Rob suggested I got read this paper at Bloomberg: "Re-considering the Economics of Photovoltaic Power"- which I did. More on that later.
In the meantime, just for some laughs, here is a great prediction from Bloomberg from 2007:
Apple iPhone Will Fail in a Late, Defensive Move: Matthew Lynn
Just because you read something in the financial press, doesn't make it so. h/t to Copious Gasser - my kind of blogger.
5 comments:
Subsidies for solar power must end. I should not be asked to pay more for my power usage so that the costs of "green" power generation are added to my bill.
If people chose to install solar power generators on their roofs, let them do so at their own cost.
They should also expect to receive payment for the power they produce at the wholesale rate of their local power generators and distributors, and the distributors should have the freedom to decide whether or not to take this power.
End all subsidies now, if solar power is economically sound let it stand on its own two feet.
I also agree with ending all subsidies. The Australian fossil fuel industry receives about 9 billion dollars per year on direct subsidies and taxpayers indirectly subsidise it to the tune of many more billions of dollars a year due to increased healthcare costs, environmental damage and loss of productive land. Most estimates suggest once these costs are factored in coal power Costs the community over twice what we pay for it directly.
I also think coal power's price should somehow reflect that coal mine and plant workers have a life expectancy of 15 years less then the general population, they most commonly die of lung disease, cancer or mesothelioma from the asbestos which covers every surface inside most of Australia's coal power stations. These are both awful ways to die and also tend to be very expensive ways to die.
Looks like we're in agreement then Rob.
Build more dams for hydro-electricity generation and build nuclear power stations.
Are you talking about the Greenpeace commissioned report? The one that thought that $4 billion worth of road congestion was a "fossil fuel subsidy"?
Are you talking about the Greenpeace commissioned report? The one that thought that $4 billion worth of road congestion was a "fossil fuel subsidy"?
Post a Comment