It is usually expected that highly-developed countries will use less power in the future, because of more efficient technology.
O rly. I'll just leave this here: Jevons paradox.
Good point. This is an effect which can happen in certain circumstances. But Germany grew its economy with stable energy consumption for decades. So obviously this did not happen in the past. It also depends on energy policy, so it can be actively avoided.
Yes, that's because we've sent all of our "polluting" (note: carbon dioxide isn't pollution) industries to China, along with a lot of jobs and wealth.
That seems to be a common idea here in the US. Do you have some actual numbers?
Comment is mine. Forgot to log in.
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
But it will generally affect competitors equally. Two different taxi companies, or two different electricity generating companies that use coal. Or two different hotels of the same class and size in the same city.
And since competing businesses tend to have to lower prices in order to remain competitive in the same market as they pursue the same prospective customer, the tax burden is going to raise costs (and lower margins) more or less the same for both (or several) parties.
An electricity generating company investing in renewables might have a competitive advantage relative to its competitor. Ofcourse, if both invest in renewables there is no relative advantage anymore. But this does not mean that the tax had no effect in this case - quite the opposite!
Energy use in highly-developed countries such as Germany or United States has been more or less stable for the last decades with a slight downwards trend. This is expected to continue.
How do you recommend governments act to reduce carbon emissions?
If I were the government, I would do it by mandated carbon emission levels per watt of power generated by power companies. The idea is similar to the way that fuel efficiency standards were mandated for automobiles and led to vastly more fuel efficient cars.
This is something that a government can mandate, because the technology is here, and power plants can already make a profit from a mix of renewables (solar/hydro/wind/etc), it just isn't as profitable in the short term as coal because renewables tend to have a longer ROI period than fossil fuels. But if the government mandates the mix the power supplier must have, then the power companies will have to comply. The power companies will still make sufficient profit in the long term.
I am a firm believer in climate change, but I think a tax designed to reduce power consumption is wrong-headed. The progress of civilization is related to the power usage of that civilization. Individuals in first world countries now use more power in a day than people 1000 years ago would use in several months. In the future to continue to progress, our civilization will use more power.
It is usually expected that highly-developed countries will use less power in the future, because of more efficient technology.
A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.
Nonsense Radiation from CT is a serious concern. A single abdominal or chest CT corresponds to a dose of 5-10 mSv. The is especially a concern for children and in case of repeated scans. For example, see:
http://www.ajronline.org/doi/a...
"In the United States, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually performed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation."
Well, one could argue that the bureaucracy is required for safety.
Considering the state of the technology today, I agree that renewables cannot provide all of the demand today. But nuclear only provides baseload and so does not help.
Yes, also forcasts for nuclear have usually been very optimistic. The main cost of nuclear is the cost of construction which often went up a lot in actual projects. But even considering this it is not competitive with gas, wind, and hydro.
. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
Germany has spent over 100 billion euro on solar subsidies.
Creating a dramatic drop in prices. You have to compare it to what has been spent on nuclear so far.
For that, they have an annual solar electrical production approximately equivalent to no more than 3 average size reactors.
Those same subsidies could have built over 20 nuclear units.
The subsidies are meant to create a market which will then make solar (and other renewables) more efficient. This was very successful so far. Much more has been spent in nuclear in the past and it is still not competitive.
That is actually not true in Germany. CO2 production was stable. Also, don't you think we would produce a lot more CO2 if Germany had scaled up coal instead of renewables to replace nuclear? In the near future when renewables replace coal instead of nuclear, CO2 will obviously come down.
The subsidies for fossil fuels by first-world western nations (and China) (those in a position to fund green energy technologies) are a small percentage of the total. Most fossil fuel subsidies are done by oil producing nations as a form of population pacification. The idea that these funds are available for redirection is ludicrous.
Sure, but that's only half the problem. The other half is the idea that throwing money at renewables will actually reduce CO2 production.
Huh, what makes you think it does not?
Energy prices on the market have been declining while end-user price have been increasing, but only a small part of this is from the feed-in-tarif fee. So high energy prices are clearly not caused by abandonment of nuclear (otherwise the market price would be up but it is not). While renewables are demanding to the grid and require some investment, grid stability issues are a myth: Germany has one of the most stable grids in Europe and this did not change in recent years with a downtime as measured by the SAIDI index of about 15-20 minutes per year, much better than France with 60 or the US which > 100). Nuclear waste is a bit of a problem, and there is not a single country which would already have a real long-term solution to this problem. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.
To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire
