Construction of first solar power plant begins

Wind and solar energy... quite nice I must say. Finally some nice news.
I like these two types of energy than hydro however. It's more and more common to see dam removal. :/

Over here in prosperous Australia, politicians continue to bicker over the implementation of a tax on carbon emissions, which will set a price on the biggest carbon polluting businesses in the country, providing them with an incentive to invest in renewable energy sources and to develop new ways of providing energy to Australians without emitting as much pollution. Meanwhile, in Serbia, a country with one-fifth the GDP per-capita, the national power company is going ahead and creating a solar power plant. Go figure!

These things are a disaster... they create 1 job for 3 destroyed... and their power output is utterly pathetic for their cost.
... Spain tried this "green economy" non-sense... look at their economy now

Actually, there is some negatives with thios technology.

So far. Wind and Solar have been uneconomical, and require huge subsidies to sustain them.

The effect wind had on Spain is more to do with the general weakness of Spains tourism dependant economy. But Germany on the other hand is a much stronger economy (plus any job losses would have caused there to be less of a need for unwanted migrants).

In actual terms wind isn't actually that bad. Solar is worst, the main reason that it is prefered is that it creates more jobs per MW of capacity then wind, geothermal or any other Green technology is.

In Germany, Solar exists because it is subsidized (3 times above market prices). Because of more sunlight Serbia (40% more), that subsidy would fall to 2.1 times.

Given the costs of labour in Serbia, UI wouldn;t be surprised if the cost of labour make it profitable and no need for subsidy.

Market conditions in Serbia make Solar profitable in Serbia. And hopefully when we become wealthier wind will become even more profitable so that we don't face the situation Spain has faced.

@Mladen

Germany tried this "green nonsense" too. Look at them!
Germany is in fact the world leader in implmentation of solar energy.

I can't vouch for the cynical claims about job creation; but the theory suggests a good reason for subsidies to stimulate investment in a currently unviable technology: to help move along the "learning curve" whereby it BECOMES efficient. Despite solar energy being costly now, no-one can deny that a future where the majority of our energy is derived from an emission-free, 'marginal-cost'-free, noise- and pollution-free technology would be a good thing. Unless you work in the coal or coal-power industry and you don't fancy moving jobs, I guess.

@Mladen

Germany tried this "green nonsense" too. Look at them!
Germany is in fact the world leader in implmentation of solar energy.

These things are a disaster... they create 1 job for 3 destroyed... and their power output is utterly pathetic for their cost.
... Spain tried this "green economy" non-sense... look at their economy now

Wind and solar energy... quite nice I must say. Finally some nice news.
I like these two types of energy than hydro however. It's more and more common to see dam removal. :/

Over here in prosperous Australia, politicians continue to bicker over the implementation of a tax on carbon emissions, which will set a price on the biggest carbon polluting businesses in the country, providing them with an incentive to invest in renewable energy sources and to develop new ways of providing energy to Australians without emitting as much pollution. Meanwhile, in Serbia, a country with one-fifth the GDP per-capita, the national power company is going ahead and creating a solar power plant. Go figure!

Actually, there is some negatives with thios technology.

So far. Wind and Solar have been uneconomical, and require huge subsidies to sustain them.

The effect wind had on Spain is more to do with the general weakness of Spains tourism dependant economy. But Germany on the other hand is a much stronger economy (plus any job losses would have caused there to be less of a need for unwanted migrants).

In actual terms wind isn't actually that bad. Solar is worst, the main reason that it is prefered is that it creates more jobs per MW of capacity then wind, geothermal or any other Green technology is.

In Germany, Solar exists because it is subsidized (3 times above market prices). Because of more sunlight Serbia (40% more), that subsidy would fall to 2.1 times.

Given the costs of labour in Serbia, UI wouldn;t be surprised if the cost of labour make it profitable and no need for subsidy.

Market conditions in Serbia make Solar profitable in Serbia. And hopefully when we become wealthier wind will become even more profitable so that we don't face the situation Spain has faced.

I can't vouch for the cynical claims about job creation; but the theory suggests a good reason for subsidies to stimulate investment in a currently unviable technology: to help move along the "learning curve" whereby it BECOMES efficient. Despite solar energy being costly now, no-one can deny that a future where the majority of our energy is derived from an emission-free, 'marginal-cost'-free, noise- and pollution-free technology would be a good thing. Unless you work in the coal or coal-power industry and you don't fancy moving jobs, I guess.