Torrar dinheiro de contribuintes

E quando o empreendedor é o estado... a decidir com o dinheiro dos bolsos dos contribuintes... estão a ver o perigo?

"Num país que dispõe já de 7.000 MW de potências intermitentes com FIT para um consumo de apenas 3.900 MW no vazio, o hidrogénio é a nova desculpa para se instalarem mais 2.000 MW de novas potências solares intermitentes com FIT. É o mundo ao contrário!

Em vez de se estancar o problema não atribuindo mais FIT a potências intermitentes, e fazendo com que o mercado se ajuste às disponibilidades de eletricidade aos melhores preços, promovem-se ainda mais potencias intermitentes com FIT para se resolver o problema das FIT através do hidrogénio.

...

Mesmo não estando disponível nenhuma tecnologia competitiva para produzir hidrogénio através da eletrólise da água, o documento que esteve em consulta pública aponta desde já para um investimento de 7.000 milhões de euros (!!!), e numa primeira fase este hidrogénio destinar-se-á exclusivamente ao mercado interno." (fonte)

Pois:

“One of us was shown a paper written by a well-known macroeconomist with considerable experience in central banks and finance ministries. The model showed that an inflation objective would be met, given the model, if the central bank announced today what interest rates would be at different dates for several years ahead. 25 The author of the paper was asked ‘So what insight do we gain from this model?’ The answer was that the numbers derived from the model should be the policy. That answer begins to make sense only if the economist believed that his model described ‘the world as it really is’. But a small-world model does not do that; its value lies in framing a problem to provide insights into the large-world problem facing the policy-maker and not in the pretence that it can provide precise quantitative guidance. You cannot derive a probability or a forecast or a policy recommendation from a model; the probability is meaningful, the forecast accurate or the policy recommendation well founded only within the context of the model .

Other disciplines seem more alive to this issue. The bridge builder or the aeronautics engineer, dealing with a much more firmly established body of knowledge, will wisely be sceptical of a quantitative answer which is not consistent with his or her prior experience. And our own experience in economics is that the most common explanation of a surprising result is that someone has made an “error. In finance, economics and business, models never describe ‘the world as it really is’. Informed judgement will always be required in understanding and interpreting the output of a model and in using it in any large-world situation.”

Trechos retirados de “Radical Uncertainty” de John Kay e Mervyn King