Slashdot Mirror
Solar Power Is Booming — Why Do We Want To Kill It?
TaeKwonDood writes with a followup to the news we discussed over the weekend about tariffs being places on Chinese solar panels. He writes,
"According to Forbes, 'Solar power is booming. Imports from China were a tepid $21 million in 2005, but in 2011 installations totaled nearly $2.7 billion. That's a huge win. And just as advocates for solar power had hoped, a larger market drove down prices. Solar energy cost has declined by two-thirds in the last four years, meaning it will soon start to close in on fossil fuels.' There's just one problem: now the government wants to kill it. The article continues, 'As the market was flooded by both silicon (from silicon producers) and thin-film panels (by Chinese manufacturers), the price for thin-film panels came crashing down – along with Solyndra’s business model. ... Yet that isn’t the only instance of mismanagement. The whole clean energy program remains flawed, even at the consumer level. The people who are the most likely to be impacted by high energy prices, the poor, are the least likely to benefit from the solar rebate scheme because they lack the capital to pay for the installation.'"
Because there are other panel manufacturers like Solyndra who got Federal money, and it will look bad if they fail, too.
the poor, are the least likely to benefit from the solar rebate scheme because they lack the capital to pay for the installation.'"
Uh oh.
Maybe the tariffs are because the Chinese have been subsidizing their solar exports in violation of the trade agreements?
Part of the problem will of course be that photovoltaics aren't reliable. Concentrated solar onto molten salt and wind are much more reliable than photovoltaics. Or we could just go nuclear.
While I'm not big of the idea of "the long tail" or "trickle down economics", I would think this would help the poor in a small manner. By those able to afford it having solar panels, the power companies have less demand for their energy and so the poor are less likely to see an increase in power prices (and, rarely, a slight reduction). This is, of course, assuming things like the able don't have their own, separate power station from the poor, enough able people install them to actually make some sort of dent, etc.
Even if they get no impact from it, "the poor still can't afford them" doesn't seem like a valid mark against such a program; I didn't see anyone complaining that the tax breaks to those who bought hybrids were bad because the poor still couldn't afford hybrids.
To the government that the US can no longer sustain a competitive domestic solar panel industry. This was predicted in shockingly accurate detail by HBS researchers 3 years ago. Protectionism is only going to make it worse -- amazing that these ideas still fly.
Photo-voltaic panels are not cheap enough or efficient enough to be a truly economic means of producing electricity. The subsidies potentially enable economies of scope and scale to the point where it would be economical. Long way to go though still.
Solar is booming because of subsidies; poor people are being taxed in the West so that Chinese solar power manufacturers get rich.
Eliminate all subsidies and let the market sort itself out.
Poor also don't have the money to get the subsidy for the Tesla cars. They're missing out on like 10 thousand dollars!!!!
Once they drive our domestic PV manufacturers out of business they'll be free to charge what the market will bear.
Firstly to address the article, one is a start-up loan guarantee to offset the risks in surmounting what is a huge barrier to entry, the other is a continued subsidy to aid an established industry. Sure they're both in the same vein of using public funds to bolster industry, but not quite comparable beyond that, are they? Continued subsidy of established industry is one of the major arguments made by those who are against US agricultural subsidies, and they make a reasonable point regarding the negative impact it has to the outside world. Many countries feel justified to place tariffs on US agricultural products because of this.
Now to address your post, let's look at the not so apparent inconsistency in the rhetoric surrounding the motivations behind the subsidy. If the Chinese government indeed only wanted to make renewable energy more affordable for the average Chinese person, as many say is the sole motivation, it could very well have implemented a tax rebate policy with low-income allowances for Chinese consumers (as it's typically done in the US, at least the rebate part) -- and if fearing the money drain to imported panels, they could even have made "for use on domestically made panels only" a condition for such rebates/allowances. Under such a policy, imported solar panels would find it difficult to compete in the Chinese market, but it wouldn't be as big of a deal. That's not what happened. By continuing to subsidize the already established manufacturers directly, it places anti-competitive behavior behind the rather more difficult-to-assail rhetoric of "making energy affordable for the average Chinese person." Unfortunately, this rhetorical sleight of hand is able to misdirect many people.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Without subsidies this market probably wouldn't exist. Solar is massively expensive per watt relative to other sources of energy. Unless you taxed the heck out of them you would just end up with more dirty energy and little to no solar at all.
Precisely. Consider what happened with water in my area; we entered a conservation phase, and they promptly jacked up the water rates "to ensure minimum funding to maintain the system." Water conservation phase ended, usage increased and... hey look the rate stayed the fucking same.
Reminds me of seasonal gas price hiking. Nothing to do with politics, everything to do with greedy-ass oil execs and Saudi princes.
Changing the people in power is incredibly difficult. Those who would best run the country will not run for office. Those that run are not fit for office. That leaves us with people who are all about "collaboration" -- that is the people who honestly believe that reality is whatever the consensus says it is. pi=3 is good enough... Consensus builders have no patience for cold hard facts.
I'm not talking about the able/rich or power plants producing electricity from solar for the poor, I'm talking about decreased demand on the power plants due to the able/rich not needing as much because of their own solar panels. I'm no power station expert, but less stress on the plant likely means lower overall costs which could be passed on to the remaining customers in the form of slight reduction in cost (or, much more likely in my pessimistic mind, a delay in the rising of costs.)
However, dumping doesn't make sense here. Properly maintained, a solar installation can reliably last for many decades with only minimal replacement.
Dumping exists to cause a mad rush of adoption, to set the hook for lock in. If adoption also translates to reduced demand later (see eg, computer sales figures from 1990 to today for an indicator of saturation with durable goods), then dumping makes significantly less sense.
More likely, china is trying to bolster capital to rapidly develop a thriving industrial production infrastructure, and the current situation provides a ripe opportunity who's time has come.
The US populace *DESPERATELY* wants to be rid of expensive and toxic fossil fuel use. So much so that they are willing to break the bank on one-off investments on domestic solar. (Something highly uncharacteristic of the typical us consumer's demographic profile)
China says "we can make solar cells for you! We can make them DIRT cheap!"
US consumers shout "SOLD!"
US regulators go "Oh No! OMGWTF! If they all switch to solar, we won't have as many reasons to stay in a state of purpetual war with the middle east, and our out-of-channel campaign funding sources will diminish! This is terrible! We have to act! We have to drive the prices of these deleterious cheap solar installs back up to protect our interests!"
So, they institute tarrifs to drive the prices up, in the hopes of preventing widespread solar adoption.
I would bet dollars to holes in doughnuts that the leading voices behind the tarrifs have memberships in the GOP, and hold shares in energy companies.
Do we do that? If not, why not? It would seem to solve the supposed issue without this tariff. You want cheap panels, fine, no rebate for you.
Of course, if difference in panel price > rebate/tax break allowance, that doesn't matter much, I suppose.
Not too long of a way to go. Basically they need to get the panels + installation down another 25-50% (and technologically this is not insurmountable) but in addition to that, they have to do so with something resembling a respectable profit margin. RIght now companies are running things close to the wire trying to compete, and that's not sustainable on a financial plane.
Of course, if the price of competing energy goes up (if there is a recoveing economy, it will) then that makes the competitive point for solar easier to acheive. In some local markets, solar is already cheaper.
Someone had to do it.
And yet the subsidies that the fossil fuel companies get are above and beyond what the alternative energy groups get.
Yup, efficiencies like free money from the Chinese government coupled with extremely low labor costs and extremely lax environmental standards.
China, of course.
Unless you're thinking that we actually have a "Free Market," in which case I have several bridges and inland oceanside property to sell you.
I spent six years in Tucson and I know folks who have PV panels on their rooftops which provide most of their power. There are lots of urban areas that get a shitload of sunshine.
I agree, though -- solar isn't going to provide baseload power. It's not just coal and oil, though -- nuclear can, too. So can geothermal.
And on display for everyone to watch.
Are we getting close to stopping this yet? Apparently not.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I do not see the anomaly. the market for solar power cells was not driven by any big need for solar power production, and so it all hinged on subsidies to the producers, be they the producers of solar infrastructure or the installers/managers. Moreover, when the size of the market was small the impact on energy bills at the wider level was negligible, like having a 0.01c tax surcharge.
Fast forward to today, and things are quite expectedly different: the installed base is BIG, the subsidies are a botload of money, and the shift between the have and havenots has widened. On the "have" side, big producers of energy receiving subsidies, which given the expenditure were well off to start with, all the infrastructure managers (politician), and the lobbyists who have to be paid to make sure the merry go round keeps going. On the "have not" side, traditional energy producers and especially network managers, who have to justify the expenditures required to adjust to a wildly varying power source (backup generators, more transmission lines, etc); small businesses and individuals, who do not have the clout to say that they do not want or can afford to pay money on top of electricity simply because someone goofed ten years back. And goofed they did: If the level of subsidies would be cut to the level rendering viable only the latest and cheapest generation of solar plants, the "stranded asset" problem would be enormous, since may if not all of the older plants would tank.
the saving grace for the old solars is simple and crude: since most of the installations were financed through bank loans, and banks are the "little princes" of western governments, non one will force the situation, unless the taxpayers really get upset.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
The US gov't believes it can run the economy for some reason.
I think the reason is the abject failure of the private sector to do so.
Someone had to do it.
Figure out how long it would take to replace oil based energy input to society with solar electric energy, and stand in awe. Also don't hold your breath. Feel free to assume that solar cells are 100% efficient.
Je me souviens.
And yet the subsidies that the fossil fuel companies get are above and beyond what the alternative energy groups get.
- it's false, because it makes no sense. The oil industry pays huge amounts of taxes and it provides the people with all the oil they need for all the uses.
The alternative energy industry LIVES on taxes, what does it provide people with? Bad business model and more taxes going towards some chosen contractors for political reasons.
Yup, efficiencies like free money from the Chinese government coupled with extremely low labor costs and extremely lax environmental standards.
- whatever, say thank you, Chinese government, for the subsidy that you are giving to people, who clearly are too dumb to understand that they are getting it (IF that's what the Chinese are doing - they are subsidising you at the moment.)
China, of course.
Unless you're thinking that we actually have a "Free Market," in which case I have several bridges and inland oceanside property to sell you.
- yeah, you have already been sold a bad bridge. Chinese people are NOT gaining, they are losing by subsidising your consumption, and it is done by their gov't destroying their currency in order to cause lower prices for the products that the Chinese are making via the fake exchange rate.
I already talked about it, clearly not everybody is getting the point.
You can't handle the truth.
Or an increase in costs, because thanks to lots of users running solar panels there is now far more variation in demand...
Sure the demand on hot sunny days might be lower, but during the hours of darkness it will be just as high as it ever was, so you still need to keep the same capacity available in the coal/gas/nuclear plants.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Well that's nonsense, USA government is the entity that destroyed the private sector in the first place, now that they are done with that, you think they can run the economy?
You can't handle the truth.
You clearly have NO understanding of how money laundering works.
Brett
I mean, they're nice and if you can get them, do it. But! I went off-grid in '80 or so, when subsidies were hard to find, solar was $7/watt for panels or more, and it still paid off. I just doubled what I have here so as to have enough extra to charge my new Volt too - and it's a pretty big deal to just tell the gasoline man to get lost entirely - more panels is also more times the house system needs no backup. Finally there. !00% NOT Chinese stuff, though I have no axe to grind with them as a people. I just prefer poly xtal big, thick, reliable, conservative cells, that's all - I've got them 30 years old at still 80% of original spec. Even those are down to 3.50/watt or so now, made in USA if you care (I don't much, I'm just trying to get the most kWh/buck). It was hard at first, but built good habits of no waste, and now its fantastic - and no monthly bills...just internet. I got a much better subsidy thusly - I bought raw land and homesteaded on it. Power companies are in a lot of places, in charge of enforcing the building permit and inspections regimes. So, if you're not and never become a customer - well, my buildings are taxed as barns and sheds even though I obviously live here. In today's tax environment - lookee, no property taxes to speak of.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I am fine with money laundering, I am wondering what's wrong with people here who don't want some foreign government to subsidise their own purchases? What? It makes sense - take it and shut up.
You can't handle the truth.
Having known and worked with a number of people in the alternative energy industry I can assure you that they've long since stopped being scrappy little upstarts. They're big business and even big oil has entered alternative industry. They're not stupid. They know there's a ton of money in the industry and a massive amount more to be made.
As for the Chinese, they do have a propensity for dumping goods on other countries. It's something the EU has responded a number of times in the past. And of course a lot of it is driven by protectionist policies, as was the case when the EU imposed tariffs on Chinese clothing several years ago. The problem is that the line between meeting consumer demand for cheap goods and dumping is quite blurred. The Chinese government also has countless policies intended to favor their own companies. It's something you'd expect any rational government to do if they want to ensure the success of their own nation. The global economy will eventually change to the point where these practices might not make sense, but we're not at that point yet.
That is not to suggest that these moves are necessarily a good thing. And they don't fix the core problems with American manufacturing. The government is treating the symptoms not the disease. And that's assuming that they're not pandering to special interests, which of course we all know is not the case. But this sort of thing is definitely very complicated.
Well doing that would still be anti-competitive, less so than directly subsidizing the manufacturers since it doesn't really affect exports, but anti-competitive nonetheless. If the US did it, I'm sure other countries would definitely complain, but if it did it as a retreat from direct subsidies, it may be seen as an easier pill to swallow (hmm, that's giving me evil conspiracy ideas haha). In the US, Japanese hybrid cars are the most popular. This is because rebates are less biased, and they stimulate a sector without picking favorites within it.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Basically they need to get the panels + installation down another 25-50%
A good way to do this is to standardize the mounting brackets, and then change building codes so the brackets are required to be pre-installed on all newly constructed buildings. As prices drop, they can install the panels cheaply because the brackets are already there. This will be much cheaper than retrofitting panels onto an existing roof.
* Partisan opinion: Solar Power Is Booming â" Obama administration is killing it
* Partisan opinion masquerading as fact: Solar Power Is Booming â" Why Do We Want To Kill It?
Is this the new Slashdot TV: Fair and Balanced?
But I thought the water company was owned by the government? How can you blame greedy private executives for the "high prices" of the government-owned water company? Hmmmm.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It's already reaching the limits of theoretical efficiency given the current harvesting mechanism. And yet it's not profitable. Money isn't just some abstraction. It represents resources which go into production and distribution of the thing. If it's not profitable, then it's an environmental as well as financial net loss. More resources go in than come out. If something cannot be made profitable even at peak efficiency, it represents a net waste of natural resources.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
not controllable by the government/corporations. Suddenly, the average person is that much more independent. Take out property and income tax, replace it with a VAT, break up large banks, re-institute Glass-Steagal and put back (or actually enforce) anti-trust legislation and heavens, you just might be on your way to a robust, resilient country of relatively independent citizens, not too subordinate to any central authority.
Now, go back to watching American Idol and Fox News. You will be instructed what to do on election day. That is all.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
False. If Chinese solar companies started raping us with price, then a new company (located in EU, US, India, Korea, or even China itself) will rise-up and sell the panels for less. No monopoly has ever set arbitrarily high prices and lasted more than 2 decades max.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I don't want solar power, I want colon power.
I just want to know if it matters what I eat, and whether they're going to hurry up. Tonight is Tex-Mex. I guarantee I'm going to be a power station by morning!
Futurist Traditionalism
I hear this same argument all the time here in Anguilla where I live. "we don't want solar unless it reduces the cost of electricity for the poor man".
It's nonsense because solar is not going to drop the wholesale price of electricity, the differential from the price of NG or Nuke is never going to be substantial enough. Electricity in America is very very cheap. There is little point in trying to reduce the cost further, it is mostly administration charges at this stage.
The reason countries like the USA and other are promoting solar is because it is a renewable source. OIl and other fossil fuels are filthy and news of their imminent demise is not exaggerated. They will run out. America has a responsibility as a first world nation to reduce emissions.
Turning to renewable sources allows more time before the end of oil and for the technologies to develop. You can't expect we can transition once there is a crisis. Unless we start now and incentivize the use of RE, we will never get to a point where we can manage without fossil fuels. Great strides are being made and the discovery of grid based storage at economical cost will be a game changer.
Another reason to promote RE sources is energy independence. If countries that are not in the Middle East could survive on domestic production and renewable sources, the politics of the world would change dramatically, and the price of energy would drop, spawning another economic boom. At present, the US public is crying about high gasoline prices caused by geopolitical issues, but at the same time complaining about subsidies for renewable sources aimed at developing solutions to this issue. And blaming Obama for both.
Let's make this very clear. Oil will get more and more expensive until it runs out, the planet will warm in the mean time from CO2, and there will be instability in the Middle East and Venezuela. Or you can believe the Forbes and Fox News stories that tell you the opposite.
I live in a country that has probably the highest electricity costs in the world, 43c/KWh, unlimited sunshine, and refuses to allow people to install solar. Figure that policy out. Very soon we will not be a viable state because of high energy costs, but there is still no vision or will to move out of the dark ages.
Be glad you at least have the right to install solar or wind or whatever.
CM www.cometenergysystems.com Blog: http://caribbeanrenewable.blogspot.com/
Pick a winner so your friends/family/supporters will be helped. Subsidize it. Watch supply increase in response to subsidies, while demand stays flat. Oh, no, prices are dropping, which hurts those we picked to win. So tariffs and quotas and price fixing and whatever to drive prices back up. Watch supply fall apart completely. Blame "free markets". Repeat as needed.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
As an aside -- China doesn't do tax rebates for individuals, AFAIK. That kind of policy is simply alien to how they operate their tax policy, and how they implement economic policy. It's a market-based approach that makes sense to us, but doesn't fit in with Chinese policy.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It would be very difficult (and costly) to maintain...
You would still need the same base load provided by something other than solar (eg coal, gas, nuclear etc) for nights and cloudy days...
Also with lots of people feeding into aswell as taking from the grid you would have more scope for malfunctioning poorly maintained equipment causing problems.
Solar may reduce the bills of those who have the panels, but only due to government subsidy... In actual fact it makes it more expensive, and that cost is passed on to all the other customers without solar panels. Take away the subsidy and it just wouldn't be viable at all.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Don't keep me in suspense, does it work out to more or less than the 150 years it will take us to exhaust all the proven, unproven, and unconventional reserves of oil in the world?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I don't see this working out too well. Solar is very site-specific: the panels need to be oriented a certain way with relation to the sun, they need a certain elevation that depends on latitude, etc. The people who build houses are morons, and I have no faith that they'd actually put these mounting brackets in correctly on every house. Instead, what'll happen is you'll buy a house, it'll come with some brackets to mount your panels pointing north or east with a completely inappropriate elevation, and you won't notice it until 5 years later when you decide to add panels. At that time, it'll be too late to get the builder to do anything about it as the house will be out of warranty and/or the builder's company out of business.
There's a reason that we humans do a really good job making small gadgets, and a horrible job building anything big. Small things are easier to build in a factory with lots of automation; as soon as you start adding lots of people and complicated, non-automated processes to it, the whole thing goes to hell. Coupled with the overall decline of western society, you might as well give up trying to build anything that's larger or heavier than a flat-screen TV (remember, we used to be able to build skyscrapers like the Empire State Building, but it's completely impossible to build anything like that any more in the west).
Solar already has the highest return on investment of renewable energy sources. Panels are continually improving and payback periods are now under 10 years and projected to be in the neighborhood of 4 years soon.
Solar R.O.I.
They are trying hard to NOT address the fact that China is subsidizing and then dumping solar cells/panels on the western market (USA AND EU). If we really wanted to tell China to play fair, then we would have had real tariffs on panels that are made out of solar cells from China. Doing 5% does not address the issues. It should be around 40-60%.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The poor currently aren't doing anything to cause it (in theory, what with them not owning hummers or polluting factories
Maybe the poor in your area are different, but here in Arizona, poor people routinely drive giant gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks, usually with expensive rims on them. You can see them when they drive up to government offices to collect their assistance checks.
A rail at the eve and a rail at the peak. Wire these to a junction box near the utility box downstairs. One rail is positive, the other negative. The only problems I see in doing that at construction is corrosion.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I wish solar energy was the end all be all solution to our energy problems. But it is not. Simply put, when the sun isn't shining, you have no power. It is fine as a backup system or one to augment the grid. But reliable it is not. The cost per kilowatt hour is also too high. Most electricity in the US is still produced from coal. That is because it has the lowest cost per kilowatt hour. The best solution I see is building Thorium reactors. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR's) do not have the problems that plague uranium and plutonium fueled reactors. Fusion sounds cool, but so far it has been nothing but a huge government "make work" project. It is nowhere near ready for commercialization. LFTR's would be clean and cheap. They should be competitive with coal per kilowatt hour cost. You don't have to depend on the huge thermonuclear reactor in the sky being obscured by clouds or it being night either.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Stupid Water Barons!
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
While I'm not big of the idea of "the long tail" or "trickle down economics", I would think this would help the poor in a small manner. By those able to afford it having solar panels, the power companies have less demand for their energy and so the poor are less likely to see an increase in power prices (and, rarely, a slight reduction).
Its not likely that power companies will be able to abandon maintenance on infrastructure that solar users no longer use, so those costs will have to be borne by a smaller number of customers.
On a more cynical note, the power companies will continue to operate on the assumption of constantly increasing profitability. With fewer customers, they will have to raise prices to meet their goals. Fair? Reasonable? Of course not. But fairness is not for the poor in America. Power companies will run themselves into the ground trying squeeze dry anyone they can, and the poor are the least able to escape their grasp.
Thus what? The core problem is the oil itself as a burned fuel.
A way forward as it gets started in the face of a complacent market and competition with a vested interest in it not getting off the ground?
So we should just stick forever with fossil fuels and just hand the entire market over to the Chinese? We're already learning that this is bad for anyone but the owners of the companies involved.
Precisely, they're subsidizing such purchases so we don't buy from vendors in the US.
China likes to play a long game whereby they peg their currency close to the USD and manipulate it so that it's perpetually below rather than fluctuating like it should. The core advantage to this is that Chinese goods are always cheaper, and this, combined with lax environmental regulations and subsidies allows them to perpetually undercut foreign vendors and eventually drive them out of business.
Then the price goes up, but not enough to start production again. This game is playing out right now with the rare earths.
So what you're saying that China is basically running bad economics that will lead to it eventually self destructing? Yeah, so by keeping some manufacturing in the US we have a chance of protecting ourselves from it. Doubt we will, but it's worth a shot.
I don't care, I'm not poor.
Hahahah. No, corporations have destroyed it by moving it all to China to get around the regulations the people of this country demanded be put in place. They won't bring it back until we're willing to accept labor conditions and pollution equivalent to what China has now.
Taxed through inflation, income, sales taxes to pay wealthier people to put panels on their roofs. It's generally morally sickening, but no more sickening than the rest of the corruption.
I didn't see anyone complaining that the tax breaks to those who bought hybrids were bad because the poor still couldn't afford hybrids.
That's purely because you are incapable of using Google.
e.g.
http://97.65.137.56/202194/ron-paul-right-again-electric-car-subsidies-transferring-wealth-from-the-poor-to-the-rich
Deleted
PV panels not earning back their energy production costs is an urban legend. The actual earn-back period including production, transportation, and installation is only a couple of years.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Um... no. Well, maybe.
Depends how your solar system is tied into the grid. If you have no charge/storage attached to your system, then sure. Night-time use will resort to grid based electricity. Attach some storage to your system, however, and you are good for days.
Most municipal water supplies sold out to private industry years ago.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Depends on where you live. Lot of municipalities have private water companies. Lots more have govt. owned divisions that have "privatized" operations.
The oil industry pays huge amounts of taxes and it provides the people with all the oil they need for all the uses.
ExxonMobile paid zero taxes in 2009 and 2010.
Also, the reason solar is entirely Chinese-based (both the technology and the manufacturing) is because the oil companies paid their friends in government to make sure America's presence in solar game in the 90's and '00s was marginal.
You're right that government has done a piss poor job of "running the eonomy" when it comes to energy, but you're entirely wrong about the reasons.
Exxon Mobile paid plenty of taxes on money that they earned in US.
Out of horses mouth:
In 2009 specifically, ExxonMobilâ(TM)s total taxes and duties to the U.S. government and its subdivisions exceeded $7.7 billion, an amount that includes ExxonMobilâ(TM)s U.S. income tax expense related to 2009 activities of approximately $500 million. Our U.S. income tax expenses over the last five years alone reach almost $20 billion.
Furthermore, one only has to look at ExxonMobilâ(TM)s previous tax bills to realize that any claim we donâ(TM)t pay taxes is absurd.
ExxonMobil is one of the countryâ(TM)s largest taxpayers, having incurred a total U.S. tax expense of $60 billion over the past five years â" a tax cost that exceeded our U.S. earnings in that same period by $19 billion. Simply stated, for every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2005 and 2009, we paid almost $1.50 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.
We are not only a large source of revenue for the government through taxes, but we also continue investing substantial sums even in a weak economy. While others have cut back, ExxonMobil made capital and exploration investments of $26.1 billion in 2008 and $27.1 billion in 2009. We invested nearly $11 billion directly in U.S. operations during this time, generating jobs and other economic benefits.
And for those who still say oil and natural gas companies âoedonâ(TM)t pay their fair shareâ compared to other companies, consider this: ExxonMobilâ(TM)s effective tax rate for 2009 was about 47 percent; a recent study found that the tax rate for U.S. oil and gas companies is about 20 points higher than the rest of the S&P Industrials. Iâ(TM)d consider that more than our fair share.
ExxonMobilâ(TM)s activities add billions of dollars a year to the U.S. economy through our tax obligations and our business investments, and federal, state, and local government budgets all benefit.
When it comes to political theatre, itâ(TM)s time for a new line â" because the old line about ExxonMobil not paying taxes just isnâ(TM)t true.
You can't handle the truth.
'Cos there ain't no meter on the Sun,
No, there ain't no meter on the Sun.
How ya gonna charge
Enough to keep ya livin' large
When there ain't no meter on the Sun?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hahahah. No, corporations have destroyed it by moving it all to China to get around the regulations the people of this country demanded be put in place.
1. Is the right of the businesses to search for better places to do business (and it is the right of the individuals to search for better places to live.
2. It's not just regulations and taxes, it's also inflation - destruction of the currency by the government fiscal policy of printing - punishing the savers and investors and promoting policy of debt.
They won't bring it back until we're willing to accept labor conditions and pollution equivalent to what China has now.
- that will NOT be enough, you also have to stop destroying the money.
Now, to address your underlying assumption:
All of the things that you are talking about the private industry is basing their decisions on - those things are the creation of the government.
Prior to 1913 basically there was no business regulations, there was no income or corporate or payroll taxes either, and USA was building up its wealth and reserve faster than anybody else on the planet, USA paid out its debts and became largest creditor nation, while its currency appreciated in value by the factor of 2 over the 19th century and while USA became the largest exporter of high quality low cost consumer goods.
You can't handle the truth.
Plenty of people here (south-eastern Australia) can easily power their whole home, and then some, from a rooftop panel array (at least for most of the year ... mid-winter gets a little trickier). Yes solar isn't good enough for baseline power load, but it still push out enough power to run a home if the conditions are right (and they are right in many places on earth).
I lived in a completely solar-powered place for a while (in northern NSW) and it was fine. Very rarely needed to draw extra power from the grid. Running three hair driers at once might do it, but how often does that happen? (Heating and cooking were gas, by the way ... and they are traditionally the things that chew up insane amounts of power if they are electric - exclude those and most home appliances simply don't require that much power)
According to documents filed with the SEC, the publicly traded Chinese firms I follow (~70% of production) have net gross margins for the entire period in question. Granted, they are still running at operating losses for a myriad of other reasons..So either these firms are fraudulent (a pretty serious allegation, far worse than dumping or this is all protectionist garbage) Yet, the majority of opinions on this forum are based on this easily falsifiable U.S. financial media reporting. The evidence of positive gross margins is publicly available via the SEC... Where is the critical thinking here people? Isn't the burden of proof on those who make the accusations? Instead, the firms behind these allegations remain anonymous and fail to provide any evidence. I'd also like to see evidence that Chinese subsides are larger than U.S. subsidies... The big public firm behind this, SolarWorld, is well connected politically and couldn't compete with China even with a 50% tariff ...
In theory, the poor also benefit from a cleaner environment.
This of course presumes that those carbon-centric banks yield their Cypt-Keeper claws from the tillers of economy and state. In fact, they have worked steadfastly to keep the world in a fossil fuel state of existence, and renewable sources have been resisted, avoided and limited at great cost to the people's of the world. The technology exists and the need has never been greater. It is now time to begin migrating to more sustainable energy sources.
I'm confused as to why people say it's thriving when it's taking such a huge amount of money in subsidies. All competing energy forms take in either no or comparatively irrelevant subsidies and yet remain competitive. If solar power needs these subsidies then they're not thriving. Perhaps they're doing better then awful... but that's hardly a grand success.
In any case, I want solar to succeed, but I think it won't succeed until the social planners get out of the process. Solar will succeed or fail not because people believed in it but because it's a superior form of energy. Having solar shouldn't be seen as something "good" people do as if it's a sacrifice. Rather, it should be what "smart" people do because it's actually cheaper. Until we get there solar power stands about the same chances of catching on as ending poverty in Africa. The same sort of people are backing both initiatives and it's all for a good cause. But things don't get better because people care. I wish they did but they don't. They get better because it is in everyone's interest for them to get better.
Further, attacking our fossil fuel industry doesn't drive people to solar because it's easier to fight back against the regulations then it is to magically make solar panels as effective as coal power plants.
People need to be practical.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Thus what? The core problem is the oil itself as a burned fuel.
- says who? It's not a problem, it's the best solution that the market has for now in that sector of economy.
A way forward as it gets started in the face of a complacent market and competition with a vested interest in it not getting off the ground?
- as I said: says who? Who are you to tell the market that it needs to move in a manner that you want rather than using the most convenient and really the cheapest solution available to do what the market does today? You are so smart about this, just like Obama, why don't you put your own money into an enterprise like that, see how market cares about your business.
So we should just stick forever with fossil fuels and just hand the entire market over to the Chinese? We're already learning that this is bad for anyone but the owners of the companies involved.
- USA is now net exporter of oil.
Not only are you going to 'stick' to oil for sometime, you are going to depend on it to buy the goods you want, because as opposed to your paper money, your oil actually can be used by others.
Precisely, they're subsidizing such purchases so we don't buy from vendors in the US.
- so what? It just means you have access to much cheaper stuff than your domestic companies can produce, again, say: thank you, stupid Chinese workaholics for working for me so cheaply and giving me this stuff for nothing.
China likes to play a long game whereby they peg their currency close to the USD and manipulate it so that it's perpetually below rather than fluctuating like it should. The core advantage to this is that Chinese goods are always cheaper, and this, combined with lax environmental regulations and subsidies allows them to perpetually undercut foreign vendors and eventually drive them out of business.
- this only benefits the politicians and the top management of the companies, who can show worthless nominal increases in quarterly statements, but it destroys the purchasing power of the Chinese who work in those factories, so the Chinese people should really be angry with their gov't that it steals from them to subsidise others for no good reason.
Then the price goes up, but not enough to start production again. This game is playing out right now with the rare earths.
- that's retarded. If prices will go up (and they will go up only because US dollar is being inflated by YOU gov't), then there may just be room for profit for more expensive solutions, but that's of-course nonsense anyway, because if prices go up for the cheap Chinese solutions today, then if they go up, the US solutions that are more expensive today will also be more expensive later on.
So what you're saying that China is basically running bad economics that will lead to it eventually self destructing? Yeah, so by keeping some manufacturing in the US we have a chance of protecting ourselves from it. Doubt we will, but it's worth a shot.
- Chinese government is running bad economics and bad policies of stealing from their own people to subsidise your consumption.
They are probably doing it out of corruption and also because they are trying to keep their own people down and not let them to enjoy fruits of their own labour in a way that would allow them to start really questioning the purpose of the central government authority, that only seems to exist in order to punish them in every way rather than to do something useful for a change.
You can't handle the truth.
True, though putting these things in domestic homes is likely to lead to at least a few incidents where nutcases try and break one open
"Hey guys! Watch this!" - I think I just envisioned our next Darwin Award winners. Irradiating sperm should count, right?
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
Peak load during summer months in the US when solar generation is at its best (and power demand is at its highest) would be a good example of this. More solar panels mean less time spent running "peaker" units (that are only turned up when extra energy is needed to feed the grid). Baseload electrical generation is not that variable. Interestingly enough energy usage patterns are not the same in all parts of the world. England for example uses more electricity during the winter (for heat) than they do during the summer so it's good to note that this example does not work well in all contexts.
And as you rightly point out we probably also need to pin some of those externalities on the dirty energy producers. The real issue there is that a good number of people may not be able to afford the true cost of the energy that they are consuming. (of course that goes to show)
Selenium is not available in anything like the required quantities for a start.
Selenium is neither cheap nor easy nor green nor particularly safe to mine. Almost all solar electric devices currently use Selenium.
Calling Solar energy green whilst we need to use Selenium in solar cells involves imitating an ostrich. Hopefully the next generation of Solar cells will not require Selenium.
+1 Rounded Corners
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Thriving is not the word I would use to describe the solar industry right now. Just a few years ago, there was a boom in solar and other renewables when the price of natural gas was high and governments mandated carveouts in electricity markets that were reserved solely for renewable energy, and in some cases, just solar. In the last year or two, economic conditions have decreased the forecast demand for power and shale gas has made power from natural gas so cheap that other sources, fossil and renewable cannot compete. In an ironic twist of fate, coal power is on the decline because cheap natural gas makes coal an economic non-starter. Same goes for nuclear. However, government regulations that require a percentage of renewable power sold have carved out a market that is free of competition from fossil fuels. If weren't for renewable portfolio requirements, the renewable power industry would also be on death's door.
What this means is that there is a glut of solar cells on the market that will eventually be resolved when the weaker manufactures go under. However, cheap solar cells mean cheaper projects. This has resulted in PV becoming attractive in areas where there is plenty of sunshine and a strong RPS (California and possibly Arizona come to mind.) This works if you are a utility scale project developer or a homeowner with a high electricity bill. However, the demand is highly dependent on regulation, not market forces.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Irradiating sperm should count, right?
It depends whether they have already managed to procreate, doesn't it?
Seriously. I dream of doing what you've done, some day. Except with a large greenhouse for growing our own vegetables and a patch of land for cows, chickens, and fish for milk, eggs, and meat. Might I ask what part of the country you're in? Just wondering what your seasonal temperature variation might be and its impact on your energy footprint.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Repeat after me now:
Oil powers CARS.
Coal generates ELECTRICITY.
Now, ask yourself, would solar power be used for CARS or for ELECTRICITY?
Here's a hint: it's electricity. You'll be replacing coal with this, not oil. Oil has little to do with this. Oil executives might be trying to kill solar power for other reasons, (like they really like the Koch Brothers and don't want to see the Koch grandchildren have to be mere millionaires) but it's not that they fear the direct competition.
that is happening right now. Dunno if you've driven through the Midwest lately, but wind farms are sprouting up everywhere. I've read the same can be said for solar in the Southwest. And every major car company now has at least a hybrid vehicle in its line-up and a decent chunk of them have EVs.
All of those things represent major commitments in planning and resources. They are not whimsical undertakings begun by eco-hippies, but by engineers and accountants. And they indicate that the energy footing of the entire American economy is shifting away from fossil fuels right now whether you think it's efficient or not. (Actually, if you included the externalities of fossil fuels that their boosters never do, such as the cost of fighting wars to seize supplies in the Middle East and environmental damage, your efficiency calculation would probably net out much differently than you think it does.)
Energy efficiency and alternative energy is pervading all sectors and levels of the economy now as we speak, too. Taken together, it will take far less time than any one accepts now to wake up in a different energy future. If you chart the path of the growth of plug-in hybrid cars and EVs and overlay that on the chart oil prices, then the implosion of demand for oil could well be particularly brutal (for the oil companies); My brother is an engineer at Ford and said after the last spike in the price of gasoline that the company killed new pickup factories that had just been completed because they wanted to refocus on hybrids and EVs.
And that was last time. If gas does go to $6/gallon this summer, as some industry watchers are predicting, I think you might just see a lot of people jump ship on ICEs altogether. Since 2/3's of American oil consumption goes to run cars, that would be a panic moment for Texaco.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
We need to kill cheap/stupid solar power because it funnels dollars into yuan.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I may be totally wrong (I haven't researched this at all), but my assumption about China subsidizing PV panels is that it's probably similar to what happened with RAM back in the day (I'm too old to remember when it happened -- get off my lawn!). Basically, Asian RAM manufacturer's undersold the American's due to subsidies. This caused all the American manufacturer's to go out of business. By the time the American's added duties to RAM, the cost of production in the large factories had fallen to the point where the Asian manufacturers no longer needed subsidies. With massively huge factories, they could be profitable at the previous low prices. The American's, on the other hand, would need to invest huge amounts of capital to build factories big enough to compete. And they never did.
In other words, the subsidies are there to build up production to the point where the the cost of entry to the market is too high for anyone else to come in.
IMHO, the effect of tariffs on PV panels will be similar to the effect of tariffs on RAM. It will raise prices in the US, but it won't protect the market.
Ohh, negatory. Corporations can travel the world and set up shop pretty much anywhere. You will be barred from working in a country unless a company there hires you and gets a visa. And unless you're already an employee, getting that visa is extra, extra hard.
Corporations are "freer" than people, which is why the "free market" falls down on its face.
So you admit that you are entirely pro-corporate and anti-worker, willing to sacrifice life, limb, and the environment for the sake of corporate profits.
Yes, the industrial revolution. A grimy, diseased, nasty time to live unless you were one of the rich.
So basically, what you're saying is that unless we bend over and do exactly as corporations want, we're done for?
Fuck you.
And if we are giving economic stimulus through government incentives, we want to give the stimulus to OUR idiots, not them. Besides, making solar panels is tremendously polluting when done wrong. At least a US factory would have some sort of environmental standards.
Thin film has horrible efficiency and really REALLY bad longevity compared to monocrystalline. In fact right now you can buy mono crystalline CHEAPER than thin film if you go for watts generated.
One, $200.00 100 watt monocrystalline panel versus having to have 6 15 watt thin film panels. My 100 watt panel is the size of the 15 watt panels.
A lot of the china junk is just that. junk. talk to anyone that has been suckered into the harbor freight 45 watt kit.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's not really market demand if it's all regulated is it? If you force me to buy something and I buy it... I didn't buy it because I want it. Just as if you mandate that I have to hire someone. I didn't hire them because I wanted them or I found their labor competitive... I didn't have a choice.
I'm not a fan of putting loaded guns against people's heads and saying "do this or we see how many of these chambers are loaded"...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"You would still need the same base load provided by something other than solar (eg coal, gas, nuclear etc) for nights and cloudy days..."
Come back when you know what you are talking about.
If you are off grid, you have battery storage. I have a friend that has 300% capacity in solar panels and a battery capacity to match it that will charge from empty to full in 6 hours of bright sun. he can go for 4 days on battery. most cloudy days it generates what he uses.
Coal, gas, nuclear. really? do you have any clue as to how solar installations work? Even large scale molton sodium salt towers generate electricity for 4-6 hours after the sun sets. But solar is stupid in large scale. you focus on powering ONE building and call it done. once done, repeat for every other building.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Well said.
" If Chinese solar companies started raping us with price, then a new company (located in EU, US, India, Korea, or even China itself) will rise-up and sell the panels for less"
Except for time delays and barriers to entry. The Rockefellers and Carnegies did exactly that back in the robber baron days, as did the railroad tycoons. The Chinese did the exact same thing to the US rare-earth mining industry only a decade ago.
Building a replacement for the now-overpriced good or service takes years and costs million/billions. And at the end of your investment, the monopolist can drops prices and crush the newcomer again.
That 10k pays for all kinds of stuff not typically considered energy (and which wouldn't be counted against other forms of energy generation).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Yes. Because the costs of implementing solar are prohibitive. Gas is currently cheaper.
Americans bitch mightily about the costs at the pump, and monthy billshock for energy.
If solar was sufficiently cheap to install, regardless of how that is accomplished, it would create an exodus away from fossil fuel energy. This means your 99% statistic will stop being a 99% statistic. That was the whole point.
s as much money? please tell me what social benefit Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch provide to society versus a couple of failed solar power companies.
then of course we subsidize shitty contractors like Halliburton in our never ending wars.
China will always win the pricewar for toxic materials handling, processing, and manufacture against the US and other western countries, as long as the US and other western countries enforce a minimum wage that is higher than china's, and enforces clean air and water policies.
Those things inject added costs of manufacture that do not diminish with scale. That is why china makes rare earth oxide powders, and almost nobody else does.
Other nontrivial issues include physical access to raw material, and willingness to exploit them. China wins both of those. Other than a PR pissing contest, it makes very little sense at all for the US to attempt to beach china's growing industrial base, when ours would by the numbers be simply to prohibitive to expand to that scale.
America needs to ditch the "we're #1" ideology and mantra. Elitism and egotism of that sort is destroying our country. A better approach would be to look at how european countries (the ones that are staying solvent anyway) do business. The US has more physical resources to work with, and by taking a few hints from nations without them, we would be better able to leverage what we have.
The US likes to treat the rest of the world like a giant walmart that they can pick and choose what they want from. That's not how the world really works. The US gets its way by waving nuclear dildos and increasingly worthless bills around. The situation is poignantly similar to "broken industrialists 'Old Money'" fallen on hard times, trying and failing miserably as the old contacts stop responding to cals, and the world moves on and leaves them behind.
Eventually the world will look at us, say "bitch, please!", and ignore us. That day is very fast approaching.
Given how clearly this tarrif will be ineffectual at combatting foriegn dominance in the solar collector market, even to mere peons like us, what other reasons besides trying to deal damage control for their own personal interests could there possibly be in enacting them?
Space solar is not likely to be a win under realistic assumptions, especially when we could be deploying solar on the ground right now. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/
Actually, it would be an asshole thing to do, but the US could have played a longer con than China just like this to set themselves up. China sells underpriced panels believing they're ruining the US solar panel industry. The US buys them all up like good little capitalists, crashing their own solar industry but establishing solar power in the process. US now has cheap, clean energy while China has coal power, depleted rare earth mines and expensive solar panels. To add insult to injury, the US could push hard for a carbon trading scheme to nail China right in the ass.
But seriously I don't think the US would survive another Cold-War-Esque game of economic chicken.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The cost for installation is a joke. It should get better once installation outfits become as commonplace as roofing companies, but at the moment the lack of competition and requiring "certification" means that in some areas you're stuck.
If you live in state that doesn't require certification, you can save yourself a boatload of cash by installing the racks and panels yourself (should take less than day with a friend or two), and then hire an electrician to finish hooking everything up.
~X~
False. If Chinese solar companies started raping us with price, then a new company (located in EU, US, India, Korea, or even China itself) will rise-up and sell the panels for less.
Then they dump the price until the new company goes out of business (and loot their corpse if they have anything interesting), then jack it back up. Rinse and repeat until no one will give fund any competing startups funding.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
A rail at the eve and a rail at the peak.
PV panels are wired in a more complex way in order to reach the nominal voltage (300-400V.) The uninsulated rails will also short through the rainwater, and they will corrode at lightning speed because of the voltage on them.
Obama believes he is a great genius of a businessman, why is he not using his own money to sponsor all these 'alternative energy' companies but insists on spending other people's money on this?
This is exactly how great geniuses of business operate: socialize costs, privatize profits. As they say, "you don't get rich by writing checks."
If solar energy isn't thriving, what is? The solar industry has blown away expectations for several years running... Even the massive over capacity and German/Italian incentive cuts haven't slowed it down. In fact, we're in the midst of a shift from western-RPS based demand to BRIC/developing country demand. That ought to tell you something about the cost of solar energy. The annualized growth is ~30%-40%. The global solar industry is growing at 10-15X the US economy... The fastest growing industry of its size ($50b + ) on earth. The US was ~7% of the 28GW global installs last year, growing 109% from 2010. Any hiccup with fracking (e.g. regulations, LNG exports, etc) and solar takes the lead everywhere. Module + BOS costs are at grid parity. Installation costs still tip the scales, but they will die as the industry matures (really? We're paying electricians 400-600% the cost of the equipment to mount on residential roofs? absurd...I could very successfully argue at this point that these guys are just eating all the incentives, at least in the US) and large firms dominate installation/leasing or utility scale arrays dominate. IMO, there will be utility scale PV projects installed at $2/Wp by 2013, neglecting incentives. Calculate LCOE on that over 30 yr... The big firms are still not even completely vertically integrated yet, but they will be soon... from polysilicon to project.. From modules they can grab 1 cent of profit off each vertical and they gross $60 million per GW (which is what they are doing now, and basically breaking even or slightly losing money due to OPX and debt payments) or they can do the project and grab $280 million per GW at $ 3 installs or $180 million per GW at $2 installs at a margin of 7 - 9 %. Or heck, they pay just start installing plants themselves. Not to mention China Development Bank has something like 40 billion in project financing available, which few firms have used at all...
haha, that guy needs to settle down a bit!
Just to make things clear, the only type of free market that exists is the black market. All other markets have some sort of regulation in them that the participating parties recognize. In black markets, there really are loaded guns put against people's heads. As far as I am aware, there are no people holding guns to any consumer's heads forcing them to buy power. If this is happening where you live, you really should consider moving to a country.
The question you raise is valid but cannot be easily answered with the usual guns and butter theory from economics. Electricity is a more complicated market system than other industries because of high cost of entry and the semi-monopolistic nature of the business. The wholesale portion is regulated at the federal level and the retail portion is regulated by the states. The utilities, on the other hand, do face penalties in some states for not complying with that state's requirements for the purchase of renewable energy. As each utility is under the same constraints, there are not discriminatory practices or coercion. Participation in the market requires compliance with the rules. The RPS requirement is no different than the myriad other regulations that utilities have as a condition of operation.
The RPS requirements (renewable portfolio standard) are in place as a means to put a price on pollution. Without regulation, there isn't a cost to polluting and the ones who pay are those who must live in the polluted area. Attaching this externality within the confines of a market system is not easy to do fairly and not going to happen in the absence of regulation. This legislative mechanism is not the perfect way to do so but it does have the side effect of creating a market for renewable power where none existed thirty years ago. There are other ways to attach a price for polluting but they are political suicide to implement.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
I don't disagree that because some bad things are done that any bad thing can be done to any extent without limits.
That would be like saying because there are bar fights in a given bar its okay to murder people in that bar.
The bar fights themselves shouldn't happen but assuming that's unavoidable you shouldn't escalate the situation.
Maybe you think I'm being unfair? I'm trying. I don't like such heavy handed tactics. I don't care if they're common in that industry. I'm not going to be okay with a given firing squad in Cuba simply because firing squads in general in that area are common. It's wrong.
I'm not against renewable energy. In fact, I think it's the future and we must invest in it heavily. But I don't think that is the right way to do it. The process of investment must be organic and natural... not forced by the state. That is not "demand"... that is the government putting a gun against your head and saying "buy it"... It's coercion. And coercion is not demand.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'm not sure if I would call an oversupply of solar cells an indicator of a thriving industry. The solar industry was growing quickly a few years ago but that does not appear to be the case today. I can't give you any facts on that other than anecdotal observations of changes in the industry in the last year due to the massive supply of natural gas that has come into the market.
I'd like to believe that solar prices have come down enough to compete against natural gas but they haven't. I've seen figures for natural gas plants operating at around $20-30/MWhr based on $2.50/MMbtu. This is roughly 1/4-1/5 the price of a solar PV installation. Even factoring in a carbon cost, there is still much ground to cover to make up the difference.
Believe me, I'd love to see green power be the dominant type of generation on the grid but the economics of cheap natural gas dictate that this will not happen in the near future without the help of subsidies or increasing RPS requirements.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
By your analogy, any sort of regulation is a heavy handed tactic. A completely unregulated system will work with one man on a desert island but falls apart in a population center where competing interests exist.
That being said, if you have a solution that does not employ heavy handed tactics to get more renewable energy built, don't keep it a secret! The present system can certainly be improved.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Simplistic thinking. Chicken vs Egg problem. If you do not understand it, another nation will eat your lunch down the road. China is kicking our ass and free market zealots are hurting themselves over their religious economic beliefs... and us realists know better. Free yourself from the reality distortion field of religion.
It will not be long until you are required to hire people. Too many people, not enough legitimate jobs and way too much trouble with massive unemployment.
All this will come and eventually most people will recognize the problem when it is big and obvious. Smart software, better robotics, out sourcing... The machines can be beaten by cheap Chinese labor for now. THINK about it. To beat out expensive automation we must be desperate, poor, undervalued and unregulated (unclean, unsafe, and unaccountable.) If working for Foxcon China is so great then why do they put suicide nets around the buildings?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Agreed it's not a win under realistic assumptions. Fortunately, the challenge didn't make realistic assumptions so I could ignore all of the deficits. :) The article was ok, but made the assumption that you couldn't have relays (which solves many of the problems of absorption and beam spread, albeit at higher cost). For practical, realistic purposes, sufficient staging points would make it cost-prohibitive, I agree, but that's an economic problem and a political problem, not a technical one.
Solar on the ground is good, yes, but you need a mixed approach -- solar heaters are MUCH more efficient than solar panels in environments where it is cloudy a lot, and a big use of domestic power involves heating things (buildings, water, etc) which means no loss through energy conversion. Solar panels are good when it really is electricity you want AND when the skies are usually clear, which is fine but because it's more localized you also have to have a much better distribution grid to use it efficiently.
Solar on the ground won't produce more power on the ground than fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, at least not to the point of having people standing round in awe (the sole criterion of the challenge), but if you're willing to conserve energy a bit better then solar on the ground is quite capable of meeting all actual energy *needs* (as opposed to energy wants) for long enough for other energy sources (such as fusion) to come on-tap. As an adjunct to high-yield sources, and as an insurance against N-day blackouts (which do happen alarmingly often in Europe and the US), solar is perfectly good even in the very long term. Especially if some of the technologies promising 10x higher efficiency actually end up providing that.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Very well comrade, we'll just set up a big federal program doles out "jobs" or if you prefer we can dump trillions in tax dollars into the groupthink approved company of choice.
As to china kicking the US's ass on it, that's not the free market people's fault.
1. Factory regulation in the US is such that it's a pain in the ass to make anything in the US. Steve Jobs for example went on record saying he wanted to make ipods in the US but it was almost impossible to get a permit to build the stupid factory.
2. Energy. By not building the energy we need we can't supply energy intensive industries like the semi conductor industry. We need nuclear power plants amongst others. Solar doesn't cut it. In china, do they use solar to power their solar power plant companies? No. They sell that to you. Their power their industry with nuclear and coal. So if you want to talk about the chinese, look to your own stupid energy policy making it impossible to supply energy intensive industry.
3. Labor policy in the US is uncompetitive. Look at what happened when Boeing tried to open a factory in a Right to Work state... the feds jumped on them and told them they COULD NOT build the factory there. Think about that.
4. Much of China's increasing dominance in high tech manufacturing comes from their dominance of rare earths. The US used to be the primary producer of these minerals. Why did we stop? Oh, to be sure China was pumping out cheaper product. But importantly the primary mines in the US that produced rare earths were also basically harassed by environmentalists out of business. Only now with the Chinese playing trade war games are these mines able to open up again as the enviros are being musseled.
So above and beyond if you think it's the free market people screwing up US industry you don't know anything.
The US remains a global industrial power house. China is growing rapidly but the US has massive industrial capability. But we're also infested with economically ignorant socialists and cultish enviro zealots.
Don't believe me? WHY is china more competitive? you really think it's just their state sponsorship of industry? Really? Want to bet we pump more money into our industrial base then they do on an annual basis? We do.
It isn't a lack of subsidy. It's the constant undermining of everything we do.
If we wanted to build the golden gate bridge today it would cost 10 times what it did originally AFTER inflation and probably take 10 times longer if it were allowed to be built at all. Doubtless the foundation would endanger the habitat of a local mud crab or something equally idiotic. And before you say I'm exaggerating these idiots recently shut down a LARGE solar power plant project because it infringed on the habitat of a local lizard... it was in the middle of the god damn desert. if we can't build a solar power plant in the middle of the desert we can't do anything.
So I have zero patience for the argument that it's the free market people doing this... we don't have the control to do it. We're not the ones calling the shots. We wish we were... really. But blaming us is like blaming the guy in the wheel chair of being an axe murderer. We lack the political strength to effect industry on the level you presume. We are strong IN the private sector itself but in government we only get anywhere by bribing people. We'd love to just argue our case but we're faced with little more then the ignorant, the crazy, and the corrupt. Amongst them all at least the corrupt will negotiate.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
True. But I'm not suggesting no regulation. I'm merely saying that if you do it, you have to have proper respect for what you're doing.
For example, if a guy wants to dump toxic waste in a lake people drink from and the result will be thousands of people die... will you be willing to put a gun against his head to make him stop? Yes. Those are circumstances where regulation is appropriate. But any situation where it would be wildly inappropriate to threaten someone's life or livelihood over the matter simply shouldn't enforced in that way.
Now you can have additional layers of regulation for less extreme circumstances but the consequences and nature of the relationship has to be proportionately less hostile. So for example, maybe you make something a quid pro quo? By making it a voluntary exchange of one thing for another you avoid much the stigma. It is important that it truly be voluntary. You can't say "if you want to breath, give me 40 dollars"... that's just mugging someone. If you want this "service" it costs X... and they don't have to buy and ideally you shouldn't monopolize the service. So if it's a vital service but one that you're charging an unreasonable price for a competitor can come in to make a better deal... or if they're a large entity they might just provide that service themselves.
I have no problem with regulation. It's just that it isn't a casual exercise of power. Most of it is backed with violence. Do this or men with guns will come and make you sorry. That is appropriate for life and death regulations where people will DIE or come to great harm if the regulation isn't obeyed. But in any situation where it wouldn't be reasonable to threaten someone with violence such regulations are heavy handed, brutal, immoral, and uncivilized. Part of being civilized means not using a sledge hammer when a gentle pat on the shoulder will do. Many people seem to just like the power. Love of power for it's own sake is savage. It's like the love of sex for it's own sake. We expect such from primitives but more civilized societies realize it is more complicated then that. You don't jam guns in people's faces simply because you think it's funny or cool or you enjoy the power or it's easy.
It eats away at the very fabric of the community by enshrining the absolute power of the state above any interconnected communal responsibility.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Don't know about the US but the EU has massive farming subsidies and mountains of unused food because we want to remain self sufficient. If we didn't maintain our own food growing capabilities we would become dependent on foreign countries, just like we are for oil.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
False. If Chinese solar companies started raping us with price, then a new company (located in EU, US, India, Korea, or even China itself) will rise-up and sell the panels for less.
Spoken like somebody who has no understanding of engineering at all and learned about business from political screeds. Somebody's going to invest the money in complex high tech manufacturing plants to compete with a monopolist who can undercut his prices any time it wants?
You seem to think actual experience and practical know-how aren't factors in competitiveness. That's to be a common American delusion these days, that money capital can conjure intellectual capital out of thin air. The killer advantage Chinese solar companies have isn't low labor prices, it's not even government subsidies anymore. It's the practical manufacturing expertise they obtained with those subsidies. And because China is now producing solar panels on a scale larger than anyone else, they've got know how that enables them to bring technical advances in solar technology to market faster than any startup could.
Ironically, undervaluing know-how was the mistake the Maoists made in the Great Leap Forward. They thought all they needed to do to supply their needs for something like steel was to study the theory of steel production then build steel mills starting from first principles. They didn't understand that actual experience designing and operating a successful mill was critical to getting past the cottage industry stage. The *next* generation of Chinese leadership learned that lesson, which is why China's economic development policies all make acquiring know-how the top priority. Cut a sweet short term deal with foreign companies, but insist the production happen in China so that China gains the most valuable asset that company has: practical know-how.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Same thing happened where I lived. They made a massive push for us to conserve electricity. Apparently we did so well that the utility was losing money, so they jacked up the rates. There was a lot of rage over it, summarized by the question: What's the personal benefit of energy conservation? Well, I'll tell you that it isn't lower bills.
Well, if the companies in question get a subsidy from their government aren't they able to lower the price of their products? Thus making it plausible that the companies would sell their products at or below the cost to manufacture them? I mean, if I was a company looking for some profit, selling something at way cheaper prices than my competitors because I just received some free money sounds like a great idea.
I don't know much about industry with regards to financial reporting and subsidization, but that seems to be the argument I hear the most. The companies aren't losing money, simply getting it from somewhere else.
Gas and oil companies have deep ties to all the politicians, and they now see solar power as a threat, now they want to kill it....
thats it, no magic here...
"The article continues, 'As the market was flooded by both silicon (from silicon producers) and thin-film panels (by Chinese manufacturers), the price for thin-film panels came crashing down – along with Solyndra’s business model. .."
This statement is misleading, and largely wrong. The whole idea of thin-film was to lower cost of materials and produce cheaper panels. The lines were engineered from the start to hit price points that were far below conventional techniques.
But just like the semicon world as a whole, rapid upscaling of production largely solved the cost issues on the conventional techniques, and soon those panels were the same price as thin-film. At that point the inherent disadvantages of thin-film made them far less interesting.
> Oil executives might be trying to kill solar power for other reasons
Actually, they largely created cheap PV. They were paying a fortune to power bouys and anti-corrosion systems on oil platforms. Cheap PV was a much better option, so they invented it. It's no coincidence that the largest PV vendors 15 years ago were Exxon and BP.
This is the reason for the tarrifs, as well as the price drop. Also, the chinese are using the technology Americans are developing, and then losing money on this in order to kill American businesses. This is the reason for the tarrifs. Slashdot, I'm disappointed in the quality of your post.
> You would still need the same base load provided by something other than solar
Yes, solar is a peaker play.
> more scope for malfunctioning poorly maintained equipment causing problems
More smaller units would generally be more reliable than single larger ones.
> Solar may reduce the bills of those who have the panels, but only due to government subsidy
Until we hit grid parity. This has happened in a number of places already, and it expected to hit about 1/4 to 1/3rd of the US by 2016.
And that number, whatever it is where you live, is only the number that it is due to huge subsidies previously (and in many cases, currently) to those forms of power. Cutting those subsidies would not have a large impact, but it would level the playing field.
My own back off the envelope calculation gives me around 70000 years. Other people got around 500 years.
You will find out that as soon as oil peaks (in the next ten years I would think) it will be extremely hard to implement any alternative technologies.
Have a look at the following article by somebody who is more suited to explain the topic:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
You should read the rest of his site too, also trying to do the math yourself can help.
Don't be fooled by the 150 years until depletion, it is way more interesting to figure out how much net energy society has available.
Je me souviens.
What's your source for the reserve amounts vs daily usage? I used wikipedia.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
>>>The Rockefellers and Carnegies did exactly that back in the robber baron days
How about we stop living in the distant past, and provide some examples from the PRESENT.
>>>The Chinese did the exact same thing to the US rare-earth mining industry only a decade ago.
Name the companies that did this supposed dumping. And were they cheaper in price because of illicit practices, or because of the same reason Macs are cheaper to build in China than the U.S.? You shouldn't be buying into the "dumping is killing us" propaganda put out by GM, Ford, and other companies trying to seek government protectionism (or handouts).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
You know, you have to collect that solar energy in space somehow. To replace the 164TWh I get from the 96 million barrels of oil per day I would at 1.3KW/m^2 need a solar cell area of 5260 km^2. This is a 1:1 replacement not one based on energy quality.
The annual production of 200kt PV silicon will - using 50um silicon wafers - lead to 3051 years until completion.
The amount of silicon in the whole area would be 610 Mt. At 1000$ per pound to orbit that would cost you 1.2e+15 bucks.
I'm rather shocked than awed about the 3000 years, all-right. The 100% efficient cells were thrown in, because efficiency doesn't matter all that much seeing the outcome, since it would only shave an order of magnitude off. Somebody might also come up and suggest to use direct solar, that would be covered by this as well.
Je me souviens.
I'm not sure where the violence comes in. Failure to make RPS requirements in the states that I am familiar with involve monetary penalties, not death threats. This approach seems to be working. Are you suggesting that compliance be rewarded with cookies instead?
It is good that you recognize community responsibility as being important but this becomes difficult in situations where the liabilities (pollution in this case) can be offloaded elsewhere while providing benefits to those who don't pay for the liabilities. For example, there is a utility in California that has a coal facility in the middle of nowhere that generates power for use in Los Angeles. The Los Angelenos get cheaper power and the people in Utah get the pollution. Community responsibility can't regulate this situation.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
I'm not worried about reserves so much, as about production decline.
The Bundeswehr paper is useful if you want to get an overview of the different peak oil predictions. Figure 9 is interesting. Ok, I should have said coming decades.
http://www.energybulletin.net/sites/default/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
The daily production came from the CIA factbook from 2009. I have seen their number elsewhere.
Je me souviens.
There are no direct subsidies. Only provincial tax and energy breaks that look identical to what all municipalities (including Ca, Az, Co, Ma) do to entice development. China Development Bank has given loan-guarantees and project financing to many players ... with terms that look terrible in comparison to what our Dept. of Energy offered First Solar, Solandra, etc. What no one wants to admit is that most of the financing for this Chinese push came from private markets in US and HK. AKA Capitalism, is a destructive bitch!
The numbers don't support your conjecture! The over capcity is not due to lack of demand, its do to crazy production capacity increases in China. The solar energy industry hasn't stopped growing. It may slow in the US (it hasn't yet!) due to cheap natural gas, but most of the world doesn't have that luxury (or our prices!). Furthermore, natural gas is the perfect companion to solar energy It's cleaner, cheaper and more efficient than other fossil fuels. And a huge installed natural gas base is perfect for a large solar grid: the gas does load following on solar and base load. Economical and clean! Everyone is happy. :) And natural gas infrastructure is the perfect segway into a syn-gas economy ... artificial natural gas from solar or biomass.
Silicon isn't the preferred material for solar cells, so I can ignore that part.
I specified an increase in production, so I can ignore the annual production part.
You never asked about cost, so I can ignore that part.
Solar can be reflected, so you only need a large mirror and a much smaller collecting area, so I can ignore your calculation for size.
What does that leave me with? Well, absolutely bugger all. Your claims simply aren't meaningful. They make assumptions about a methodology and a state of industry that, by definition, would not exist if solar were to be used to completely replace oil. It's like arguing that oil itself is useless as a fuel on the basis of oil production volumes in ancient Greece and the difficulty of burning tar sands in-situ. It should be obvious to anyone but a moron that the moment oil became interesting as a fuel that production went up and a more appealing form was produced.
So, by using solar tech as it was in the 80s as your starting point, what does that make you?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Changing the people in power is incredibly difficult.
So why do it...
Those who would best run the country will not run for office.
You really believe that? What do you suppose the reason for that is?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love."
No where is that more true than your /. post.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Come now.
The regulation requires you do X or something happens... right?
So you say that something that happens isn't violence right? Well, what happens if you don't do what they asked and you don't comply with the penalty?
What is the final "or ELSE" on such regulations?
Violence. Men show up and make you pay. Resist them and they'll try and put you in jail. Try to resist that and they'll kill you.
So the basis of your regulation is a death threat. You cannot disobey on pain of death.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The penalty would depend on the state. According to the regulations that I am aware of, the corporation gets fined an amount proportional to the amount they are short. In reality, they get an angry letter from the PUC telling them to comply with the regulation. I'm not sure what happens if the corporation refuses to pay the fine as I am not aware of any cases where they haven't eventually worked out a deal. My guess is that failure to comply, if it was serious enough, would result in revocation of a license to operate in the area because it is under civil law, not criminal law. So far, I haven't seen any violence inherent in the system. Do you live in Mexico?
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Don't be obtuse.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The demand for solar comes from government carveouts and feed in tariffs. In some areas, carbon trading would also create demand. There are also areas off the grid where diesel generation is expensive enough to create demand for other less expensive sources of generation. Worldwide, governments are backing off from feed in tariffs and increasing RPS requirements. There is usually several years of lag where older projects need to complete. In the absence of demand, new projects do not get financed and built but this is often not seen for a few years after the change in regulation. There has been a huge change downwards in the demand from utilities to buy renewable energy in the last two years. This is due to both the lack of escalation in government regulations and the massive decrease in cost of natural gas.
As for natural gas, it is better than coal (much less NOx and SOx) but still emits about half of the CO2/MWhr. Even though natural gas turbines combine well to take away power fluctuations when a cloud passes by, the backup capacity required by a solar (and wind) facility is usually estimated to be about the same capacity as the solar facility. If it costs 2x as much to operate a solar facility and there is a need for a backup NG turbine, what rational corporation would bother with the solar facility, except to comply with government regulations for RPS?
Sadly, renewable energy is considered to be a luxury in much of the world, including North America. A combined cycle NG facility operates 24/7 and provides a source of power that is not subject to intermittency. Compare this to a solar facility that only operates during the day, is subject to brownouts every time a cloud passes overhead and costs more money to operate when you factor in capital costs. Unfortunately, the economics of electricity today take precedence over the needs of grandchildren in the future.
This situation will change in the future but only when there is enough natural gas turbines to suck up the excess supply of natural gas. This might take some time because natural gas is being dumped on the market as a by-product by oil drillers in the shale fields. I don't mean to sound like a doomsayer but the economic situation is very unfavorable for clean energy at the present time. I'm glad that you have lots of enthusiasm about this but believing in it isn't enough. The best thing you can do is to put pressure on your utility and elected officials to get more clean energy.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Really? If you can give me an example of jail time or state sanctioned violence to a director or corporate officer for violation of an RPS requirement, then I'll agree with you. I'm not seeing it in the USA. That is why I am asking where you are.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Again, that's obtuse.
Just because companies nearly always comply rather then suffer total destruction doesn't mean that they're not being threatened with total destruction.
For example, I could mug people for my whole life... make a career out of it and yet never kill anyone because everyone simply submits. Does that mean I'm not threatening them with violence?
According to you for the threat to be real my victim needs to refuse to comply and I need to execute them.
Play devil's advocate with your argument a little before commenting again please. This fisherprice crap is beneath people that don't spend a good portion of each day eating elmer's glue.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Maybe you could show me something in the regulations that state that violence will be the result of non-compliance. I'm not being obtuse. Violent punishment is usually reserved for violent crimes. If that's the case for non-compliance of what is effectively an environmental regulation, show me where it says so.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
You are being obtuse. If the regulations are not followed and subsequent action is ignored then eventually the people or company will be stopped by force. If that is resisted then things will escalate.
At no point will the government simply say "oh, well since you don't want to comply we'll just leave you alone then"... no, the press the point and it goes through a series of escalations.
Finally, they won't claim that they shot people for not following a regulation. What they'll do is say they shot people for resisting arrest or obstructing officers. But all of that results from the non-compliance with the regulation.
You know all this... so If you're not going to discuss this in good faith we're done here. I have no patience for people's silly stupid obvious little games.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Like I said, give me an example or show me how this is possible in the present regulations. You claim there is the threat of violence. I don't see it so I'm asking for proof. Show me an example of violent coercion in RPS compliance, or even in any environmental non-compliance by a corporation and I'll concede that you are correct. Otherwise, you're just talking paranoid nonsense.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
My example is obvious. If you don't have to have a discussion in good faith, that's fine. Just know that you're conceding the argument by default.
It's quiet obvious that if regulation is ignored a fine is levied. If that fine is not paid then then possibly a license or further fines will be levied. If those are not paid or complied with things will escalate eventually leading to the forced closing of the company and ceasure of property. If this is resisted then obviously there will be violence.
The above is obvious to you. If you want to be obtuse that is your choice but your obtuse responses are not a rebuttal or a reply to my argument. It's merely obstruction and I have to take that as your intent to leave the discussion without making a counter argument. As such, you concede unless you've realized that being obtuse and officious is not a winning strategy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Some things to consider include the possibility that Chinese solar panels aren't actually under-priced over longer time periods, such as ten years or so. Also, the US still consumes twice as much energy as China in toto. So by the time we've replaced half of our energy usage with cheap panels, China could very well have replaced all of theirs. Then they just stop producing, and we're the ones stuck needing fossil fuels, except with no RE industry to speak of. There are lots of good reasons for the US to incubate its own renewable energy industry.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
That level of progression is just silly. By your reasoning, a traffic ticket by a meter reader will eventually lead to violent seizure. Sorry, can't buy that. There are too many examples of far more serious violations that didn't result in violence to really believe that.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
You're right, a traffic ticket can go there but then that's YOUR system. I'm arguing against your casual use of violence. It's wrong. It's casual brutality.
The resort to violence is only required to stop violence or harm to other people. In all other instances the escalation should be capped at actions that are no worse then whatever the other person is doing. Your actions should be reciprocal and not disproportionate.
For example, would you send the police to collect library late fees? It makes a great deal more sense to just cancel the card and forbid them to check out books in the future until the debt is paid. And the debt should never exceed the replacement/purchase cost of the book.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
My point exactly. In the system that I work in, the utilities are regulated to have a percentage of clean energy in their portfolios. Failure to do so results in nasty letters and heavy fines, not prison terms and firing squads. It is unlikely that non-compliance with green regulations will result in jail time or licence cancellation. It is more likely the shareholders will oust the non-complying management before that happens. The system represents a reasonable compromise to balance the need of the state to regulate pollution against the need of the corporation to show profit and the need of the consumer to not be coerced into purchasing expensive power due to monopolistic practices. I don't see abuse of power here any more than in other business practices and certainly less than in unregulated businesses such as drug trafficking in Mexico.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
Nasty letters are generally meaningless.
The fines are only a request for money.
The threat is what happens if you don't pay.
That is what your fine is backed with... violence. You can acknowledge that obvious point even if you feel it is unavoidable or you'll so damage your own integrity that the discussion will end for lack of an opponent with credibility.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.