Forum Post: Subsidize Solar Panels
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 1:34 a.m. EST by TalkingHead
(101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Do you think the government should subsidize (or at least offer heavy rebates) for the installation of solar panels on the roofs of houses throughout the country? In the future if we move to electric cars then having solar panels on every roof will help solve our energy shortage, people will fill up their cars with free solar energy from their homes. Unused power can return to the grid and cut the need for more power plants. Not to mention the reduction to air pollutants that will result. Now would be a good time to do it with the high unemployment rate.
This is a highly technical problem, but one that gets used for a lot of tennis court stupidity in the media. People are looking for a quick 'It's good for the environment' or 'We can't afford all these subsidies'. But the substance of the issue is pretty much done. Photovoltaics, thermal with salt storage, and wind power, are coming on to the grid at an incredible space; they barely need subsidies anymore. Now is indeed a good time to do it; it is already being done.
I don't think governments should subsidize them, I think electric companies should.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
I think you should take ALL of your money and invest in Solyndra. I hear they are doing great stuff with solar.
[Deleted]
Oh and technically speaking, a tax break is NOT a subsidy. A subsidy implies that the government is giving its (our money) to someone to encourage development for something and thus puts the ownership of the money on govt (or people). A tax break allows someone to keep more of what is already theirs, thus the ownership of the money in question isn't the govt's to begin with.
See how the liberal press spins that to make you think our govt is GIVING our money to them. Completely false. Just thought you should know what your talking about next time.
Actually all subsidies should be removed. The market should decide what is best. Not some beurocrat who artificially inflates things, causing bubbles, picks winners and losers, and then spends your money to bail out their buddies.
When it comes down to it technically all taxes are theft, but unfortunately we have to have a government, and some will pay more than others. It's not fair but that's the way it is. The whole question is who pays how much. I don't believe anybody but the truly needy should get a handout, but it would be nice if there were jobs available for everyone that wants one. I would be for small government if the unemployment rate wasn't high and wages weren't so low. I'm doing OK myself but I have seen many people suffer through no fault of their own.
Please take an economics class. Just get the government out of energy, and we'll have cheap, efficient alternative energy flying out of the woodwork in 5 years. All the political shenanigans and cartelization are what holds everything back.
As far as economics, isn't government spending what we need right now? I agree that regulation needs to be streamlined, but without aggregate demand how is the economy supposed to recover. Stimulating the supply side doesn't seem to be working. Businesses hire when there are consumers with money to spend to buy their products.
here is one way to stimulate the demand for jobs
The idea of the banks recovering the loss thru selling the property is, at this time, ludicrous
Idea: Banks should be required to ' Suspend' payments and interest accumulation if a person loses their job during an 'economic downturn' until that person finds a comparable paying job or until the national unemployment rate is less than 5%.
Let's say you and I have an economy with two pieces of fruit. I have an apple, you have an orange. You print money and buy my apple. What was added to the economy?????????
Now, if I go plant an apple tree, value is added to the economy, we have more fruit. What our economy needs is more PRODUCTION. Demand stimulates production like speed stimulates your body. A little can get you all hyped up, but goes nowhere. Too much kills you. We need to let people produce, create, and provide services. THAT is where growth in the economy comes from. Demand hardly stimulates it, and certainly not "building infrastructure".
Those are good points but still if you watch the stock market like I’m sure you do you know two of the main indicators they look at is consumer spending and confidence. That to me sounds like spending needs to happen before extra production is ordered. Also right now don’t we have an output gap? Doesn’t sound like the supply side needs any help. I think the problem is confidence and too much saving.
wrong again. When real goods and services are being produced, confidence is nothing. Are they having a confidence problem in china? Is it because of government spending?
Peeps don't have money to save!
Homie, the federal reserve is a huge culprit here. I can't believe I'm going to explain an interest rate... seriously, if you wanna learn economics, ya gotsta study! I have been teaching myself for the last year and a half by watching videos like this one and doing a lot of reading http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
The Fed sets the interest rate. Which, the base rate right now is at zero. The interest rate, in a free market, would coordinate money across time. As more people save money, the rate goes down, meaning that there is more money in the bank. As the rate goes down, people are encouraged to do longer and bigger financing. The rate going down indicates that there is more money in the bank, so companies can build a big project with the idea that money will be in the economy to be spent at the end. As people spend the money, there's less in the bank. Banks want to attract more savings to invest, so the rates go up, and then investment and financing would curtail. Follow? The fed has artificially held the rate at ZERO for so long now. Initially, they did this to stimulate spending. It, artificially, gave people the impression that there was a lot of money around, so they could do big projects. Well its been at zero for so long, and STILL nobody is spending... why? There is no money. The money is made up, it's an artificial indicator of money. Where has the money gone? We've sent a lot of it overseas, we've built a lot of bombs and dropped them in the desert, we've maintained a global police force for decades.... THERE IS NO MONEY. If we want to have money again, we have to go about creating more value in our own economy. We have to start producing again! We have to start making things and providing our own services!
No government jobs bill can do this! The government jobs bill can only HURT this. Subsidizing energy can only hurt this! Gubmint needs to get out of the way and let us produce here again, so we can create value here again. Confidence and savings goes out the window when you've got authentic value creation. It's simple, homie!
exactly.. so do this to force banks to only spend money when investing in companies that create jobs and then the jobs will cause there to be money agian
The idea of the banks recovering the loss thru selling the property is, at this time, ludicrous
Idea: Banks should be required to ' Suspend' payments and interest accumulation if a person loses their job during an 'economic downturn' until that person finds a comparable paying job or until the national unemployment rate is less than 5%.
That makes sense but what about the paradox of thrift? When people save more there is less spending so that on a macro level even though they think they are saving they are also cutting their income (and savings) at the same time due to reduced consumption in the overall economy?
No system is perfect, and I am no expert, Maybe you have to pick your poison? Potential sluggishness of growth, or (like we have now) continued overexpansion until we reach destruction. I'd rather let things grow at a holistic rate than blow the whole thing up for the benefit of a few (like what is about to happen).
I think we went through an extreme period of borrowing and over consumption brought on by the low-interest-rate-fed bubbles, and now are suffering a debt hangover. Once we pay down this debt we’ll be OK and start growing again, but the mean time it’s going to be rough for a while. Hey I got to crash but it’s been great debating stuff with you, let’s do it again sometime. Peace out :)
Keep learning, homie. Thanks for talking. I think you're on the right track, it has to cycle through, but the peeps in charge don't ever want to let it fully correct, so it keeps getting worse. Keep up the good work, man!
Economics, the dismal science? Seriously though, why are people so exuberant about the free-market. The free-market will do whatever is cheapest, and is slow to change even when the change is drastically needed. How else can we explain the almost inane expansion of the oil infrastructure, even when the knowledge of dwindling supplies was evident.
I think the free-market does many things well, but so does government. You need both, you can't have all of one and none of the other - all out capitalism is just as frightening as all out socialism.
I agree, this fear of government becoming a big brother has paralyzed the political discourse. There are some things government must do for the long term benefit of the country. How many big businesses are going to build roads and bridges (actually don't answer that, there are too many toll roads already)
In a world with 7 billion people and growing, going about things the way we always had will obviously not have pretty results. The upcoming launch of the Mars Lab curiosity, a nuclear powered rover is a perfect example of the importance of government and public interests. There's no profit in going to mars now, and probably won't be for a hundred years. But there's little doubt we need to begin to expand further in space exploration. The societal gains of enterprises like this provide far more than just knowledge to the public, I can't speak for everyone, but it gives me an invaluable sense of hope for the future. Can you imagine how much poorer we'd be as a species without something like the hubble telescope?
Strong government isn't an option in a society that's becoming as advanced and as large as ours is. This fear of change is obviously a very human response, but it's very important for the continuation of our societies in general.
In the current political climate we never would have went to the moon, but how many people understand the technology and the vast commercial benefits that came out of the R&D for the moonshot. Back then we had JFK though (I knew JFK, he was a friend of mine, and Barack Obama you're no JFK). What we need is to do something besides only surviving, we something to rally around. Just paying the bills is boring.
Oil is a horrible example. Where does the cartel begin and the government end, or vice versa?
With the introduction of actual moral hazard, change is required at an appropriate pace, or punishment and death are the footsteps you hear behind you.
Oil I think is a good example of the shortcomings of the free market solely making decisions for the long term good of the country. For many years the goal was to make cars more inefficient to sell more oil. There were improvements to the internal combustion engine that patients were purchased and buried by the oil companies.
How hard is it to start a car company? It's not like some brilliant investors can just rip out a sweet car and corner the market. Without actual competition, you end up with all sorts of cartels, price fixing, and shenanigans.
Maybe a solution would be to not protect intellectual property so much? It would make it harder to consolidate wealth so simply? I've been curious about the ramifications of this line of thought..
I believe in the past it was rather hard to start a car company. Did you ever see that movie Tucker? Anyway to ignore the what the big monopolies do to us would be a mistake. And we have some ways to fight back but either the courts or the government has to get involved sometimes.
No, do not subsidize solar. I believe we need to invest heavily in renewable energy and smart-grid technology but we should focus on wind, not solar. In Ohio, where I'm from, it costs about 5 cents/kWhr for wind power and 8 cents/kWhr for oil. The only thing cheaper than wind in the "windy" states is coal. We can still use coal, but the other energy sources need to be phased out. Natural gas, oil, ethanol and nuclear are all more expensive and have a greater impact on the envoronment. There is no reason we should not replace these unless the energy companies are pulling the strings. It would take a massive investment to create infrastructure, but the cost/kWhr would be greatly reduced.
No subsidies, but we need direct programs for this.
I disagree, solar holds much potential for decentralizing power generation. Offsetting 40-50% of household utility energy use is huge, especially extrapolated over a considerable fraction of the population. Why turn our backs on one of the most plentiful energy resources we currently have? Sure, it's dilute and unreliable at times - and this underscores the obvious need to keep base-load capability and improvise other solutions. There are times when the suns not shining and the winds blowing, and vice-versa. Windy corridors should be properly harnessed - but windy corridors do not include interior city rooftops, or most any building rooftop. The domain of solar is obvious, and its usefulness is at least on the same level of solar.
The smart grid combined with better energy storage will be an abslute boon for renewable energy; storing energy in the form of water pumping/electrolyzing and possibly even super capacitors could become reality. Solar is obviously not the fix for all of our energy needs, but it needs to play a much larger role than it is.
I am an Electrical Engineer and I can tell you from experience, solar energy is not ready. Like I said before, solar is much more expensive than any other energy source and can't be implemented on a large scale. Wind is cheaper than every other conventional energy, except coal, and is extremely easy to build. The problem is infrastucture. Nobody is willing to take their investment out of oil. No corporation is going to take a massive loss to invest in something that will not be profitable for another 20 years. That's why the government needs to look ahead and invest in wind. This is something that can cut our energy bills in half. Solar can't do that, but instead will raise the price of electricity. Wind can do all these things, but only needs the investment.
I'll yield to you on the Electrical Engineering side, I'm still an EE student. I've been working in the electrical trade for around 5 years, and I'll agree the prices are still prohibitive. But I also have to yield to those who know much more on the subject than myself, and many such individuals think solar is a solution for the now, and not the later. I'm not arguing for the usefulness of wind energy, especially with the newer turbines being built which are far more reliable now than they ever have been.
But many things require a certain amount of government intervention. The Manhattan project, while not directly related to nuclear energy, still greatly increased our working knowledge of nuclear engineering. And in general, Nuclear power might have never came around without government incentives. Much like fusion is today, highly unprofitable, but with potential to change our reality.
I'm not the only one who thinks there's definite potential in doing solar now, along with wind, nuclear, and gas. You're right about the higher costs of energy, Germany does have higher energy costs and they're a large user and proponent of solar. But from what I've read, most Germans are supportive of it.
I am not saying we should not be investing in solar; it will one day dominate how we get energy to the grid. But wind is ready now and it has been ready for years. Coal is still the cheapest energy source, but there is no excuse for why we are not replacing the other energy sources with wind.
naw
the government should run the project
There's definitely a future for solar panels - heck, I was out working on an array today. A 5KW installation even during the low solar radiance levels during the winter months can still produce around 4-3KW. I'm an electrician working for a family contracting business, and we're still trying to figure how the regulatory side of this business will pan out in Oklahoma. My main concern is with unlicensed work - solar installations are regulated by the National Electric Code, a kinda journeyman's bible. Electricians and electrical contractors have to keep bonded and insured, and without the proper regulation, we're easily outbid by non-licensed, non-trained individuals. So I hope Oklahoma and the electrical inspectors in this state get to work on keeping the market open to legitimate installers.
I personally love solar technology, it combined with a better national grid could be huge for the future of this country. Germany has invested heavily in solar along with beginning a hydrogen infrastructure; hydrogen cars combined with solar technology capable of electrolyzing water holds much potential. I'm personally advocating for solar proliferation as much as possible - I'll soon be finished with my NABCEP exam, hopefully my company will be able to find a market for it! As for the rebates, I definitely agree... we need to provide incentives for those who have the financial means to be an early adopter. Once the market takes off prices should fall at a fairly steep rate.
SpaghettiMonster how much would a 5KW system cost? There are some rebates available already, I might just jump on it. What kind of system do you recommend?
It really depends, we've only ever installed 2 solar arrays in Oklahoma - and those were commercial projects. With that said, you're looking are around 600-1000 per panel, assuming the panel is in the 175-200W range. I've talked with colleagues from other states, and the general range I hear is 10-20k depending on just how complex your installation is.
As you probably know rebates can knock off about 30% of that in some cases. Even so, it's a considerable sum of money. But well designed and installed systems will last you 20-35 years if you take minimal care of it. Savings garnered from the system will easily pay for itself over time, but how fast depends on what kind of deals you can get on panels, and the quality of the installation and installation location. Prime rooftop real estate with unfettered sunlight access will obviously yield better results than otherwise.
As for the installations, I'd advise going with a single inverter and keeping away from the the panels with imbedded micro-inverters. The panels need to as simple as possible - primary failures within the PV systems tend to be inverters, so you don't want inverters in every panel IMO. As far as batteries are concerned, I really wouldn't personally want to deal with a bunch of lead-acid batteries. Suffice it to say, during the summer months of peak solar output, you shouldn't have issues putting the energy to good use! And during the winter months BTW, the excess of the energy is sold to the utility company. You should check with your states rules on net metering.
Thank you, I will check in to a single inverter system. My roof gets plenty of sun almost all year round where I live.
Your idea is a good one, tax rebates for solar panels, and tons of jobs too. They gave rebates for people installing new boilers in their homes, so it is just expanding on that. Even Lipa gave $35 energy credits to people who bought new refrigerators that were more energy efficient. In the meanwhile some businesses are cutting costs by painting their roofs white to reflect heat. It's a start.
There are rebates now, but it seems like this is something that the government and media could push a little harder. How much money does it cost to build a coal power plant? With enough solar we might not need to build so many.
I agree