[Neil44]

Solar and wind are still heavily subsidized are they not? If they're so economically amazing why are they subsidized?

[Someone]

I’m not sure they are heavily subsidized (alone or compared to other energy sources), but let’s ignore that.

Because they require an upfront investment that many households cannot make.

Also, whether such investments make economical sense for companies hugely depends on interest rate, and that fluctuates.

Because of that, a country with a long term goal to decrease dependency on non-renewables may want to subsidize such investments.

[AdamN]

I'm not sure why subsidies are per se bad. But also almost all infrastructure is subsidized regardless: roads, trains (cargo as well), ports, nuclear, coal, etc...

[Neil44]

I did not express an opinion on whether subsidies are good or bad :)

[AdamN]

You expressed an opinion with how you framed it.

[Neil44]

I think solar and wind are a good idea, and subsidies can be a useful tool, I think making a statement about how cheap solar and wind are without mentioning that they're subsidized is not entirely accurate or honest.

[pfdietz]

Given that we're approaching 1 TW of new solar capacity installed globally each year, who do you think is doing the subsidizing?

[RugnirViking]

because they're really important? both for the planet but also for strategic energy independance (no gas from russia, no oil from hormuz or america, light from the sun and wind from the air is all thats needed)