[petercoolz]

To be clear, the price of energy goes negative because of government subsidies. For example, a wind plant with a $30/MWH subsidy can afford to run at a price of -$30.

Similarly, if you're in California and you ever wondered why your electricity bill is 2x that of any other state, it is because you are the ones footing the bill for those subsidies. Without subsidies, wind and solar are far more inefficient at a $/MWH basis.

[toomuchtodo]

Oil, coal, and gas is subsidized to the tune of ~$400 billion a year (2010 numbers), while renewables are around ~$60 billion a year. Renewables have a capital cost, but no fuel cost.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-21/when-it-come...

"Meanwhile, a recent report from the U.N. Industrial Development Organization notes that photovoltaic module prices have been falling at a rate of 15 percent to 24 percent a year for some time. In 2011, factory gate prices for crystalline-silicon photovoltaic modules fell below the $1-per-watt mark, often regarded as the point of “grid parity” for solar power. Earlier this year, they reached 85¢.

The “levelized cost of electricity” for solar, a measure of the average price of power over the lifetime of a power project, has fallen from 32¢ per kilowatt hour in 2009 to 17¢ in early 2012. These declining costs are a major factor behind an explosion in use. A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council calculates that from 2006 to 2011, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave electricity production increased from 1 percent to 2.7 percent of total US production, from 0.1 percent to 1.5 percent in China, and from 5.3 percent to 10.7 percent in Germany. One sunny Saturday in May 2012 saw Germany produce nearly half of its electricity from solar. Given the long life of power plants—often measured in decades—this rate of change is phenomenal. Again, five years ago, total global photovoltaic capacity was just 16 gigawatts. In 2011, the world added nearly twice that—29 gigawatts—of new capacity."

Note this article is from October 2012, two years ago. Renewable installations have skyrocketed, with subsidies far below what oil, gas, and other fossil fuels are provided with.

[brc]

Those oil, has and coal subsidy numbers are completely bogus if they are generated from the iea numbers. Iea is just a solar/wind lobbying front - and the bulk of the numbers are made from countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran directly subsidising the cost of petrol for their citizens.

It is laughable for anyone to suggest that oil, coal or gas energy is subsidised when these numbers are calculated on wooly figures like access to land, or tax deductibility of research - the same rules that apply to all companies, software companies included.

The simple fact is that oil, gas and coal energy generates a magnitude more tax revenue than it ever gets in irritating or indirect subsidies, while the 'renewables' sector only ever takes subsidies and doesn't return net tax. This is plainly obvious based on the per mw/h cost of these technologies - there is no magic formula involved in selling something below average cost of production an making a profit, no matter how much volume you do.

[rayiner]

Being able to externalize pollution is a subsidy. Accounting for externalized costs, coal is about parity with wind in terms of cost, though gas is ahead of both.

[toomuchtodo]

Agreed, but with the price of oil headed below $80/barrel, shale and other fracking operations that are expensive to operate are now going to operate at a loss (causing some producers to go bankrupt). You're going to see the cost of natgas dip down, and if enough producers go out of business, jump back up to new highs as production will have dropped quite a bit.

[kbart]

Yes, there was an article about that few days ago: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-powe...