“Based on REN21′s 2014 report, renewables contributed 19 percent to our energy consumption and 22 percent to our electricity generation in 2012 and 2013, respectively”
So if you believe Wikipedia (and is there a better general source?), fossil fuels attract more subsidies per unit energy as well as in total.
Remember, a lot of renewables get thrown in together without being the same. The renewables that get subsidies are mostly the flashy new ones, like wind, solar, and ethanol. Those are only a few percent of world consumption. Virtually all renewable energy production is either hydroelectric(which is quite profitable, and attracts basically no subsidies) or burning of wood and dung(which almost entirely happens in poor countries that can’t afford to subsidize much of anything). Slightly dated graph, but one that gives a good sense of how things break down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#/media/File:Total_World_Energy_Consumption_by_Source_2010.png
Also, over 80% of fossil fuel subsidies are outside the OECD? Seriously? 80% of the money spent on anything being non-OECD is hard to fathom, because the OECD has somewhere around 80% of the world’s money, and a lot more disposable income to blow on subsidizing things.
Remember, a lot of renewables get thrown in together without being the same. The renewables that get subsidies are mostly the flashy new ones...
I have provided a few facts… you are trying to put a certain interpretation on them. To what end? What is it exactly that you are trying to argue?
Seriously? 80% of the money spent on anything being non-OECD is hard to fathom...
And now you are denying the data.
What is subsidised and where, is decided by factors that are not necessarily obvious or “sensible”, and there is a huge element of political electability. In OECD, fuels are a source of taxation revenue, whereas farmers, for example, benefit from subsidies. In the middle east and South-East Asia, fossil fuel is heavily subsidised, eg. in Indonesia gasoline sold for about 90% of crude oil price while I was there (and Indonesia imports their crude). I read that fully half of government revenue was at one point used to pay for the fuel subsidies. Why? Well, as soon as there is a discussion of reducing the subsidies, protests break out, and the politicians supporting the reductions do not get re-elected....
If that non-OECD number is to be believed, 2% of non-OECD GDP goes to fuel subsidies. Or, if you prefer to think of it this way, it’s close to 1⁄3 of the total world oil market to fossil fuel subsidies. And this number comes from a think-tank that’s obviously out to make an anti-subsidy point, with no detail as to where it came from or why we should believe it. Think tanks aren’t to be immediately dismissed, but they frequently exaggerate badly.
And the discussion is about why renewables get used. German use of renewables is very different than Canadian or Congolese, and aggregating them leads to muddy thinking and useless stats. Germans use modern renewables because the government is dumping a bloody lot of money into the industry. Canadians use renewables because we have massive amounts of easily-tapped hydroelectric potential, and hydro dams are the cheapest source of power known. Congolese use renewables because they have no better options than burning wood.
I’ll agree with you that some poor countries spend a lot on subsidizing gasoline, but it’s only a lot by poor-country standards, and it’s hardly all of them. I want a better source than naked statement of a number from a biased group before I’ll believe it adds up to that staggering a sum. And even if it does, that has no impact on the US, where fossil fuel is nearly unsubsidized—if you want me to think that renewables and an “energy internet” are a good choice for the US, then you need to explain how switching from a cheaper source to one that’s more expensive even with bigger subsidies is a net cost savings.
I still do not understand your objective in this discussion. It seems that you are implicitly against subsidising renewable energy. Is this correct?
(I work in the oil and gas industry, by the way, so fossil fuel subsidies sort of help me out...).
For that matter, I do not understand the upvotes in this thread. A citation was asked for—then it was provided—and then there are several posts attempting to invalidate the citation, attracting upvotes. Strange.
I want a better source than naked statement of a number from a biased group
We all do… could you please provide one?
if you want me to think that renewables … are a good choice for the US...
I don’t know when this discussion started to be about the US, and I don’t know if I really care enough about what you think to put in more effort… are you in a position to influence what the US chooses? If yes, then I will explain why this statement:
how switching from a cheaper source [presumably fossil fuels] to one that’s more expensive [presumably renewable energy]
I am explicitly against subsidies, full stop. I am also of the belief that the fashionable sorts of renewables(wind, solar, etc.) get vastly more subsidies than any other form of power, particularly in the developed world, and this belief is borne out by my own experiences with my local government and with stories from elsewhere. And I thought the US was being discussed, because it usually is, but looking upthread it seems I was in error there. If any country was being discussed it was Germany, though their example is hardly different—they’re spending a ton of money for an inferior power source.
Not really. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy :
“Based on REN21′s 2014 report, renewables contributed 19 percent to our energy consumption and 22 percent to our electricity generation in 2012 and 2013, respectively”
So if you believe Wikipedia (and is there a better general source?), fossil fuels attract more subsidies per unit energy as well as in total.
Remember, a lot of renewables get thrown in together without being the same. The renewables that get subsidies are mostly the flashy new ones, like wind, solar, and ethanol. Those are only a few percent of world consumption. Virtually all renewable energy production is either hydroelectric(which is quite profitable, and attracts basically no subsidies) or burning of wood and dung(which almost entirely happens in poor countries that can’t afford to subsidize much of anything). Slightly dated graph, but one that gives a good sense of how things break down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#/media/File:Total_World_Energy_Consumption_by_Source_2010.png
Also, over 80% of fossil fuel subsidies are outside the OECD? Seriously? 80% of the money spent on anything being non-OECD is hard to fathom, because the OECD has somewhere around 80% of the world’s money, and a lot more disposable income to blow on subsidizing things.
I have provided a few facts… you are trying to put a certain interpretation on them. To what end? What is it exactly that you are trying to argue?
And now you are denying the data.
What is subsidised and where, is decided by factors that are not necessarily obvious or “sensible”, and there is a huge element of political electability. In OECD, fuels are a source of taxation revenue, whereas farmers, for example, benefit from subsidies. In the middle east and South-East Asia, fossil fuel is heavily subsidised, eg. in Indonesia gasoline sold for about 90% of crude oil price while I was there (and Indonesia imports their crude). I read that fully half of government revenue was at one point used to pay for the fuel subsidies. Why? Well, as soon as there is a discussion of reducing the subsidies, protests break out, and the politicians supporting the reductions do not get re-elected....
If that non-OECD number is to be believed, 2% of non-OECD GDP goes to fuel subsidies. Or, if you prefer to think of it this way, it’s close to 1⁄3 of the total world oil market to fossil fuel subsidies. And this number comes from a think-tank that’s obviously out to make an anti-subsidy point, with no detail as to where it came from or why we should believe it. Think tanks aren’t to be immediately dismissed, but they frequently exaggerate badly.
And the discussion is about why renewables get used. German use of renewables is very different than Canadian or Congolese, and aggregating them leads to muddy thinking and useless stats. Germans use modern renewables because the government is dumping a bloody lot of money into the industry. Canadians use renewables because we have massive amounts of easily-tapped hydroelectric potential, and hydro dams are the cheapest source of power known. Congolese use renewables because they have no better options than burning wood.
I’ll agree with you that some poor countries spend a lot on subsidizing gasoline, but it’s only a lot by poor-country standards, and it’s hardly all of them. I want a better source than naked statement of a number from a biased group before I’ll believe it adds up to that staggering a sum. And even if it does, that has no impact on the US, where fossil fuel is nearly unsubsidized—if you want me to think that renewables and an “energy internet” are a good choice for the US, then you need to explain how switching from a cheaper source to one that’s more expensive even with bigger subsidies is a net cost savings.
I still do not understand your objective in this discussion. It seems that you are implicitly against subsidising renewable energy. Is this correct?
(I work in the oil and gas industry, by the way, so fossil fuel subsidies sort of help me out...).
For that matter, I do not understand the upvotes in this thread. A citation was asked for—then it was provided—and then there are several posts attempting to invalidate the citation, attracting upvotes. Strange.
We all do… could you please provide one?
I don’t know when this discussion started to be about the US, and I don’t know if I really care enough about what you think to put in more effort… are you in a position to influence what the US chooses? If yes, then I will explain why this statement:
is wrong.
I am explicitly against subsidies, full stop. I am also of the belief that the fashionable sorts of renewables(wind, solar, etc.) get vastly more subsidies than any other form of power, particularly in the developed world, and this belief is borne out by my own experiences with my local government and with stories from elsewhere. And I thought the US was being discussed, because it usually is, but looking upthread it seems I was in error there. If any country was being discussed it was Germany, though their example is hardly different—they’re spending a ton of money for an inferior power source.