New Energy Bill- what's in it for solar?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfi

Sorry for that misunderstanding of your post .But I do think that hindsight is wonderful,the fossil fuels may well have been subsidised in the very distant past and for reasons that would be incomprehensible to folks today and i do agree with your point that to now give them to renewables is wrong

Well that argument is extremely weak. The fact is, that not only in the past, but in the present, fossil fuels are still being subsidised by the CO2 emissions that are happening right now 24 hours a day around the globe, that will bear a future cost on future populations and in fact it's said that CO2 emissions are already costing society and the environment and climate right now.

This is a real cost we are paying for as a society right now. That's the very reason why this debate exists. These CO2 emissions will translate and are translating into real dollar costs right now. These costs are picked up by society in the form of more taxes to combat the effects of adverse climate impact ( more severe and damaging weather events - floods droughts, storms etc... ) and lower future productivity. This is a fossil fuel subsidy, translating to real dollar costs as well as irreparable damage to the environment and to human lives.

Of course progressively higher fuel prices will also bite harder if we have not allowed alternatives to develop to help absorb some of this impact.

So your weak argument is don't subsidise anything, yet still continue to subsidise fossil fuels with the damaging effects of CO2 emissions right now. The very point of developing renewables is this whole issue of CO2 emissions. At present and on a global scale, that approximates 25 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted annually. Experts say that the cost of subsidising CO2 abatement efforts, is far less than the cost of not, in terms of the economic consequence of adverse climate impact.

If you really want to abolish subsidies, then we must have an appropriate carbon tax, so that polluters damaging our climate and environment, pay a realistic price for the damage they do. This way carbon offsets can then be afforded by society to help counter the climate and environmental damage occurring from the climatic tipping point effect of global CO2 emissions.

It's said by 2030, globally we expect to be outputting around 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. The only way to have any chance of reducing this figure, is to be very aggressive with incentives for industries that reduce CO2 emissions, no matter which way they choose to do it.

Alternatively if you don't believe in the incentive / subsidy model, then make CO2 and other polluters pay the true environmental cost for the damage they are contributing to our climate and environment in general. Of course we know that would mean higher prices passed on to consumers which would impact on consumer demand and hence slow economic growth and force governments to lower interest rates to help spark up economies, which the masses of borrowers would love, but the rich money holders would hate. Sadly I guess that would be asking too much of our society.

We can't allow polluters to go unchecked indefinitely, because that model is not sustainable long term. The whole point about of renewable energy is long term sustainability, hence with minimal environmental impact. Polluters in all industries, must pay fairly for any environmental damage they do, if we truely and honestly want to have a level playing field and achive long term sustainable develpment of the planet.

[Wheatridger]

Why do we need subsidies and incentives? Because the up-front capital cost of PV is so high, that's why! My case is an example: I live in Colorado, where the combination of power company rebates ($2.50/watt) and federal tax credits among the best in the US. My house has a south-facing roof of the perfect pitch. I've found a solar installer whose bid is significantly below the competition.

Even with these fortunate circumstances, here's how the numbers look for my installation- pretty marginal. The estimated production of my 3.25 KW system will just about pay the interest on the money borrowed to buy it. It will take increases in electrical rates for the production to start chipping away at the loan's principal. I do expect that to happen, but the business case for solar is a lot weaker than the environmental case. And I'm not even mentioning the electrical work I had to do on my older home to meet current codes.

Someone mentioned the Internet earlier. That's ironic, because it was first established as a government project (DARPA). Once it was running, the capital cost of participating became very low. Most homes already have computers, but they don't have DC-to-AC power inverters waiting to make the solar PV output into something useful.

Incentives exist all through our economy. Until recently, there was a massive tax break (in the form of accelerated depreciation) for anyone who bought a Hummer for "business use." Certainly the solar tax incentives are working towards a better end than that!

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by Wheatridger

Why do we need subsidies and incentives? Because the up-front capital cost of PV is so high, that's why!

That alone isn't a terribly good justification.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

That alone isn't a terribly good justification.

I think I have explained from my perspective, why subsidies and incentives are essential, in my previous post. The NASA space programme is probably the most heavily subsidised in history. I don't hear many people complaining about that.

Even without contrasting the glaring example of NASA though, the reasons for incentives or subsidies are very clear. We can't wait for private industry to develop a moral code of best practice, when it comes to global pollution and global CO2 emissions, that will bear future economic and health costs on future generations. That future cost is a subsidy to be paid for by future generations and if you are unlucky, your generation also.

Also the USA and other nations need to rapidly rid themselves of foreign oil dependency, to as much an extent as possible. In particular the US foreign policy is strongly influenced by oil and maintaining it's economy and global military strategic position, requires that to be so.

If new sources of energy are not accelerated, there will be more international turmoil ahead, with regard to oil and oil producing nations. This will likely add to further global economic destablisation and military turmoil. More reasons to invade other nations and interfere with their politics. Most of these oil producing nations are only considered important by oil consumer nations because of their oil wealth.

If the polluters are not going to pay a fair cost for their pollution, then we must fund and incentivise the renewable energy developers to allow them to more quickly find ways of generating energy more cleanly. Have it one way or the other. i.e.

Either make polluters pay for pollution and remove their existing subsidies or give renewables the equivalent subsidies and more to help combat the issues raised regarding CO2 emissions, oil dependency and price rises etc.....

Additionally, traditional power generation industries like coal, gas, nuclear oil, etc... have been subsidised for decades in one form or another, either through special government grants or tax incentives.

Quite plain and simple.

There you go, in summary.

- It's considered a national imperative for national security, just like NASA.

- Fossil fuels have been subsidised for decades so treat renewables the same or remove all subsidies from all industries to help level the playing field.

- Polluters must pay for the damaging effects of the pollution on the planet. Carbon TAX / trading / credits etc.... That pollution is costing the world economically. This cost is a huge subsidy to be paid for by future generations and if we are unclucky, this generation too.

[screener]

well said LMAGIC007, Governments here do the same. Sometimes even while mouthing the lines that they believe this will result in lower costing energy. It really is time to recognize that costs are costs whether you're paying them or not. Because someone or something in the environment is paying for them.

[Danno]

Originally Posted by forfi

And if you keep up the ad hominum attacks on me I will have to use the word bollocks again and get into trouble.

What attack?? I did not notice. It looks to me that that you were complimented not shunned upon.

[Wheatridger]

Beyond the bickering, which means nothing in the wider world beyond this forum, remains the question of what will happen to the $2000 residential solar subsidy that expires at the end of this new year. I asked my Congressman (Ed Perlmutter, D-Colorado) that last week, and he wasn't so hopeful. Led by Bush, the GOP is being obstinate; evidently this is the rare tax break they don't like. He's directing his hopes towards new legislation encouraging or mandating lower mortgage interest rates on energy-efficient and/or energy-producing dwellings. We'll see, but right now I'm glad my system is being installed this year, not next.

[LMagic007]

Not sure. I think they would eventually have to tax solar higher than other fuels to stop it in its tracks. If they were daring enough to do that, then it could become more obvious what their motives are, especially with Bush coming from an oil family. A solar revolution is something they may not find appealing, though if they were smart I think they would cross invest in the inevitable. i.e. Solar. I read somewhere, that Bush had an IQ of 120 which I found surprising. Then I read somewhere else that it was only 91. Though let this not distract us from the topic in question.

[simonm]

Having read the thread I thought the following might be of interest with regard to the situation in the UK along with a news item that rather puts it into focus.

Basically, there are lots of incentives in the UK for installing renewable energy. Clearly this is to make up for the factthat there is a marginal if any gain to make - though that should change with technical improvements and energy price increases.

But, if you install solar panels and wind turbines etc. The local taxation people consider that your house has been improved and increase the tax! In my case, £1,000s spent on solar panels, maybe £2-400 of savings but the risk of an additional £500 tax! It would be cheaper to rip out the lot!

Then there is the administration fee to even get permission to install the panels in the first place, permission that might be refused for pointless reasons.

See: http://www.trueenergy.co.uk/comment/whyinstallgreen.asp

I can see solar panels in the UK being ripped out wholesale, not because they don't work but because they are taxed!

Simon!