[Kerb_]

On a level playing field where both are equally subsidized, solar and wind would still outcompete coal. Their point seems to be applicable to the degree to which harmful power generation is subsidized relative to regular power generation, not just the subsidies themselves.

[pyrale]

I wouldn't bet on it.

If your accounting model is "build some production, plug it to the grid and let someone else worry about the details", sure, you're right. But if you factor in grid development costs, the picture is different.

For instance, you lften hear about Germany importing lots of energy, and usually there's always someone to say "But they export a lot, too". Well, these imports & exports require lines to happen, and these lines aren't cheap. The EU mandates that countries should develop interconnexion to facilitate the market, but this ruling mostly helps intermittent energy sources.

Another example in France, where the south-western region has a lot of solar, and not many industrial consumers. To make things worse, that region is close to an interconnexion with Spain, which has a lot of solar production. In order to move all that power to places where it can be used, new lines have to be built.

These costs are not factored in if you only price new production, but they're also significant.

[ViewTrick1002]

This is also not factored into France utilizing ~10 GW of neighboring flexible fossil fueled flexibility to not have to turn down their nuclear reactors as much during the night.

The French grid would be even more uneconomical without the interconnections.

https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...

[potato3732842]

Shipping got containerized without a significant amount[1] of tax breaks or handouts for that purpose. Rail standards were developed without significant preferential treatment as were the early electrical standards. Without subsidies of specific tech we'd likely see more balkanization and partial standardization of the grid. Perhaps the grid would have remained less reliable longer. In all likelihood things would "mostly" be the same on a medium-long timeline.

Remember, prior to the 1960s and 1970s expansions of the federal bureaucracy the government didn't really get as proactively involved in this sort of thing as they are now. Though there were several cases in which they lit a pile of money on fire and kept feeding it until they got the results they wanted (I can't think of an example of this that wasn't directed at defense tech though).

I think it would likely be a lateral move, or close enough to lateral that we can't really say with a high degree of certainty whether it would have turned out better or worse. I think it's very possible that without tax breaks we'd have gotten more solar earlier but with a slower adoption curve after that if none of this stuff was subsidized.

[1] I know of none but I don't want some nit picker to find some case where someone got a $2k research grant in 1961 and act like that invalidates the point here.