Bill Ward said:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:23:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
On 4/6/2011 12:14 PM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
[..]
Oh yeah, opportunity cost. Always easy to forget. I think 5% is a
reasonable estimate for such figures. So the question is will it
still be worth quite a lot in 15 years?
No.
Because the newest generation panels will be better and a 10th of
the price?
Joking aside, I'd put a few up if they WERE a tenth of the price
So would and will everyone else, that is why renewables will explode
given a bit of a nudge IMHO.
and doing
so didn't cost everyone else money in the form of higher electricity
prices. The cost of panels isn't the only factor to be considered
when deciding to install them; like wind turbines, without generous
Feed in tariffs working alongside the Renewables Obligation they
would never pay their way. Currently these measures are adding
around 15% to all fuel bills
and that's expected to rise significantly as penetration levels
increase.
If you personally choose to pay for your panels I don't see why
everyone else shouldn't be just grateful for your investment?
These are tough times for many people though. The government has
said it will review FITs with a view to delivering £40 million of
savings (around 10%) in 2014/15. How they intend to do that is
anyone's guess. Reducing the
guaranteed price perhaps? The DECC says "The review will be
completed by the end of 2011, with tariffs remaining unchanged until
April 2012" but add
... "(unless the review reveals a need for greater urgency)."
Considering the fact that renewables subsidies are expected to
amount to around £5 billion in 2020
Good, could be more though!
(Government) Subsidies is a feel-good word for stealing. Taking $$
from one group by force and giving to another.
There should be NO subsidies. Either it stands on its own, or it
doesn't.
One of the unappreciated and perhaps unintended consequences of
subsidies is the destabilizing positive feedback it causes. Those who
get subsidies constitute a special interest group, who then reinvest
some of the subsidies in buying politicians who will increase the
subsidies in exchange for campaign donations. Look what's happened to
corn ethanol.
That is true, there are often unintended consequences.
If it needs subsidies, why do it? Private investors are savvy enough
to make a buck or two on new businesses, since when are bureaucrats
better investors than the private sector?
To do with speeding up that process.
Can you think of any examples where subsidies actually worked? In my
experience, they simply divert money away from the alternatives that
private investment prefers in favor of government favorites. In turn,
that money attracts the best talent into projects that can clearly be
seen to be doomed to failure, but hey, a job's a job.
Like corn ethanol, for example. Pimentel warned early on it takes more
net energy to make ethanol than you get from burning it. Or hydrogen
fuel cells. At least 16% of the energy is lost at the git-go because the
recombination is exothermic, forcing the cells to have a max eff of 84%.
The list goes on and on - ever heard of bubble memories?
Windmills were mature technology a century ago. Basic physics hasn't
changed.