[palmer]

“The cost of coal will continue to rise as clean energy, especially Texas wind, gets cheaper and cheaper.”

Maybe in Obamaworld. But in the real world coal is cheap and wind is not. Texas wind is not bad but gets a higher per-megawatt subsidy (11.6%) than coal (6.9%) see http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ A lot of the coal subsidy was synfuel related, not a subsidy for producing electricity from coal which is still cheap and relatively unsubsidized.

[Ben Ficklin]

Thanks for posting that link. I've posted that many times myself because it demonstrates the difficulty in calculating subsidies.

Additionally, the report mentions in the fourth section that it contains none of the external costs.

The environmental costs and health costs of burning coal, and, to a lesser degree, natural gas are externalized. And of course the cost of the melt down of the Japan nuke reactor, as well as the Russian reactor were completely externalized.

These costs are externalized by socializing them.

Also, externalizing these costs is a form of subsidy. A very big subsidy. If those external costs(enviro and health) for burning coal showed up on the ratepayers' electricity bill, the bill would be a lot higher.

These costs are spread across society so the ratepayer avoids them. A subsidy.