Policy support isn't just to get a technology to the point of "maturity". Cutting carbon emissions significantly is necessarily a more expensive way to power a nation than burning coal/gas. That simply isn't going to change in the forseable future.

You can either make dirtier generation more expensive by charging for the carbon emissions, or you can make cleaner technologies more viable. The only third option is to live with the impact of the carbon emissions.

Once a technology is 'mature' it should be transparently priced. Part of the big problem with getting rid of fossil fuels is the lack of transparency involved in their actual costs - environmental externalities, security and national defense are all areas where hidden subsidies are propping up carbon emissions.

The article specifies that onshore wind and solar will be considered mature by 2020; and I can't see a reason to disagree with that. Offshore wind is still building a manufacturing infrastructure and supply chain, so it seems reasonable to exclude it.

Nuclear, of course, is what you are concerned about. And you should be concerned since it is a very, very mature technology that stands absolutely no chance of competing on its merits.

Denmark offers a good example of how the policies could be rationalized to address climate change in the most rapid manner feasible.

This is the easy to read brochure that explains Denmark's energy strategy, which has been a guidepost for EU policy. It gives insight into the way things work when the industry players get behind policies aimed at decarbonizing a nation's energy system.
It is also a favorite point of attack by rightwing, anti-renewable crusaders who miscast the effect of carbon taxed electricity prices in effecting such change. They use less, but still have to pay about the same per month until the obligations incurred under the old system are paid off. The carbon tax also provides funds for energy assistance to low income residents.

Posted with permission and attribution.

Go here to download the full brochure:
http://www.danishenergyassociation.com/Theme/Power_to_the_People.aspx

See also: http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_GWEC_WindReport_Denmark.pdf


The discussion in this article brings things up to date.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-denmark-turned-an-efficiency-obligation-into-opportunity

Policy support (and not just subsidies) are not just to bring a technology to maturity.

The article specifies that onshore wind and solar will be considered mature by 2020; and I can't see a reason to disagree with that.

And I didn't disagree with it either. What I said was that this maturity would not change the fact that it would still be more expensive to deliver electricity to a nation in than way than by burning coal/gas. Thus it is not an adequate rationale to disable policy supports for cleaner generation.

Nuclear, of course, is what you are concerned about.

Nope. I of course include nuclear in the "cleaner but more expensive" options... but I'm not limiting it to nuclear.

And you should be concerned since it is a very, very mature technology that stands absolutely no chance of competing on its merits.

Both wrong. Windmills and solar have been around for centuries... why not call them "very, very mature"? There are certainly new designs that suffer from the curb of becomming viable... an ideal location for government support.

As for "competing on the merits"... we've been through this multiple times and you always weasel away. Charge for the carbon externalities of coal/gas and offer zero support for any other technology and we both know what would happen. LOTS of new nuclear plants and only a little bit of renewables.

Note that the same thing would happen if the story above came to fruition. Get rid of the government support for renewables and fail to price for carbon? Europe goes nuclear or gives up on her carbon targets. Yet you'll note that I didn't support the policy shift (and would be a shift).

The OP is discussing "subsidies". You don't get partial or full credit for playing games trying to deflect away from the point.

You say that wind/solar will still be more expensive than coal and gas by 2020. I don't think so. The trends are damned clear, and those sources are set to be the least expensive options bar none. That is one reason why the long term commitment being made by the Conservatives in the UK to nuclear is such a colossally stupid move.

Trying to portray modern wind and solar technology as mature because of the ancient uses? Just the kind of pointless waste of bandwidth that fills out so much of your commentary.

If what you say is true about the competitive nature of nuclear, why are you worried? The costs of wind and solar will keep dropping through 2020. Levy a carbon tax such as Denmark has (which is where the EU is steering the UK) and let them compete.

Nuclear is dead because I T C A N N O T C O M P E T E.

It was in fact very specific. I spoke of policy support in general rather than just subsidies... I spoke of supplying power to consumers rather than just $/kWh prices. I allowed for dealing with the unpriced externalities of fossil generation rather than making more expensive options cheaper.

The OP is discussing "subsidies". You don't get partial or full credit for playing games trying to deflect away from the point.

No deflection (apart from your strawman of course). The OP reports that the EU is talking about killing subsidies because the technology in question is mature (or close). I pointed out (correctly) that that doesn't make sense because it isn't the only reason why public support is valid. Your strawman is that what I was really saying was that subsidies don't exist to bring technologies to maturity - when I said nothing of the sort. IOW... the deflection here is all yours - trying to justify another spamming exercise.

You say that wind/solar will still be more expensive than coal and gas by 2020. I don't think so.

And you're wrong.

The trends are damned clear, and those sources are set to be the least expensive options bar none.

Trends are not infinite. This isn't computer technology. There are natural resources and labor involved that can't go below a certain level (indeed... they rise with inflation). Also... that's why I was careful to speak of the price of the overall system. If solar provides half of your (personal) power for free (no hardware/install cost at all), but the system that meets your overall demand without interruption costs more than twice as much as current options... you aren't saving money (even though the "damn clear trend" brought the cost of the solar to zero).

If what you say is true about the competitive nature of nuclear, why are you worried?

Sorry... that's your imagination again. I'm not in the least bit worried.

The costs of wind and solar will keep dropping through 2020. Levy a carbon tax such as Denmark has (which is where the EU is steering the UK) and let them compete.

That's exactly what I think should happen... but every time I suggest it you run away.

Nuclear is dead because I T C A N N O T C O M P E T E.

And yet it continues to. I point yet again to the UK. Comparable support structures for nuclear and renewables and renewables are offered a much higher price point... yet we both know that the results appear to be competition to build more nuclear and concern that renewables will wither on the vine... with the serious possibility that the UK will more to a much higher level of nuclear power for their 2050 goals. Potentially rivaling France.

You want to reframe the discussion, that doesn't make your comment either on point or accurate; they aren't talking about the range of possibilities available for support, just subsidies. There are very good reasons for the position they seem to be taking in that the use of subsidies after a technology is mature tends to be counterproductive in the long run - which is why the nuclear lobby is so hopeful that it will become established under a regime of subsidies that can be locked in for decades.

You are welcome to continue your unfounded support of nuclear power based on falsehoods about the virtues of nuclear and distortions about the costs involved with renewables - in the end that is just empty rhetoric and you know it.

Nuclear isn't competitive now, nor will it become more competitive as time goes by. Using a Teabagger style block of Conservative legislation as a proof of your position hardly bolsters your case - maybe you'd have better luck at freeperville. They just eat it up when the tricorner hat crowd designs legislation to make the progressive agenda look like it can't work.

You're embarrassing yourself. It did not, in fact, limit the discussion to "subsidies"... nor is the term limited to a specific type of government support.

You're the one that's trying to reframe the conversation... because you badly misread my original reply and want to avoid that being obvious. Of course you've failed.

they aren't talking about the range of possibilities available for support, just subsidies.

"Policy support" was entirely appropriate.

You wrote: "Policy support (and not just subsidies) are not just to bring a technology to maturity."

The OP is SPECIFICALLY talking of subsidies and that statement by you is an acknowledgement that you are aware of that fact. The statements you've now glommed onto are alternative expressions *clearly* refer back to the subsidies topic introduced in the beginning. They don't show you are right in your later attempt to divert away from the subject.


You are likewise mistaken in post 13 when you wrote,

No it doesn't threaten all state aid to arbitrarily selected industries.
They have an established set of rules. The UK wants to break those rules. They've been trying to figure out a way to break those rules since they took power and started unwinding the renewable and energy efficiency policies that had propelled the UK into a position of world leadership in the area of energy development. If you look at the nature of the degressive subsidies for wind and solar in Germany, it is obvious that the EU scuttlebutt about onshore wind and solar isn't a surprise nor is it arbitrary. But, it is important in that it clarifies those technologies are who would be damaged by the nuclear support is trying to obtain.

Remember all the promises not to subsidize nuclear - that was because they KNEW it was forbidden. Now they're trying a transparent ploy as a final hail mary pass.

I agree the EU investigation into German waivers for energy intensive industries can be seen through the eyes of am inherently manipulative person just as you've described it. Others however, with a more cooperative outlook, can see the same events as an exercise in fair application of the agreed upon set of laws the EU has established. The German exception is not only an unfair, backdoor subsidy for German industry (that IMO should be stopped), but it is also against the established guidelines. There is no reason to rewrite the guidelines to favor the corporatists when they were put in place to specifically curb the excesses and societal damage that race-to-the-bottom corporate policies *always* result in.

Your narrative of these events smacks strongly of the victimhood meme favoring the megacorps that is so pervasive on the right here and it is just as poorly grounded in solid understanding of the issues involved.

There's clearly someone on the thread with the compulsive need to avoid admitting error... but you need a mirror.

The OP is SPECIFICALLY talking of subsidies

Yeah? And you'll note that my first post was titled "this is nonsense"... so a reasonable reader would assume that I would follow by disagreeing with the basis for their position. They imply that reaching maturity means that subsidies are no longer appropriate... I reply that market maturity is not the only valid reason for a subsidy.

You read that (inexplicably) as a claim that market maturity isn't a reason for subsidies - rather than that it isn't the ONLY reason for them.

The statements you've now glommed onto are alternative expressions *clearly* refer back to the subsidies topic introduced in the beginning.

Nope. If you had been paying attention over the last few months, you would have seen that industry (particularly the large energy companies) are pushing for an end to support schemed - and not just what you (today) pretend is limited to "subsidies". The EU responded two months ago with guidance that clearly points in this direction (and not just to subsidies). Oettinger referred to "public intervention" and the guidance included "support schemes, capacity mechanisms or measures to ensure consumer demand response"

Remember all the promises not to subsidize nuclear - that was because they KNEW it was forbidden.

I remember neither... because they didn't happen. What they DID promise (and it was to win LibDem support for the coalition, not EU approval) was that they wouldn't create a subsidy unless other low-carbon alternatives were offered similar subsidies. Also - it clearly wasn't "forbidden" - since the issue hasn't come up. Renewables support also violates that rule, but the EU recognized the value of supporting low-carbon generation and allowed an exception - but note that it isn't a "renewables" exception, it's a "low carbon generation" exception. There's no reason to believe that they won't do the same thing here. The only thing missing is officially recognizing nuclear as a "low carbon generator"... and we both know that that's beyond rational dispute - leaving only political gamesmanship by anti-nuclear nations as a way to block the new plants.

I agree the EU investigation into German waivers...

Sorry... I'll stop you there because I don't accept the premise of the statement. You keep wanting to spin the conversation to the recent move against Germany specifically. I agree with your take on that move... but it isn't what we're talking about. The combination of the statement that renewables are essentially mature this decade - and the conclusion that this means that state aid needs to go away - is the first shot across the bow of an attack on most renewables support mechanisms across the EU.

I happen to think that it's pro-nuclear states threatening the anti-nuclear states and it will go away after the new nuclear builds are approved... but if not - then we have a real problem. Because renewables (and yes, nuclear) will need government support for quite some time to come. "Maturity" isn't good enough - because a mature technology is not necessarily a price-competitive technology

There are reasons for drawing distinctions between subsidies and other types of policy support. The EU policies are based on those reasons because it makes overall management of government responsibilities easier and more effective.

Your arguments are, when viewed from the economics of the policy research, an incoherent mishmash of radically different solutions that are designed to address differing challenges. The only coherence exhibited is your desire to twist the narrative into something you think justifies throwing public money at nuclear power.

We're done.

We both know that you've used "subsidy" to refer to a WIDE range of public support. You even called a prior UK proposal for a carbon tax a subsidy for nuclear.

The EU statements have clearly included all kinds of public support (and been working up to it for months now)... and not just whatever you're trying to pretend counts as a subsidy for today's conversation.

We're done.

Got news for you... you were "done" when you misread my initial post. It's just been a slow realization on your part since then.

NK: If instead of Contracts For Difference, the UK decided to implement a feed-in-tariff for nuclear generation... guaranteeing them the same price point that the CFD Strike Price offers... and give nothing at all to any other generation source...

... would that violate their "no public subsidy" pledge in your mind?

CK: Um.... didn't you say we were done?

NK: And while we're at it... since I've been going on about the difference between subsidies and other types of government support... and how FBaggins just doesn't understand the difference... surely you'll back me up on that, right?

CK: Um... yeah... about that. Best to stick with "we're done" and pretend you never saw this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112763342

...at least until all subsidies have been eliminated for fossil-fuel producers and the nuke-liar industry..

I really don't get it, and I don't understand why this is an issue now when it wasn't before.

What they are trying to do here however may be legal under the terms of various European agreements.

Not with the subsidy per se. Their program is actively degressive, so I think it comports with the idea under discussion.

That's the current case which is forcing regulatory changes in Germany.

But in no way is it limited to that. I'm also monumentally confused as to why the UK scheme isn't legal given the prior determinations on this.

For all others so baffled, here is a piece which gives a little more background:
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=11593

There was nothing in the 2001 decision that made a distinction between "mature" and non-mature technologies to my knowledge.

If the feed-in subsidies are cut, the plants aren't going to be built. It's that simple. 2020 is only six years away - no way will off-shore wind be competitive. And the planning for new plants takes place years in advance, so for those plants to be built the investors have to know the pricing structure in advance, AND BELIEVE IT WILL STILL BE THERE.

It says that over a year ago they were considering investigating two areas. The first was a possible reassessment of the FITs, and the second was the industry exemption.

I've heard nothing to indicate that the reassessment of the previously approved format for FITs has gone anywhere or is included in the current case pending.

This summary is consistent with every report I've seen.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20131218-702472.html


ETA: As for the nuclear plants being investigated in the UK; that has been rejected since day one; so it isn't a surprise the UK plan is being challenged. As for the offshore wind farms as I understand it the problem has nothing to do with EU rules, but instead lies in a the Conservatives refusal to support a local or EU wide renewable portfolio standard requiring a set percentage of generation from renewables by X date. Without THAT in hand the developers of offshore wind lack the market certainty that would ensure an eventual profit on the manufacturing/infrasctructure investment required to drive prices down.

This threatens all state aid for technologies that they decide are mature - ignoring whether "mature" means currently competitive or not.

I'd say that what we're witnessing is a political struggle between the countries that support nuclear power and those that want to focus on renewables. Both require state aid that (absent an exception for low-carbon generation) would violate EU standards. It's easier to put roadblocks in front of the exceptions than it is to remove them, so perhaps they're playing a game of brinksmanship. You hurt my favored technology and I hurt yours.

Complicating this is the fact that many nations in the are have de-facto government utilities... so what would otherwise be government support becomes just a product selection. They're overpaying, but it's their money.

It's childish and it needs to stop. As I said above (and whether you agree with it or not), providing reliable electricity to an economy will simply not be cheaper with cleaner technologies (apart from obvious exceptions like well-sited hydro dams, etc) than with the dirtier ones. They either need to make the dirtier technologies more expensive or support the cleaner ones.