The more subtle has been made for Kangxi 16621723a maximum total assessment for 2006 amounting to 4 334To date 50 agencies are already certifiedEurope has rarely seen such a mobilizationIn addition the men of Arcelor have been inactiveThe map the oysters of Marennes and Isigny No I also put emphasis on the internationalIt is the time to take an interest in photographyBut the psychology of the child out upsetThere is little discipline in our countryThe production of energy from the combustion of oil, natural gas or coal comes from high emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main gas responsible for climate warming greenhouse of human origin. This is why the success of the fight against global warming depends on the transition to a low-carbon electricity generation, using solar, nuclear power or wind, as well as electric coal-fired plants that capture and store CO2 emissions.
The political problem is simple. Coal is less expensive and simpler to use than other energy sources. It is cheap because it is abundant. It is easier to use than wind or solar energy, because it allows the generation of electricity at any time, regardless of weather conditions.
To save the planet, we must encourage energy producers to turn to low carbon energy sources, even if coal is less expensive and easier to use. The obvious way to do this is to create a tax on coal or to require producers of electricity they buy a licence to use it - the amount of tax or licence being high enough to encourage them to adopt clean energy sources.
Suppose that the cost of electricity from a central conventional coal or 6 cents per kilowatt hour and from solar energy of 16 cents. The tax on electricity from a coal plant should be of 10 cents per kilowatt hour. In this case, the price paid by the consumer would be the same, 16 cents per kilowatt hour, regardless of the origin of electricity. The electricity companies would therefore solar energy, with however as a result in this example to multiply the price of electricity by more than 2. Fearing a return to stick on the part of public opinion, political leaders are hardly likely to establish a tax of this kind. It blocks the US advance towards a low carbon economy for years. Nevertheless, several European countries apply the concept of "feed-in tariff", which represents a politically acceptable solution in the long run successfully.
In this context, rather than taxing energy to high carbon emissions, the State subsidizes energy with low carbon emissions. In our example, the State would pay a subsidy of 10 cents per kilowatt-hour to the solar power station, in other words, the difference between 6 cents paid by the consumer and the cost of production of 16 cents. For the consumer, the price is the same, however the State must fund grant in one way or another.
There are still another solution. Suppose that it creates a small tax on coal-fired plants to finance subsidies for solar energy and that is progressively increased the price of electricity at the same time to the expansion of solar power plants. The price charged to consumers would gradually increase from 6 cents per kilowatt-hour to 16 cents, the cost of production, over a period which may be of some 40 years (the length of life of the latest coal-fired plants).
Suppose also that in 2010 all power plants are coal-fired and that the price charged to the consumer is 6 cents per kilowatt hour, and that by 2014 the tenth of the transition to solar energy provided for over forty years was done. The price charged to the consumer will therefore increased by 10, from 6 cents to 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour, almost 7 cents (with the expectation of 16 cents after forty years). The tax on coal will be of 1 cent per kilowatt hour, which will fund the subsidy of 9 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar energy. This grant more the 7 cents paid by consumers cover the cost of production of 16 cents per kilowatt hour. In other words, a small tax on coal can finance a significant grant for solar energy.
Suppose to continue that in 2030 the transition to a low carbon economy is made at 50; the kilowatt-hour would be then sold 11 cents, the median value between 6 and 16 cents. The tax on coal would be 5 cents per kilowatt hour, to cover the subsidy for the solar energy of 5 cents per kilowatt hour (the difference between the cost of production of 16 cents per kilowatt hour and the sale price of 11 cents).
Finally, suppose that in 2050 the transition to a low carbon emission electricity generation is fully realized. The sale price of kWh would be 16 cents, the amount of the costs of production of solar energy would no longer need to be subsidized.
