Not exact matches
In 2016, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo
directed the New York Public Service Commission to consider ratepayer - financed
subsidies similar to those
for renewable sources to keep nuclear power stations profitable in the competition against natural gas.
This means it covers the
direct cost of low - carbon
subsidies, energy efficiency and carbon taxes, as well as indirect costs due to strengthening grids, backing up intermittent
renewables, compensating conventional generation
for lost revenue through the capacity market and savings due to the merit - order effect, which pushes down wholesale electricity prices.
Setting aside the fact that in many cases clean energy competes on its own merits —
for instance in the case of well ‐ situated wind farms and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol — this analysis shows that the global
direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the
subsidy for renewables.
Diverting any money to specific mid-stream market sectors (
renewable energy
for example — though a fan, we should eliminate all such
direct subsidies) ignores that the majority of a consumer's carbon footprint is embedded in the products they buy.
As a means of comparison, in 2011 alone the International Energy Agency estimated that global fossil fuel
direct subsidies were worth $ 523 billion, compared to $ 88 billion
for renewables.
If you are going to subsidise at all then wouldn't
direct subsidies to clean
renewable power industries
for example be more honest and logical?
But they're in the same ball park, and the Bloomberg complaint is that «This analysis shows that the global
direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the
subsidy for renewables.»
«This analysis shows that the global
direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the
subsidy for renewables.»