3 ms·

Wrong. People commiting to renewables early drive and support the market, which overtime drives down prices due to more and more people improving the tech and m

by ohples 7y ago

Wrong. People commiting to renewables early drive and support the market, which overtime drives down prices due to more and more people improving the tech and manufacturing process, which is what leads to the prices to come down.

roenxi 7y ago
Possibly that could have been done in a controlled and experimental fashion rather than condemning the infrastructure of entire countries to costing twice, thrice or more? Anyway the point stands. It isn't fair but the people who avoided being involved are going to be much, much better off than those that did.
- D_Alex 7y ago
  >infrastructure of entire countries to costing twice, thrice or more Citation needed. >the people who avoided being involved are going to be much, much better off than those that did Even if this was true, it does not "vindicate the regressives". We can't all expect to be able to mooch off someone else all the time. It does vindicate those people who were calling for a tax on the externalities of fossil fuels though.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    This was on the front page of HN just the other day - https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/11/france-spent-less-on-nuclear-to-get-about-double-what-germany-gets-from-renewables.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/11/france-spent-less-on-n... . And nuclear isn't even as cheap to set up as a fossil fuel supply chain. > We can't all expect to be able to mooch off someone else all the time. For technological improvements we actually can. In a way it is the norm. Most technologies start small somewhere, get economic, then scale up (albeit because they had no other choice). > It does vindicate those people who were calling for a tax on the externalities of fossil fuels though. Are these plants closing because of a tax on externalities? The article suggests the alternatives are cheaper in their own right. If coal plants become uneconomic without a somewhat artificial sin tax then the sin tax proponents aren't vindicated. They would be making an inevitable transition more expensive.

by ohples 7y ago

roenxi 7y ago

Possibly that could have been done in a controlled and experimental fashion rather than condemning the infrastructure of entire countries to costing twice, thrice or more? Anyway the point stands. It isn't fair but the people who avoided being involved are going to be much, much better off than those that did.

D_Alex 7y ago
>infrastructure of entire countries to costing twice, thrice or more Citation needed. >the people who avoided being involved are going to be much, much better off than those that did Even if this was true, it does not "vindicate the regressives". We can't all expect to be able to mooch off someone else all the time. It does vindicate those people who were calling for a tax on the externalities of fossil fuels though.
- roenxi 7y ago
  This was on the front page of HN just the other day - https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/11/france-spent-less-on-nuclear-to-get-about-double-what-germany-gets-from-renewables.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/11/france-spent-less-on-n... . And nuclear isn't even as cheap to set up as a fossil fuel supply chain. > We can't all expect to be able to mooch off someone else all the time. For technological improvements we actually can. In a way it is the norm. Most technologies start small somewhere, get economic, then scale up (albeit because they had no other choice). > It does vindicate those people who were calling for a tax on the externalities of fossil fuels though. Are these plants closing because of a tax on externalities? The article suggests the alternatives are cheaper in their own right. If coal plants become uneconomic without a somewhat artificial sin tax then the sin tax proponents aren't vindicated. They would be making an inevitable transition more expensive.