4 ms·
I'd assume that 35 years of inflation needs to be factored in as well, at 2% that would half subsidy by that point. Also, there is an inherent cost to green pow
by Alphasite_ 12y ago
I'd assume that 35 years of inflation needs to be factored in as well, at 2% that would half subsidy by that point. Also, there is an inherent cost to green power, if it was cheap power companies would flock to build them of their own accord, but of course they dont, so the government has to subside them.
- quokwok 12y agoIf something has negative externalities, the solution is to tax the externality. E.g. a carbon tax will raise the price of fossil-fuel energy, which will make some green energy projects worth building. That's it -- job done. Subsidising "good" projects is instead of taxing bad projects is the wrong way to do it, because the government has to evaluate every project proposal to figure out which projects should be subsidised. Whereas a carbon tax does it for you; all the government needs to figure out is the cost of carbon, and the market takes care of the rest.
- scottkduncan 12y agoTimestamp this and come back in three years because we are basically sitting on the tipping point of some clean energy sources (not the one in this article!) becoming cost competitive. Solar and wind are at grid parity in an increasing number of places (Deutsche Bank says 47 of 50 states by 2016) and innovations in financing will be able to pick up the slack if/when subsidies expire.