
Originally Posted by
PhilipA
So how is it if solar and wind are cheaper than coal, that nobody seems to want to invest in it until subsidies are increased AGAIN.
....
I'm always sus about this kind of topic.
Hypothetical:
Firstly, if I were in the business, I'd also want as many $s handed out to me for investing in any projects .. NOW!
The fear would be that if I invested now and not receive a subsidy, what would be the governments intention in a few years time in terms of new subsidy plans that would allow other businesses to capitalise on this future situation.
That would put my current investment with no subsidy at a disadvantage compared to future investments with a subsidy.
This is why it's so important that governments stop 'p*ss farting' around and have a set plan for X amount of years, and not continually undo previous government efforts.
The main issue is storage. Still no large scale storage efforts of any note to make the renewables actually usable for long term.
eg. either proper battery storage(or hydro), or (as is being predicted by some) that hydrogen as a key future energy source ... then get this industry going via subsidies.
We know that hydrogen is currently inefficient in terms of production to usage, but if excess renewable power can be directed to produce hydrogen, irrespective that it's inefficient.
The excess renewable electricity has to go somewhere, so instead of calling on companies to waste it doing literally nothing, then excess renewables directed into producing hydrogen doesn't seem so inefficient.
The issue is, as always, a lack of foresight from gubberments.
Not the technology used, or the multinationals corporations concern for profitability.
Arthur.
All these discos are giving me a heart attack!
'99 D1 300Tdi Auto ( now sold :( )
'03 D2 Td5 Auto
'03 D2a Td5 Auto
Bookmarks