[tallanvor]

Taxes are part of the cost of electricity, and it's perfectly reasonable to include them in the cost of production. Wind power being down to within 10% of the cost of coal, that's absolutely competitive territory.

Additionally, the article notes that in some countries the costs are even higher for coal and natural gas, and in those countries, solar is certainly within competitive costs.

You might not like that governments are taxing some forms of electricity more heavily, but it's a valid way of encouraging the industry to migrate to cleaner options.

[vog]

> You might not like that governments are taxing some forms of electricity more heavily, but it's a valid way of encouraging the industry to migrate to cleaner options.

It's not just a "valid way". This is the way taxes are intended to work! Taxes are not just a way for the state to collect money (maybe in the past centuries). They are also the main way to frame the economy.

Here in Germany, the term for "tax" is "Steuern" which means something like "controlling/steering/directing/governing". This is exactly the official purpose of taxes, and includes collecting as well as spending taxes.

[talmand]

It's interesting how many times I see people not understanding the effects of taxes. Like the short-minded people that think they'll reap huge benefits from taxing cigarettes and base their budgets around it. But then people stop smoking or find alternative sources for cigarettes so that the huge windfall of tax income never happens. Now they are left with a huge hole in their budget.

[the_why_of_y]

Did you consider the possibility that taxes on cigarettes are intended as an incentive to stop smoking and thereby lower the health care costs of treating long term smokers' various ailments?

[talmand]

Yes, but are you assuming that all tax districts had the same thinking? The situation I'm referring to up in the Northwest US, as I recall, was not considering that. Plus I'm sure there are other examples of budgets being based on taxes that didn't pan out, leaving a deficit in the budget.

[downandout]

I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are.

Bloomberg LLP, the company behind this report, is run by Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire radical environmentalist. Therefore it isn't necessarily surprising to see such misleading tactics used in a report produced by them, but it is disappointing because Bloomberg masquerades as a news organization.

[icebraining]

I simply pointed out that by using prices that include taxes and incentives, this report artificially exaggerated the costs of coal and understated the true costs of solar/wind. They aren't really even close to being competitive in real terms, but this report falsely implies that they are.

How do you define "real" terms? Sure it's not the price that would emerge if those taxes/incentives didn't exist, but market prices are always adjusted to the current particularities, it's never an absolute value. For example, if it was technically and legally possible to identify all the health and property damages caused by coal pollution and force the coal producers to compensate affected people, the market price of coal would have to be higher than what you call "real" cost, but would that be any less real?

[downandout]

>How do you define "real" terms?

The actual cost of production without artificial factors like taxes and incentives being included.

[fauigerzigerk]

Regulating or taxing emissions is simply a form of collective demand for clean air, a scarce resource. I don't see how it is any more artificial than demand for land that drives up the prices for coal mines or the demand for labor that determines salaries of coal miners.

In other words, producing energy by burning coal consumes clean air. Clean air is owned by the public and the public is charging for its use.

[m_eiman]

You should also include external costs to your cost of producing coal power; then is what the CO2 taxes are an attempt to do.

That someone else is forced to pay to handle the effects of your pollution doesn't mean that this cost shouldn't be considered part of the cost of coal generated electricity.

[forgetsusername]

I don't think downandout is confused with the purpose of taxes, nor do I see it disagreeing with them.

The point I think (and to which I agree) is that real costs matter because anything can be "competitive" with enough subsidization. And subsidization doesn't make things cheaper in the real sense, it simply realigns incentives.

As is, renewables are heavily subsidized, fossil fuels are taxed heavily, and there's still a gap. It's trivial to close that gap through tax policy. So then the question becomes, what is the correct level of subsidization? I'm not sure, but I don't think the answer is "more, more, more". Because eventually you will eliminate the industry that is paying the taxes to offset the subsidized one. When it's no longer economically feasible to pay those heavy subsidies, that's when you'll see why the real cost of production matters.

[joosters]

But excluding factors like the health/pollution costs? So, not a fair comparison with things like wind/solar then.