This is a controversial issue as the UK government unwinds the subsidies available for the installation of renewable energy, although subsidies for coal (etc) remain in place. A new Circulate report explores the issue. It begins:
"The short answer to this important question is actually yes. But perhaps not for the reasons that most suspect. Renewable energy sources are not technically or economically infeasible without government subsidies. They need subsidies to be competitive because they are so unsubsidised compared to fossil fuel and nuclear power sources.
Studies recently conducted by the International Energy Agency have revealed that fossil fuels benefits from governmental subsidies ten-fold more than renewable energy, and that is without taking into account the environmental clean-up costs associated with non-renewable energy production.
An oil depletion allowance has been in-place for the industry since 1926, insurance costs for nuclear plants are covered by taxpayers worldwide, taxpayer funded rail networks have been vital to coal and in the U.S., gas fracking and drilling is exempt from being compliant with the safe water drinking act, effectively a huge subsidy. There really is no such thing as a non-subsidised unit of energy, and perhaps there needn’t be. It is a point of encouragement for the transition to an economy powered by renewable energy."
You can read more about this (with good graphics) in an article from Clean Technia: The Myth About Renewable Energy Subsidies.
This area reminds me of the Brexodus debate – lacking in hard facts. I think this reports helps a bit, even though it's rather US-centric, and it should be useful for anyone teaching about this difficult area.
Respond