/—-/ Thr only thing wrong with solar is forcing it on everyone even though it’s limited in how much power it can generate.
And what President was super trying to bring extremely dirty Canadian tar sand oil through the US so we could sell it to China? LOL The malodorous mango and Putrid Pete are doing their best to defund our best universities and shut down their science research. Thereby giving the lead in scientific research to China.
Fossil fuels are getting far more in subsidies than are wind and solar. The utilities are choosing solar and wind on economics alone, and even fighting the administration because of the admins attempts to end present and future renewable projects simply because the treasonous fat senile old demented President does not like them.
Liar yourself. Here are the facts;
Liar yourself. Here are the facts;
The United States spends tens of billions annually on fossil fuel subsidies, including tax breaks, direct payments, and other financial incentives for oil, gas, and coal industries.
Scale
The U.S. federal government currently spends at least $34.8 billion per year on domestic fossil fuel subsidies, combining preexisting support with new allocations from recent legislation. For example, the Republican "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" added roughly $40 billion in new subsidies over the next decade, averaging about $3.5–4 billion per year for oil, gas, and coal. These subsidies include tax breaks, fee reductions for producing fuels on public lands, and direct funding for the industry.
Yale University+1
Types
U.S. fossil fuel subsidies take several forms:
- Tax breaks: Key provisions include the Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs) and the Percentage Depletion Allowance, which allow companies to deduct significant expenses related to drilling and production.
1- Property tax exemptions: States like Texas and Louisiana provide long-term exemptions for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, totaling billions over ten years.
1- Direct payments and funding: Federal programs provide grants or financial support to fossil fuel projects, often aimed at boosting domestic production.
2- Externalized costs: Military protection, environmental cost avoidance, and other indirect supports effectively reduce operational risks for fossil fuel companies.
1
3 SourcesHistorical
Fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. have a long history, with some tax breaks dating back over a century, such as the 1913 deduction for drilling expenses. While originally intended to encourage domestic energy production, these subsidies now largely support mature and profitable industries like oil, gas, and coal. Efforts to phase out subsidies, including proposals under the Biden administration, have faced political challenges and compromises, leaving many longstanding incentives intact.
Yale University+1
Economic
Subsidies distort energy markets, reduce incentives to switch to cleaner energy, and cost taxpayers billions annually. Estimates suggest that direct U.S. subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion per year, while broader measures including unpriced externalities could total $760 billion annually. Continuing these subsidies encourages additional fossil fuel extraction, potentially increasing carbon emissions and undermining climate goals. For instance, maintaining current subsidies could make it profitable to extract half of all domestic oil reserves, adding billions of tons of CO₂ to the atmosphere.
FracTracker+1
Conclusion
U.S. fossil fuel subsidies are extensive, multi-faceted, and historically entrenched, providing financial support through tax breaks, direct payments, and indirect benefits. While intended to promote domestic energy production, these subsidies now primarily benefit profitable industries, distort markets, and contribute to environmental and climate challenges, raising questions about their continued justification in the context of renewable energy alternatives and climate policy.
Yale University+2
/——/ Nuclear doesn’t need the sun to shine or wind to blow. No greenhouse gases either.photovoltaics are going strong, which makes concentrated thermal solar obsolete.
photovoltaics are going strong, which makes concentrated thermal solar obsolete.
And it is incredibly expensive.
And it is incredibly expensive.
Solar energy is currently significantly cheaper than nuclear power, both in upfront costs and per kilowatt-hour generation, making it the more cost-effective option today.
Capital
Solar projects have a much lower initial investment compared to nuclear plants. Utility-scale solar farms can be built for less than $1,000 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity, whereas nuclear plants cost between $6,500 and $12,250 per kW, with some projects like the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia reaching around $10,300 per kW. This means solar can be deployed faster and with lower financial risk, while nuclear projects often take years or even decades to complete.
smartreability.com+1
Levelized
The LCOE measures the total cost of building and operating a power plant over its lifetime per unit of electricity. In 2023, the LCOE for advanced nuclear power was estimated at $110/MWh, while solar PV was around $55/MWh, with projections for 2050 showing solar dropping to $25/MWh and nuclear remaining near $110/MWh. Lazard’s 2025 report also indicates that new nuclear costs range from $141–$220 per MWh, whereas utility-scale solar costs are $38–$78 per MWh, making solar the cheaper option even without subsidies.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report+1
Operational
Nuclear plants have high capacity factors (~90%), meaning they can operate near full capacity almost continuously, while solar is intermittent, with capacity factors typically 17–20%, depending on location. Despite nuclear’s efficiency, the operational and maintenance costs, fuel, waste management, and decommissioning add to the total cost, whereas solar has minimal ongoing costs once installed, as sunlight is free.
smartreability.com+1
Cost
Solar costs have dropped dramatically over the past decade, with installation costs falling by over 90%, while nuclear projects have experienced massive cost overruns and delays, such as the Plant Vogtle reactors exceeding $35 billion, more than double initial estimates. Renewable energy incentives, like tax credits, further reduce solar costs, whereas nuclear faces regulatory and financing challenges.
residentialsolarpanels.org+1
Summary
- Upfront cost: Solar << Nuclear
- LCOE: Solar ~$25–78/MWh vs Nuclear ~$110–220/MWh
- Construction time: Solar < 1 year vs Nuclear 6–20+ years
- Capacity factor: Nuclear ~90%, Solar 17–20%
- Operational costs: Solar minimal, Nuclear moderate to high
- Trend: Solar costs decreasing, Nuclear costs stable or increasing
Overall, solar energy is currently the more cost-effective and rapidly deployable option, while nuclear offers high reliability and low emissions but at a significantly higher financial and time cost.
5
5 Sources
Even with the cost of storage, solar is less costly in sunny areas than any other form of generation.
You are the one peddling bullshit.
