Lindy, hydroelectricity shouldn't be any cheaper than carbon or nuclear energy. Their prices should all be almost the same and "what the market will bear". Yes, there are line losses and peaks and troughs and what have you, so sometimes some are cheaper than others, but more or less, the price of something should be independent of its cost. That's why iPhones are so hugely profitable - they sell for what the market will bear, not what they cost to make.
<Google has the bulk of their equipment in the Northwest, getting those cheap hydro rates. >
Google starts with a false premise and leaps to a faulty conclusion. They think CO2 is a bad thing. It is not. In fact, so far CO2 has been a great thing for people, with crops greatly enhanced by the extra CO2.
So far, SUV drivers should get a carbon tax credit, not have to pay a carbon tax, because they are producing plant food.
26 years ago, when first considering this CO2 "problem", I said to Nelson Cull, my boss, that if it turned out to be a problem, it would be easily fixed with a carbon tax. At the time I was running alternative fuel programmes because "oil was running out". It wasn't long before I was advocating stopping the alternative fuels programmes because not only was oil not running out, it was obviously going to get so cheap that there would be no return on our research.
I feel like the proverbial grandmother being taught to suck eggs by these Johny come lately Google children who are still wet behind the ears.
Mqurice |
