undefined | Better HN

0 pointsEkaros3y ago0 comments

I'm not against them, but I think they should not be specially subsidised. Just pay what ever the market rate at the moment is. If it is not enough to cover investment too bad.

0 comments

smallerfish3y ago

Surely they should be at least as equally subsidized as other energy sources, with the cost of external cleanup perhaps also factored in?

LadyCailin3y ago

That would be fine with me, if every energy source had to pay its own negative externalities.

EkarosOP3y ago

Will absolutely all of the externalities of mining, manufacturing and transport then be also applied to renewables?

Also, maybe if there is any risk of damage to surroundings like with hydro batteries there would be need to deposit amount of money that covers them fully.

oblio3y ago

Yes, they should. Otherwise we'll just drown in a hot sea of shit, only 50 years down the line. Everything needs to be sustainable, kind of by definition.

But as with any problem, let's first start with the stuff causing the damage.

Let's get oil and gas and coal to pay for EVERY negative externality.

throwaway20373y ago

You wrote: <<Just pay what ever the market rate at the moment is.>>

This is positive ridiculous. Are you serious in 2022? Your electricity is surely mostly sourced from hydrocarbons. Are you paying "true cost"? Surely not. If electricity was suddenly twice the cost due to carbon costs (which is probably the true environmental cost), you would be shouting from your windows to build more solar panels and wind turbines.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse