5 ms·
I would disagree with (1). For a start, the industry, at the moment, heavily relies on government subsidies to stay in business. Those subsidies are either in
by brc 16y ago
I would disagree with (1). For a start, the industry, at the moment, heavily relies on government subsidies to stay in business. Those subsidies are either in the form of rebates for purchases, rebates in the form of artificially high electricity buyback prices, or more favourable tax treatment or other perks (electric cars & city parking, for example)
While the political winds are blowing in your favour it might be plain sailing, but any business that does not have a fundamental basis in return on investment without subsidy is highly risky. With the endless talk of reining in government spending in countries all around the world, any industry relying on government subsidies to keep it afloat has a large risk factor of cuts to those subsidies resulting from a switch in government.
Exceptions to this are probably in personalised, high end sales and consulting to wealthy businesses and individuals who want the technology for the wow factor. Because a self-sustaining office or house will continue to be something that people desire when cost is no longer a factor. This trend will change slowly and be well-signalled by the next 'shiny new thing' that these people want.
Politicians are the worst kind of business partner. Keen to take the credit and revenues, and then run like the wind when it's no longer a vote winner and leave you with the leftovers.
- run4yourlives 16y agoThe cost of traditional energy (gas, electric, etc) is only going in one direction. In fact, the level of subsidies in those traditional sectors dwarfs those you mention. That said, to your warning regarding politicians and "government run " industries, I couldn't agree more.
- brc 16y agoI've never seen any credible evidence to support the theory that major power generation is subsidised to even a fraction of what wind/solar is. Certainly, where I live, all electricity is generated by coal powered generation. The state government is a net winner on this because they receive royalties for the coal dug up. There's certainly no subsidy. The only upward pressure on the price of electricity is, again, political. There's enough coal in the ground to provide cheap power for centuries, the only thing that is going to change that is laws made by politicians to either restrict the building of new power stations, or to lump the power stations with extra costs. Again, both of these changes would be politically led, rather than anything occuring naturally in the marketplace. As a perfect competitor for alternative energy, political changes in towards coal powered electricity would be just as devastating as political changes away from alternative energy. I'm not commenting on the 'correctness' of either change, just saying that both are equally as likely, thus making the sector the last thing I would get involved in.