![]() |
|||
|
|
|||
|
The summary points of the Economic debate are... WRONG ECONOMICS Direct Capital Subsidy Considerable direct government support would be required to make the Rose Energy proposal viable. At least a £30m pump-priming injection is needed towards a total cost in excess of £100m. Indirect Capital Subsidy Significant levels of indirect government support would also be required to, for example:
Operating Subsidy The government in NI, as in the Netherlands, is also likely to be asked to provide an ongoing subsidy for the plant’s annual running costs. The Dutch poultry incinerator not only required a large government subsidy to cover its capital costs, it also needs a “public feed-in tariff” to subsidise its operating costs. Public Finances Such a heavy financial burden on the public purse would be difficult to handle at any time – requiring resources to be diverted from other economically and socially desirable initiatives – but particularly now when public finances are being depleted by the worst recession since the 1930s. In any case, why would the NI government want
RIGHT ECONOMICS No Subsidy Pyrolysis plants would not require a capital subsidy (either direct or indirect) nor an operating subsidy from government. Indeed, the plants would not even require Renewable Obligation Certificates to be viable; ROCs would come into play only when the products of pyrolysis were used to generate electricity. Faster Deployment
|
|||