Not worth it to whom? The market disagrees with you since its buying wind generated electricity at the price offered and thus is discounting your subjective evaluation of the value proposition offered by wind power.Do you seriously not understand that subsidies (and levies) ARE THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR EXTERNALITIES?It IS a choice and it’s one that is being made by private enterprise on a case by case basis using ROI and accounting for externalities. You seem to want to dictate investment decisions to energy companies based on something other than what their own expertise tells them do,I’m for letting the market operate freely. After all who knows the energy business better than the companies that are actually in the energy business? Government’s only role is to make sure externalities are accounted for, reward positive ones (subsidy) punish negative ones (levies).
That it's not an either or proposition is what I keep telling you. You compared wind to nuclear and my point was that is NOT a choice. I don't get what you are asking me
Do you seriously not understand how government subsidies affect ROI for a private company? I said it IS a rational investment decisions for companies BECAUSE of the government subsidies. That does not make it a rational choice for the country to make.
Society benefits from positive externalities (in the case of wind, it's electricity delivered without the pollution and environmental destruction of the alternatives), do you think the market deserves those benefits FOR FREE? If that's the case, then you're expecting the energy company to SUBSIDIZE THE MARKET along with all of its COMPETITORS. How does that promote market freedom?
If you don't like government subsidies and levies, what's your suggested method for accounting for externalities?
I keep arguing the "positive externalities" ARE NOT WORTH IT. The cost is too high, the payback is too long, the potential is too low, we have already used the best locations and there are massive negative externalizes like they are butt ugly.
Not sure why you're so opposed to the market operating the way it's supposed to, other than maybe the fact that it's not making the particular investment decisions that you think it should be making. I suppose you could take that up with the directors of the Energy Companies, I'm sure they'd love to hear your ideas on improving their decision cycle outcomes.
So far, you don't appear to understand the market mechanics of externalities, which would explain why you didn't understand how they factor into ROI.That I don't agree with your claim positive externalities make it worth it does not support your claim that I don't understand positive externalities need to be funded by government. What you are arguing is a non-sequitur
This is Econ 101 stuff.
"Not worth it to whom?"
From a cost benefit standpoint, which is what have continuously explained
"The market disagrees with you since its buying wind generated electricity at the price offered and thus is discounting your subjective evaluation of the value proposition offered by wind power."
This is just wrong. If the market disagreed with me then GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE IT. Think about how ridiculous what you just said is
"Not sure why you're so opposed to the market operating the way it's supposed to, other than maybe the fact that it's not making the particular investment decisions that you think it should be making. I suppose you could take that up with the directors of the Energy Companies, I'm sure they'd love to hear your ideas on improving their decision cycle outcomes."
Strawman. I already corrected you on this. I am not against the market taking government money and doing it, I'm against the government funding it when they could pick better strategies and have the market fun it's own programs and accomplish more. I repeatedly explained this in detail