“Federal subsidies to support renewable energy formed nearly half of all federal energy-related support between fiscal years 2016 and 2022. Traditional fuels (coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear) received just 15 percent of all subsidies between FY 2016 and FY 2022, while renewables, conservation and end use received a whopping 85 percent.” (Mary Hutzler, below)

A fallacious argument in the energy/climate debate is that wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels in electric generation. It must be wrong because government subsidies are front-and-center for on-grid dilute, intermittent energies. And it is wrong if the federal accounting is examined (below).

Actually, the relatively small subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal turn negative, dramatically, when the Biden Administration anti-fossil-fuel agenda is added, 225 actions worth.

Mary Hutzler of IER (and former acting head of the DOE’s Energy Information Agency) prepared this analysis less than a year ago for the Institute for Energy Research.…

“Let’s see if Skeptical Science makes another appearance on LinkedIn. It is up to 458 follows. And see if this organization will simply prepare an entry on what ‘skeptic’ arguments are the best. With that middle ground, maybe we can have a real debate.”

On LinkedIn, the alarmist Skeptical Science posted:

Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn as well. Here is a list of some signs to be on the lookout for when reading posts or comments related to human-caused climate change or global warming:

Read the list here, but their pitch is little more than ‘trust us’ and visit the DeSmog database of “deniers” for the bad actors. (Note: DeSmog’s smear-list encyclopedia has backfired!…

“Getting wind projects built is getting a lot harder. The low-hanging fruit, the easier access places are gone.” (Sandhya Ganapathy, EDP Renewables North America, quoted below)

The New York Times article, “As Solar Power Surges, U.S. Wind Is in Trouble” (June 4, 2024), discussed the problems of wind problems, such as site depletion. But the article has nary a quotation, much less mention, from the legion of critics of the aged, doomed technology for economical, reliable grid power.

In order of appearance, the seven chosen by authors Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich were:

Trevor Houser, Rhodium Group; Sandhya Ganapathy, EDP Renewables North America; Matthew Eisenson, Columbia University; Ben Haley, Evolved Energy Research; Michael Thomas, energy writer; John Hensley, American Clean Power Association; Ryan Jones, Evolved Energy Research.

Where were the real critics on industrial wind’s cost, aesthetics, health, and ecological issues?…

“But nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” (Milton and Rose Friedman, Tyranny of the Status Quo, 1983, p. 115)

“The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up.” (Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, 1979, p. 49)

What was said in a previous post regarding wind power’s 14 extensions of the Production Tax Credit also applies to solar power’s Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and its preceding tax favors. From 1978 to the present (46 years), 15 extensions belie the industry’s age-old claims of almost being competitive. Remember the New York Times’ declaration in 1994 (per Enron) that solar was “competitive” with fossil fuels? Remember Solyndra? Joe Romm in 2011: “It is clear that solar and wind are competitive in many situations right now.”…