[seibelj]

A fairly good rule of thumb for the market test of an industry is how much subsidies they receive as a percentage of their revenue. For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs. In Boston they recently increased everyone’s electric bills by 30% by switching everyone’s supplier to renewable with an opt-out rather than opt-in change. If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies?

For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed. But they win a lot of votes and get a lot of union make-work jobs so they keep getting subsidized.

[occz]

>For railroads, the story is the same. Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed.

Roads don't make money either.

[bsder]

> If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies?

Because they are competing against fossil fuels which we have and continue to subsidize the living hell out of. For example: How many loans did California subsidize for the replacement of old gas storage tanks that might leak? Think we might be better off if we had forced everyone who got that money to install a charging station or two?

What is actually amazing is that renewables really are approaching parity in spite of the massive subsidies that fossil fuels get.

[thaumasiotes]

> For example renewable energy is constantly said to be cost competitive with fossil fuels, yet the industry is always demanding (begging) for subsidies and carve outs.

> If renewables were so cost effective, why are they always scheming for tax credits and subsidies?

I don't quite follow; subsidies don't get worse if you're already profitable. They get better!

[MichaelZuo]

I think the parent meant it this way:

In any country there are thousands of special interest groups looking to do the same. How are the folks advocating for renewables succeeding over and above so many other groups where tax credits, subsidies, etc., are a matter of life and death, when renewables are already so cost effective, and thus don’t need it as much?

[thaumasiotes]

You don't get subsidies based on whether you need them. You get subsidies based on whether subsidizers like you. That's what a subsidy is.

[MichaelZuo]

How do they get the susidizers to like them over and above other groups willing to offer life and limb?

[thaumasiotes]

That question is nonsense; you're asking for subsidies. You have nothing to offer; you're taking, not giving.

If the other groups had something to offer, they wouldn't need subsidies either.

How badly you need something just doesn't have anything to do with whether someone will give it to you.

[MichaelZuo]

Do you really think lobbying groups or special interest groups, or groups in general, have ‘nothing’ to offer to politicians?

[sleepychu]

> Passenger rail networks are enormous money losers in every country they are deployed.

Citation needed, in the UK they are franchised to private companies. It's hard to imagine companies bidding to renew their enormous money losers. :-)

[seibelj]

Here is a fairly good overview from 2013 https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/high_speed_rail_...

But again - lose the subsidies and lose the unions, and then see what is cost effective.

[djbebs]

UK railways were (no longer are) public companies in all but name.

To claim they were privatized in anything but name is quite frankly insulting.

[lozenge]

Did they not cover "positive externalities" in economics classes?

[bradknowles]

The petroleum industry has the biggest subsidies in the world. We are literally burning the entire world so that we can give them more money.

It's hard to compete when you don't have a level playing field.