? How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year? In the UK the fossil fuel industry received £80b between the years 2105-2023, whilst the renewable industry received £60b. I make that 25% extra over 8 years, or 3% per year. Am I missing something in hearing ' how do you think the fossil fuel industry would cope without subsidies'?" how does that maths work ? Wouldn't they have received 25pc extra each year not sure compounding should be used here. | |||
"If all subsidies or perceived subsidies were withdrawn from all areas and all companies paid the same tax who would survive and would any thrive. Completely level playing field as such What do you reckon? How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year? In the UK the fossil fuel industry received £80b between the years 2105-2023, whilst the renewable industry received £60b. I make that 25% extra over 8 years, or 3% per year. Am I missing something in hearing ' how do you think the fossil fuel industry would cope without subsidies'?how does that maths work ? Wouldn't they have received 25pc extra each year not sure compounding should be used here. " You're right. My maths was dreadful there. Renewable subsidies still equate to an average of 7.5b per year though. Where would they be without that? Remember this is a discussion about how 'cheap' green energy is. | |||
"If all subsidies or perceived subsidies were withdrawn from all areas and all companies paid the same tax who would survive and would any thrive. Completely level playing field as such What do you reckon? How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year?" I don't know, hence the question. Without the subsidies maybe the oil industry would collapse and maybe without subsidies the renewables industry would collapse. Maybe they should withdraw oil subsidies or at least reduce them but at the same time reduce their tax burden to be the same as others. Is it right that anyone gets subsidies. Just thinking aloud | |||
" Remember this is a discussion about how 'cheap' green energy is. " Indeed. I think there is a common fallacy that just because the wind blows for free, and the sun shines for free, and the waves move for free, "green energy" should therefore cost very little. However, all forms of energy transmission need the infrastructure to deliver it and support it. Setup, investment, wages, equipment, servicing, etc. Then there is everything else which hangs off the back of globally required resource. Taxes, pensions, etc. The bottom line being, the cost of a replacement energy source cannot be allowed to fall too low. Too much depends on it being at an artificial price. The real bottom line is with the rise of energy costs post Ukraine, this is the new normal. Those that have afforded to absorb the cost and stay afloat have demonstrated to the companies that there was extra slack in their household income. Slack which the energy companies could have exploited years ago, well before the price rises. | |||
"Is it right that anyone gets subsidies. Just thinking aloud" Personally no. I am not a fan of artificial economic market distortion. It creates "volatile" markets by shoring up things which shouldn't exist in the first place. Like building a house on quicksand. It needs constant propping-up. Constant investment to correct volatility. | |||
"How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year?" "I don't know, hence the question. Without the subsidies maybe the oil industry would collapse and maybe without subsidies the renewables industry would collapse. Maybe they should withdraw oil subsidies or at least reduce them but at the same time reduce their tax burden to be the same as others." That would be easy in the UK, as fossil fuel companies don't get any subsidies at all. However, as the recent government rights auction showed, the green energy industry can't exist without the subsidies. But we're digressing. We're supposed to be talking about how cheap wind power is. Or isn't. | |||
"How do you think the oil industry would get on without the $7 trillion propping it up every year? I don't know, hence the question. Without the subsidies maybe the oil industry would collapse and maybe without subsidies the renewables industry would collapse. Maybe they should withdraw oil subsidies or at least reduce them but at the same time reduce their tax burden to be the same as others. That would be easy in the UK, as fossil fuel companies don't get any subsidies at all. However, as the recent government rights auction showed, the green energy industry can't exist without the subsidies. But we're digressing. We're supposed to be talking about how cheap wind power is. Or isn't." There's a website called Wind Energy The Facts They have an article called "The Cost of Energy Generated by Wind Power". This breaks down the costs of generating energy through wind turbines. | |||
"There's a website called Wind Energy The Facts They have an article called "The Cost of Energy Generated by Wind Power". This breaks down the costs of generating energy through wind turbines." You mean this one: https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/the-cost-of-energy-generated-by-wind-power.html Sadly, it only covers on-shore sites, so the figures aren't comparable to the off-shore figures we've been discussing so far. Also sadly it doesn't detail what is included in the capital costs, so it's not clear whether they are including all of the electrical connection equipment as well as the turbines themselves. And of course it doesn't cover energy storage, so the prices quoted are only valid with fossil fuels to back up the 'renewables'. | |||
"There's a website called Wind Energy The Facts They have an article called "The Cost of Energy Generated by Wind Power". This breaks down the costs of generating energy through wind turbines. You mean this one: https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/the-cost-of-energy-generated-by-wind-power.html Sadly, it only covers on-shore sites, so the figures aren't comparable to the off-shore figures we've been discussing so far. Also sadly it doesn't detail what is included in the capital costs, so it's not clear whether they are including all of the electrical connection equipment as well as the turbines themselves. And of course it doesn't cover energy storage, so the prices quoted are only valid with fossil fuels to back up the 'renewables'." So what you're saying is. The vague headlines in the OP do not provide enough information to make a decision, and even when you start looking into it, it's actually a lot more complex? | |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax? " | |||
"So what you're saying is. The vague headlines in the OP do not provide enough information to make a decision, and even when you start looking into it, it's actually a lot more complex?" Certainly, the contents of the first post come from someone that has already made their mind up, and who isn't interested in providing sufficient information to help others do the same. And further investigation does indeed reveal that it's quite hard to get good information on the exact costs for wind power, especially since some of the infrastructure that needs to be paid for doesn't currently exist. But even a cursory glance at the news stories will tell you that the companies building off-shore wind farms have refused to do so unless the government raises the subsidy level. That is a strong indication that off-shore wind power just isn't as cheap as many people like to think it is. | |||
"Unfortunately you are incorrect Offshore wind with an increase subsidy will still be far cheaper than electricity generated by gas or nuclear!" If that's true, why were companies refusing to build new wind farms until the government raised the subsidies? The amount they get paid for their electricity is set by the most expensive available, which as you say is gas or nuclear. So the wind farms will be paid the price of gas-generated electricity, while producing their electricity for far less. So why were the wind farm companies saying that it wasn't economically viable to build new farms without increased subsidies? Are they just really greedy? | |||
| |||
"Solar followed by wind New offshore wind farms do not get subsidies They get a 15 year contract for difference They bid in an auction for a CFD The contract guarantees a price ( newest offshore wind farm bid was £40 MW for 15 years , compared to nuclear at £92 MW at Hinckley point)" So they get paid a guaranteed minimum price. How is that not a subsidy? "The contract means if the U.K. power price goes higher the generator does not get paid more" Do you have a link to a contract so that we can all see for ourselves? "Please stop posting untruths or links to wind sites that are funded by oil companies, it’s misleading " Who's doing that? Which site are you taking about? | |||
"Solar followed by wind New offshore wind farms do not get subsidies They get a 15 year contract for difference They bid in an auction for a CFD The contract guarantees a price ( newest offshore wind farm bid was £40 MW for 15 years , compared to nuclear at £92 MW at Hinckley point) So they get paid a guaranteed minimum price. How is that not a subsidy? The contract means if the U.K. power price goes higher the generator does not get paid more Do you have a link to a contract so that we can all see for ourselves? Please stop posting untruths or links to wind sites that are funded by oil companies, it’s misleading Who's doing that? Which site are you taking about?" | |||
| |||
"Many on here have posted misinformation, read back for yourself I ain’t doing your homework" Ah, so you just want people to believe what you say, and you don't want them to be able to check it for themselves. Got it. I still want to know who you think has been posting "links to wind sites that are funded by oil companies". The only person that has posted links here is me, one to the Guardian, one to the government, and one to wind-energy-the-facts.org which is a site run by the European Wind Energy Association. Which of those do you think is funded by oil companies? | |||
"Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax? More funding for renewable energy is good news. Where's your confusion come from on this?" It'd not.more funding. It's more subsidy. This it's not as cheap | |||
"Unfortunately you are incorrect Offshore wind with an increase subsidy will still be far cheaper than electricity generated by gas or nuclear! Well. It looks like green energy certainly wasn't that cheap after all a likely 66% increase in bid pricing paid for offsure energy form the uk gov going forward . Subsidies also to increase. I think we can safely now smcheap green energy was a hoax? " No it won't. This has been discussed at length. The government funds the connections. The bid price is what the government offers to pay per kwh This is not cheaper than fossil fuels. Businesses also pay the green tax for.these schemes and the government also gives capital subsidisation | |||
