In this post I’m going to suggest some changes to energy related policies that I think need to be made.
Regarding unification of effects
Clean energy subsidies should boost GDP in the same way oil drilling subsidies and nuclear fission does.
Nuclear fission should have a link with the energy industry
Nuclear fission could reduce envirommentalism like oil drilling subsidies currently does.
Banning coal could reduce the energy industry.
Before start thinking that I am an idiot for suggesting this, think that nowadays,in lots of countries, renewables subsidies are being paid by aditional charges on the electric bill.
The idea is that some countries opt for charging the cost of energy related policies on top of the electric bill and this policy aims to reflect it.
No self respecting country would impose a tax of say 5.1127% on top of electricity to pay for general expenses, it isn’t like Spain has exactly that.
Most countries have aplied subsidies to renewables in order to drive down prizes by developing greater economies of scale and greater funding to R&D, so maybe clean energy subsidies, micro-generation grants and mandatory microgeneration could reduce the cost of the others and themselves over time.
On the relation between renewables and the energy industry I would ask why do mandatory microgeneration and micro-generation grants reduce the energy industry that hard, it would be ok if they reduce it a bit, but the current level could only be justified if we aren’t taking into acount the manufacturing of the generators and, in that case, clean energy subsidies shouldn’t increase that much the energy industry.
It seems to me that we currently lack some of the most common energy related subsidies there.
Cogeneration incentives, subsidies to cogeneration or however you want to call them.
Nope, in green countries would happen, by order of mine suggestions:
If you consider nuclear as green, larger energy industry.
If you consider nuclear as green, less envirommentalism.
A smaller energy industry.
You are able to charge the energetic transition cost on a syn tax whose earning are not going to be reduced by the transition.
Renewables subsidies become cheaper over time.
If you assume manufacturing of generators part of the energy industry, a larger energy industry.
On the policies that I suggest
Cogeneration incentives, in theory an in the short term it increases energy efficiency, but in the long term it may decrease it because you are no longer worried about using to much fuel because you are using it to produce electricity with privileges.
Subsidies to turning residues into electricity, it may seem weird, but knowing that we aren’t able to recicle some plastics makes burning then as fuel a relatively green way of getting rid of them, but with low polution control it can be extremely poluting.
Subsidies to buy more eficient thermic equipment, pay to increase energy efficiency.
So, all my suggestion would make going green even more easy if not further balance.
How’s the progress on these initiatives to overhaul the energy industry with more policies and inputs? Currently some of what you have suggested has already been implemented (such as clean energy subsidies boosting gdp indirectly through boosting the private energy industry).
The energy industry is a constituent of GDP, insofar as many people work in that industry, whether it be privately owned or state owned. I suspect its coded this way because otherwise, privatizing a state energy industry would reduce GDP, whereas in fact it would just convert public spending to private spending, so GDP should not be affected, just the public/private balance of GDP.
I’m not here to try to change everyone’s minds, but nuclear fission is one of the energy sources that emits less CO2eq and, even if it sounds strange , it has caused, by the amount of energy produced, a similar number of deads as solar and wind energy.
But only if you do all that you shouldn’t do, ignore that your reactor is being poisoned by xenon and then try to increase the power output by reducing too much the insertion of control rods that were bad desingned and had moderator in their tip.
In other cases like Three Mile Island there was a meltdown in one of the reactor and the containment building keep all the radioactive waste cointained and the only people damaged were the shareholders that lost the asset. Or Fukushima, that may sound weird, but technically, there were no deaths caused by the nuclear plan fail, all deaths were caused by the tsunami, the pain of the forced evacuations and energetic poverty derived from the safety stop of all nuclear plants.