Look at wind in context first and foremost. Wind is only 1.5 times more expensive than coal but it's costs are nearly all upfront. Same goes with solar except (old figures puts solar at 8 times the cost). So subsidies just help push wind over the initial build costs then generating electricity for the next 20 years with a once per year (one day) maintenance schedule). So it's nearly free.
Land use can still be done to right up to the base for grazing or farming.
So where is the problem, those subsidises are needed since most of the electricity is privatised already in America. If you didn't privatise your electricity companies, then you wouldn't have had the disaster called Enron and you wouldn't be ripped off from wind companies. If I had a product I was selling and the government decided to give people subsidises to buy, I would jack up prices to take my share of the increased profits too.
The best idea, instead of subsidies, the government should offer interest free loans instead, then implement a carbon trading scheme.
One day you may see a WG built by Walmart to help them offset CO2 emissions.
__________________
"Natural climate forces can not be underestimated, but no climate model produced can show the speed of the melting in the Arctic that has occurred without adding human contributed emissions." A Physicist from the U.S Army.
http://www.theage.com.au/frontpage/2.../frontpage.pdf
|