3 ms·
Are there any studies on how effective each method is? It seems fairly complex, depending on how good the methods being dictated are, how price-sensitive consum
by mjn 13y ago
Are there any studies on how effective each method is? It seems fairly complex, depending on how good the methods being dictated are, how price-sensitive consumers are (and how well-informed about what costs/saves money), costs of switching, in some cases economies of scale, etc.
The conventional wisdom here (Denmark) has been that a mixture of the two achieves best results: a high tax on energy to provide an across-the-board untargeted price incentive, plus specific targeted regulations aiming at cutting out the largest sources of inefficiency and encouraging economies of scale in more efficient technologies. So for example district heating is now mandatory if you're in an area where it's available (no furnaces in new construction), and this seems to have been quite effective in increasing its adoption, which in turn makes it easier to build efficient district-heating networks and cogenerating power plants, since there is a dense customer base.
- tedunangst 13y agoI don't know specifically. I do know that all of the "alternate fuel" tax credits are a giant scam. How does spraying kerosene on coal make it clean? No clue, but the government will pay you to do it if you say it's alternative.
- gaadd33 13y agoCouldn't it make it cleaner by promoting more complete combustion in power plants thereby reducing particulate emissions?
- tedunangst 13y agoI suppose anything is possible. The point is it would be better for the government to mandate results (lower emissions, which can be measured) than methods (spray kerosene on coal and hope it does something useful).