5 Comments

  1. The point of taxing carbon is to internalize the cost of CO2 emissions and benefit the plants that produce less CO2 per kWh at the expense of those plants that produce more. If these plants are more profitable, more will be built, that’s the whole point.
    So what does the German government do when nuclear predictably wins and ought to be thinking about expanding so they can shut down some of those old dirt burners? They say no, no, no, no, this is unfair; wind and solar was supposed to win!
    If that was the intent all along, just skip the middle man and skip the dishonesty of “playing market”. Just build state owned wind farms and solar farms and be done with it.

  2. This has less to do about nuclear power than it does about finding more heroin for politicians, their failed policies, and their welfare state.

  3. You nailed it. It is a question of the DEGREE of control the government has over energy companies. When the government wants to put a price on carbon, that is a limited control mechanism, but it would still allow a free choice of technologies. In this case it however amounts to communist central planning. The government has an “plan” of certain technologies, is planning amounts of energy to be produced, planning the amounts of energy consumed by the citizenry, and then they intervene in the economy, adjusting profits and losses through subsidies and taxes, coercing business decisions by way of regulations, until the economy does exactly what they want them to do.

  4. Germany’s manufacturing-heavy, export-driven economy will pay a heavy price if the political decision to push solar and wind turns out to be a mistake — very likely.

  5. The German government has set up a “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” situation. The government says it wants electricity generated with greatly reduced CO2 emissions. Then when a company does it using nuclear energy, and even worse, has the audacity of making a profit while doing it, they either want to shut down the power plant (no license extensions) or tax it out of existance (nuclear fuel tax).
    Obviously, the German government is more interesting in picking winners and losers in the energy business than in reducing CO2 emissions.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Google worried about power costs – they need atomic engines

    CNET News published a story on 9 December 2005 titled Power could cost more than servers, Google warns. A Google engineer published an article in the September issue of Association for Computing Machinery’s Queue. He warned that power might eventually cost more than the hardware itself, which is quite a concern for an organization with…

  • Transportation and Storage Subcommittee BRC on America's Nuclear Future – Aug 19 Meeting Observations

    On August 19, 2010, the Transportation and Storage Subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future met at the Washington Marriott Hotel near the George Washington University campus. Approximately 50-60 people attended the meeting, including the following members of the BRC: Richard Meserve – Co-Chairman, Phil Sharp – Co-Chairman, Mark Ayers, Vicky Bailey,…

  • Are You Still Afraid of Radiation?

    A good friend sent me the link to this well produced video that makes some excellent points. I am fully aware that the source of this video may call into question its veracity, but I have been doing a lot of research for the past year or so and have come to the conclusion that…

  • New England could be an energy supplier

    An editorial in the 6 November 2005 issue Morning Sentinel online (a publication “serving Maine’s Northern Kennebec Valley”) discusses how the famous independence and self-reliance of New Englanders has been threatened by their thirst for energy fuels imports into the area. The authors encourage the region to think about its strengths and to apply those…

  • Nuclear "Waste" versus Fossil Waste – comment on Daily Source Code 767

    On the June 10, 2008 episode of the Daily Source Code, Atomic Rod (that’s me) payed a visit to rant about the fact that we have been conditioned to consider nuclear waste as an unsolvable problem while we have also been conditioned to simply accept and deal with the deadly waste products that spew out…