Rule Five Solar Subsidies Friday

If this doesn’t piss you off, you just aren’t paying attention.  Think nuclear power is heavily subsidizes?  Oil and gas?  Turns out they ain’t got nothing  on solar power subsidies.

On September 22, I published my calculations on solar subsidies. I found that federal incentives for solar energy were 200 times greater than those given to nuclear when calculated on an energy-produced basis. I arrived at that number by combining data from the Joint Committee on Taxation with domestic energy production numbers from the Statistical Review of World Energy.

However, after further review, my calculations were too conservative. They were too low by half. Data published last month by the Energy Information Administration show that subsidies for solar in 2022 were 302 times larger than those given to nuclear.

Image from story

Here’s the kicker:

Last year, “total energy subsidies and support” the phrase used by the EIA in its report for solar totaled $7.4 billion, and solar production totaled 1.8 quads. That works out to $4.1 billion per quad. Meanwhile, subsidies for nuclear totaled $110 million, and production totaled about 8.1 quads, which means nuclear got $13.6 million per quad. A bit of simple division ($4.1 billion by $13.7 million) shows that solar got 302  times more federal subsidies last year than nuclear.

Subsidies for the landscape-destroying wind energy business totaled nearly $3.6 billion in 2022, while production was 3.8 quads. That means wind energy got subsidies of $947 million per quad, or 69 times more than nuclear.

The enormous subsidies for wind and solar show, once again, that America’s energy policy has been hijacked by climate corporatism, which, as I explained in April, is “the use of government power to increase the profits of big corporations at the expense of consumers and in particular, at the expense of small (and mostly rural) landowners in the name of climate change.”

Here’s the constitutional authorization for the Imperial government to fund these subsidies:

Did you get that?  As in, none.  The Imperial City is levying taxes (theft) on us to spend our money on these things illegally.

All of these “green” energy sources only survive because of these massive subsidies.  They are less efficient, have less energy density, are more expensive and produce more waste products than any other method of generating electricity; and they are sucking up far, far more taxpayer money per kilowatt than the most efficient, most energy-dense and cleanest form of generation available in the world today: Nuclear power.

But wait!  There’s more!

Unfortunately, the $7.4 billion in federal subsidies given to solar last year may be only a foretaste of the climate corporatism to come. As I reported last Friday, under the Inflation Reduction Act, annual federal giveaways to solar could triple to $22 billion by 2036 and total as much as $50 billion by the late 2040s. Those massive subsidies for solar energy, which we are continually told is “green,” “clean,” and “renewable,” will create a staggering volume of solid waste that will largely go into landfills because it costs too much to recycle them.

What’s interesting is how all this isn’t playing into the Presidential election debates – at least, not yet.  I’ve been in on RedState’s live-blogging of both GOP primary debates so far, and there has been little talk of energy at all, and absolutely zero discussion of nuclear power.

Why not?

So, no matter who ends up in the Imperial Mansion, are we to look forward in perpetuity to more expensive, less reliable electrical power?  To unreliable, short-range, possibly dangerous electric vehicles? To be herded into “15 minute cities”?

Actually, I think not.  Stein’s Law applies here as with everything:  “What can’t continue, won’t continue.”  This whole scam, with its massive subsidies to almost-certainly well-connected private companies, has a shelf life.

Look, people should be free to use whatever power source suits them.  If someone wants to pay to have a dozen solar panels on their roof, they are free to do so.  If someone wants to put a water-wheel on a stream running through their property and use that, they can knock themselves out.  But they should – nay, must not – receive even one penny of taxpayer money to help pay for it.

And the manufacturers of these alternatives should likewise not receive even one penny of taxpayer money to build them.