[DocTomoe]

Having solar myself, I completely agree with you that solar is - comparatively - cheap. But because it is cheap, the argument goes that you don't really need to subsidy it.

[jakelazaroff]

The subsidies probably cost significantly less than we'll end up paying for whatever effects of climate change they would have averted.

[ben_w]

Yes, but if everyone was going to get them anyway, you might as well use the same money for something else, like free school lunches.

Will they actually get spent on something sensible, including but not limited to free school lunches? Probably not.

Think of it as a stopped-clock-right-twice-a-day kind of thing.

[hristov]

There are many reasons for subsidies and it is a complex field. I was not discussing subsidies I was replying to a flat out false statement that solar is very expensive.

When discussing solar subsidies one should keep several things in mind:

- Federal solar subsidies are expiring at the end of this year thanks to Trumps tax law with a name so ridiculous I shall not repeat it.

- This news item is talking about money that has already been granted. This is especially screwed up because these are situation where the government has already promised to pay and people have been making investments and putting in work in expectation of payment.

- Solar is actually much less subsidized than nuclear. In many cases solar subsidies will help the taxpayer avoid costs as they avoid much more expensive nuclear subsidies.