Hacker News Reader

Comment by boringg | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear + Solar + Wind + Storage + Hydrogen + Biogas + Small hydro. Subsidize all of the above to the point that they are on an even playing field of coal and O&G (who are heavily subsidized).

To everyone's point removing subsidies is politically challenging (especially as this is almost a red / blue state issue) - however subsidizing something else so that it has a competitive advantage is essentially the same thing albeit the money flow is a bit different.

Edit: Why is this getting downvoted so much without any negative comments? weird...

View on HN

I was very much for hydro until I joined a wildlife society in college and saw how incredibly destructive it is to habitats.

Agreed - hence small hydro! It takes the energy out of the river systems which very much need to keep that majority in there.

I fail to see how "removing energy" from a river system isn't directly destroying a habitat. Things like water surges play an important role in create sand bars and other microhabitats. It's best to leave them alone.

I think you misread my comment. I was agreeing with you in that we need to keep the energy in the water systems. Only small hydro which doesn't destroy rivers / ecosystems make sense.

I ask this out of ignorance: How is coal heavily subsidized? Do you mean it's subsidized because they're not being charged for the emissions that they generate?

There are actual direct subsidies for fossil fuels in the US mostly as preferential tax treatment.

The Wikipedia page has a nice breakdown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy

Direct subsidies are from deductions made on taxes and direct government investment into modernizing the equipment on older coal power plants.

One way they do this is Percentage Depletion. A mine take out 10% of the available coal, they can deduct 10% of the value of the mine, to the point where the total deductions can exceed capital costs.

There is also deduction that came about because they wanted to promote domestic energy production and reduce dependence on foreign energy fuel, which between the year 2002-2010 awarded $12.2 billion in tax credit to coal alone.

I think that the lack of pollution taxes is the main subsidy, but it should not be brushed aside just because it is not a direct payment. Coal emissions (not just CO2) are really, really bad and kill many thousands of people every year. Imagine if the main source of organ transplants was kidnapping young people and stealing their organs. Now imagine that the government knew who was doing the kidnapping and just let them do it because it allowed for an abundant supply of cheap organ replacements. Not to mention, all of the kidnappers would be out of a job if the government cracked down.

Coal power was probably a net benefit in the beginning, but there are much better alternatives now.

Why subsidize those sources when they are taking over the market today?

The faster we can move off of polluting sources, the better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com