Prev: neutrino oscillation
Next: math solution, fyi
From: jimp on 14 Jun 2010 10:05
In sci.physics Robert Scott <none(a)dont-mail-me.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:47:46 -0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics GEOD998 <geod998(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Subidies only help to keep prices high-get the gov out of alt en and
>>> put it into the hands of entrepreneurs-and let the market sort itself
>>> out.
>>
>>As all the "green" energy sources cost several times what conventional
>>energy costs, the elimination of subsidies would mean all the "green"
>>producers would go bankrupt.
>>
>>So yeah, the market would sort itself out.
>>
>>Jim Pennino
>
> What are you arguing? That permanent subsidies are a good thing? If the green
> energy sources are permanently costing several times what conventional energy
> costs, then either:
>
> 1. Green energy should be abandoned as it is a waste of resources, or

At this point in time, that is the situation.

> 2. The "costs" of conventional energy do not adequately represent the true
> costs to society (in terms of pollution, etc.), and if we properly passed those
> costs on to the consumers of conventional energy, then alternate energy might
> become cost-effective by comparison.

The "pollution" costs of conventional energy are already there, e.g. all
nukes pay an on-going fee for shutdown and cleanup.

> If (2) is correct, then the solution is not to subsidize green energy, but to
> remove subsidies from conventional energy and to make conventional energy pay
> the real cost to all of us for its use.
>
> The only defensible role for subsidies is to briefly jump-start a technology
> that has some hope of becoming self-sustaining. And even that role is
> questionable, since how does a government know what will be turn out to be a
> good bet and what will be a waste?

Exactly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: neutrino oscillation
Next: math solution, fyi