More ODS, but thanks for steering me to look into
Post# of 65629
You overlook the fact that nascent industries like rail, coal, oil, auto, road building and NASA always received Federal support, directly or indirectly. So whatever solar and wind are receiving is not out of line with what other new sources of power received.
Economic history trumps ideology, for anyone who care to take a look. You won't find the numbers below supportive of your argument:
Quote:
A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[32] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010.
The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines.
The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D).
Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.