Didn’t know there were any.
Another view – looking at the results of those claimed subsidies – is this link. We note the conclusion:
This is a huge can of beans and it would take a while to digest. The “traditional forms of energy are only competitive because they are heavily subsidized” is plain nonsense and we would have to analyze a lot.
The main reason there are subsidies is that the government decides to intervene a certain sector. If you regulate a sector and limit profits, then you have to limit losses or you find yourself with no one investing there. European governments “subsidise” more but they also tax more. The net result is still a heavily taxed energy sector but with government intervention.
I doubt there is any energy sector which receives net subsidies anywhere. Personally I would be for less governemnt intervention: no “subsidies” and lower taxes.
But in Europe the tradition is for governments to intevene more so they will subsidise their domestic coal mines to keep thousands of miners working when their coal mining is not competitive. This is hardly a thing to do with energy of any kind, but rather their mentality. They are not subsidising coal to make it cheaper, rather they are subsidising their coal to make it competitive with cheaper foreign coal. They are not subsidising the coal itself, they are subsidising workers who are not competitive. The EU is moving away from this kind of thing though. But the idea that traditional energy sources receive net subsidies is a myth. In the US the taxes and subsidies are much lower but, on the whole and in proportion alternative energies receive much higher subsidies and grants. Up to a certain point I am OK with this as they are the ones that need incentives but you have to set limits. Many of these subsidies are just feel-good wastes of money that have no effect. In general I believe private enterprise is best suited to discover promising technologies.
The other kind of subsidies is at the consumer level and I am also against those: discounts and low rates for the old, the poor, this activity, that activity, this use, etc. This is a bad distotrtion of the economy which leads to waste and bad allocation of resorces.
The problem is that the same people who are against “subsidies” of one kind are for subsidies of another kind and for government intervention. Once the government intervenes a sector, that is the end of competition and the efficiency it brings with it.
justwannano
[Moderator Hat ON]
Calling people “boneheads” is not appropriate here. Quit it or Pit it.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
We’re making great inroads with corn.
It’s a fantastic crop with high yields. It fixes carbon that it gets from the atmosphere. It’s been highly hybridized and specialized.
Ethanol from corn is getting cheaper and is a highly renewable resource. The byproducts are highly useful, so it is efficient. You can create sileage and feed grain with the leftovers.
Or, like Cargill Dow is proving, you can use the starch for all kinds of chemical and industrial applications.
Recent innovations allow the cheap manufacture of biodegradeable plastic and other useful polycarbons from corn (It’s been around for years in the form of dissolving stitches and such, it’s just finally gotten cheap enough to be useful for Coke bottles and such.)
The planet has long been a solar/carbohydrate driven place, so this is nothing new.
Fuel cells show a lot of promise in vehicles and as highly efficient energy storage media.
With the perfection of high quality reformers it’s possible to make a fuel cell powered car that could run on gasoline, ethanol, methane, propane, and just about any and all -ines and -anes you could name.
Metal hydride storage for hydrogen makes the use of fuel cells safe, and the potential range of a fuel cell powered vehicle superior to what we know have.
Perfected, and manufactured in quantity, it becomes cheap.
Microturbines like that currently being sold by Capstone Turbine are incredibly efficient burners of a variety of hydrocarbons, and have far reaching applications as well.
Hail Gaudere! That is a great line… 
[sub]of course, if it is also a common line and I don’t know it then I’ll look rather out of it, but gotta give compliments where compliments are due[/sub]
Last time around we looked at corn, bioalcohol and such, we (or at least I) came to the conclusion that it was a lousy investment, that it requires a lot of land and a lot of energy and that it is not profitable except for the subsidies. I remember Anthracite posting about this but I am too lazy to do a search. It is probably in one of the threads I mentioned earlier.
sailor:
If you look at growing corn for ethanol only, it’s a rotten deal and unjustifiable.
If you look at the fact the grain and remaining starches have useful feed and industrial applications that can profitably be exploited, and the stalks are valuable as sileage feed, then, as a whole, making ethanol is a workable and profitable endeavor.
Bare in mind that this information is garnered from the “2001 Corn annual.” That confessed, there’s a lot of funding, and a lot of science that beleives grain fuels are a valid alternative.
I even got a plastic cup made from corn and some cornstarch packing peanuts!
I forgot to mention it’s chemical uses in paper products, the fact that industrial and chemical demands for corn chemicals have double in the last ten years.
There is already even a Dow chemical owned corn plastics plant operating in Nebraska. The plastic compound is called “Natureworks PLA.”
The process uses simple fermentation and seperation producing ethanol as well as plastic polymers. Department of Energy awarded it “technology of the Year.”
Dupont also is commercializing a polymer “Sorona,” derived from corn.
Dupont thinks this is “as big a breakthrough as Lycra!”
Wow. Lycra.
So, who knows. Maybe it’s all bullshit. Maybe not. I do agree that if you’re just growing corn for ethanol, it’s an inefficient and expensive waste. Additionally I don’t think it’s possible to grow enough corn to meet energy demand (although maybe if lawns went out of favor and everybody had corn all around there house it would help.)
Around here, I think it would mostly help the raccoon and squirrel population 
Anyway, moving from the ridiculous to the sublime (or at least the slightly less ridiculous), I find that the FAO gives U.S. maize yield as 83,979 Hg/Ha, and area harvested as 28,525,000 Ha, for 1999. This provided a total of 10.4 Pcal of dietary energy. Now, this doesn’t include the energy that could be extracted from the stalks, etc; to the left, converting the kernel to ethanol will use up some of the energy in it. Since I don’t have other (and probably better) figures, I will assume for purposes of discussion that it’s a wash.
This is about 37.6 Mcal/person. That’s equivalent to 157 MJ, 43.7 kW-hr, or 149 KBTU. Preliminary data from the EIA indicate that in 1999 per capital energy in the U.S. was about 354 MBTU. Either I’ve baked the dog on the arithmetic somewhere, or the current acreage wouldn’t come close to fulfilling our needs.
I am all for Dow Chemical and Dupont investing their money in what looks promising to them. I have no doubt this is the most productive use of resources for R&D which will lead to new technologies. What I am not crazy about is the government subsidising anything.
This I believe was government susbsided.