Kuuuurija wrote:I have no doubt, that for producers the renewable energy might be profitable, especially when taxpayer pays enough subsidies for that. Our most famous wind energy producers fly their private helicopter and, believe me, there is not too many people here in Estonia who can afford that. Those windmill kings were almost broke just before they entered into wind energy business.
Your calculation includes subsidies too. I do not know how much your government pays subsidies directly to the producers of the renewable energy and to the companies who produce equipment for renewable power plants.
If the renewable was efficient per se, there was no need for any subsidies and governments rather collect some extra taxes on this business.
I included cost benefit without the subsides. It's a good investment and a low cost for the electricity even without the subsidies. What you describe looks like collusion and corruption between some government officials and these "windmill kings". This type of corruption has been going on in all aspects of the energy sector (coal, oil, gas, etc) for decades. It's a shame that it is giving cleaner more sustainable energy a bad name in your country.
We had it here in the 1980's with solar heating equipment government subsidies. The price of solar heating jumped up by the same percentage as the subsidies and when the subsides ended, the price of the solar heating went back down again. Companies with low moral character were making huge profits by stealing the customers subsidies through inflated pricing. Human nature is the culprit of your well founded disappointment, not renewable technology itself. The percieved need for subsidies is to accelerate the adoption and proliferation of renewable energy usage faster than what it would be without them. A great deal spreads faster than a good one. I agree with you that in large measure subsidies do not work since corruption steps in to take advantage wherever possible. In your case undermining the credibility of the renewable energy itself (giving it a black eye) reducing public support and adoption. The opposite of what the subsides were intended to do.