Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 8:35 am
> 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.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 7, 2011, 3:41 pm
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> 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.
Posted by Giga2 on April 7, 2011, 7:11 pm
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>> 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.
Specifically right now, in Germany, in Tom's decision I see subsidies at
work for the good. It is not really a question of picking technologies in
this case. It is going to be PV, wind, etc etc, all of them are going to be
needed.
Posted by Bill Ward on April 7, 2011, 7:56 pm
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:11:28 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
> Specifically right now, in Germany, in Tom's decision I see subsidies at
> work for the good.
I think it's way too early to come to that conclusion. I don't see any
reason it will turn out any differently this time than all the others.
> It is not really a question of picking technologies
> in this case. It is going to be PV, wind, etc etc, all of them are going
> to be needed.
I want a subsidy for my hamster wheel generator, then.
Posted by Giga2 on April 8, 2011, 7:48 am
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:11:28 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:35:09 +0100, Giga2" <"Giga2 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> Specifically right now, in Germany, in Tom's decision I see subsidies at
>> work for the good.
> I think it's way too early to come to that conclusion. I don't see any
> reason it will turn out any differently this time than all the others.
>> It is not really a question of picking technologies
>> in this case. It is going to be PV, wind, etc etc, all of them are going
>> to be needed.
> I want a subsidy for my hamster wheel generator, then.
You might get it : )
XML site map
>> 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.