I came across this very interesting report today. I am curious if it will help to rebut the position of those who argue against solar and wind because they need subsidization to get off the ground.
In this case, I wouldn't really mind history repeating itself, and providing this same level of support for renewables. How about you?What Would Jefferson Do?
The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Futurehttp://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/D ... _paper.pdfhttp://www.istockanalyst.com/business/n ... -s-history
Among the report's key findings:
Energy industries have enjoyed a century of federal support. From 1918-2009, the oil and gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies. Renewable energy sources received $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation) for a much shorter period from 1994-2009.
Average annual support for the oil and gas industry has been $4.86 billion (1918-2009), compared to $3.50 billion for nuclear (1947-1999) and $0.37 billion (1994-2009) for renewable energy.
There is a striking divergence in early federal incentives. For example, federal support for the nuclear industry overwhelms other subsidies as a percentage of federal budget, but equally striking is the support for oil and gas which was at least 25% higher than renewables, and in the most extreme years 10x as great.
"The take away from this history lesson is that government support has been and should continue to be an essential component in the growth of emerging energy sources, enabling U.S. technology innovation, job creation and economic expansion." said Pfund.