Clearly, economies of scale will increasingly favor non-carbon energy sources, as their relatively small extent so far ramps up over time. The key questions are:
1) Is non-carbon also cheaper than carbon for the big energy growth regions (e.g. China)?
2) How close is non-carbon capacity to meeting demand? (If China wants and can afford to pay for more energy at current rates than non-carbon sources can deliver, it will continue to expand carbon energy usage even if the price is higher than non-carbon).
3) How long before non-carbon is cheap enough, not only to compete with carbon at the margin, but also to make it economical to replace already installed carbon energy production?
The economic case for taxing carbon, to help slow global warming, has been rock-solid for three decades.
There may be some taxation policies which may make it difficult or impossible to write off certain costs of operating a coal fired power plant, such as depreciation. Depreciation is a cost which typically is allowed for any business which uses equipment. Such businesses include manufacturing and warehousing businesses as well as energy production. A Walmart can claim depreciation of forklifts on a loading dock and a wind energy producers can claim depreciation on its turbines.
I do not consider a tax break to be a subsidy. A subsidy is where the government actually writes checks to a business.
I do support phasing out coal as a source of electricity, but I do not favor forcing coal plants into bankruptcy. If wind can actually out compete coal, good. But if a subsidy is necessary for wind, "subsidy" is not a four letter word. That's what carbon taxes are for; if we are to use taxes rather than regulation or "cap and trade" to promote green energy, use it to subsidize the green energy, rather than for revenue, or to cut income taxes to claim that carbon taxes are revenue neutral.
You ask for solid evidence and link to a newscience article that claims without solid evidence that coal in some places is more expensive than wind. I notice it doesn't discuss the need for coal plants when the wind isn't blowing. I find articles like this similar to those alarmists who look at Antarctica with a microscope in the hopes of finding exceptions where a glacier is shrinking instead of growing or remaining stable and then proclaiming that it proves Antarctica is warming. Brazil is tropical so it can produce biofuel rather cheaply but it certainly has an ecological cost. I will be skeptical until I see better evidence that wind can fairly compete. Perhaps it can somewhere in the Outback but most of us don't live there.
That would be nice to know. Hey, what if we knew the answer because we got the government out of the business of picking who they like best, who has given the best speech about they're pet project, who's state representative had the most power, or who's padded their pockets the most?
Why concern yourself now if wind power is receiving subsidizes that fossil fuels receive, because I doubt you'd ever concern yourself to check and see if the reverse were true when you were cheering a politician or environmentalist shouting for an end to fossil fuel subsidies?
What if the answer to this question, "Don't be stupid, wind energy is better because it cost less!" Wouldn't that be a good selling point? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to claim we should switch to this type of energy because it cost less and saves resources?
Oh, I realize the error in that math, we've forgot to add in the cost of saving the planet to the fossil fuel industry. We forgot to add in how good it makes people feel to think they're saving the planet. We also forgot to add in how much better the weather will be once we switch over. Why is it when a liberal tries to make a decision about the best course of action it has to include something that is not tangible or calculable? It doesn't matter what it is, the decision is rarely based on facts or reality.
What would be the point of having wind power if they are not cheaper?
I am not against wind generation but they can never replace conventional power stations, it takes one acre of land to produce 5000watts while an average coal fired station produces about 1500 mega watts (do the math) that's a lot of land,
Electricity demand varies a lot and rapidly, and there is a need to have fast and flexible responses to match the load required, wind cannot do this so can only be used as base load.
It is not a case of coal or wind. out of alternative power only hydroelectric has the ability of fast and flexible load outputs, even nuclear can only be used as base load, you have to have oil/gas/coal fired stations to satisfy load variations.
Australia does:
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/03/...
Flunky......see first para of article in 2nd link:
“Solar and wind energy are fighting cuts to subsidies and general backlash to renewable energy projects.”
I tried this before, but flubbed the link; here's a fresh copy.
I often see laments from denialists suggesting that wind turbines, and other forms of alternative energy, are only installed as a result of heavy government subsidies. But www.newscientist.com/article/dn23159-wi nd-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal-in-s ome-countries.html (please paste and remove spaces, I fear link rot) suggests that newly installed wind power is cheaper than newly installed coal in Brazil and Australia, even excluding the effects of the Australian carbon tax. So, are Brazil and Australia somehow subsidizing wind power in ways they are not subsidizing fossil fuel power, or could it be that the only reason coal tends to be cheaper is that we've already got the coal plants built?
Any other evidence (solid evidence, not blogs) about the relative costs of newly installed power from different sources would also be good.
