Slashdot Mirror
A War Over Solar Power Is Raging Within the GOP
mdsolar sends this quote from an article about the politics of solar energy:
"Clean energy technology has always been an easy punching bag for conservatives. Propelled by growing strain of global warming denial within their party, Republicans in Congress have proposed to slash funding for renewable energy programs in half this year, and mocked the idea of a green economy as “groovy” liberal propaganda. Their argument, as laid out by House Republicans and libertarian organs like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, is that the federal government shouldn't 'pick winners and losers' in the energy markets or gamble taxpayer dollars on renewable-energy loans to companies like Solyndra, the Silicon Valley solar panel manufacturer that went bankrupt in 2011 after receiving $535 million in federal loan guarantees. The assumption has always been that, without heavy government subsidies, renewable energy sources like solar and wind power would never be able to compete with fossil fuels. But something funny has happened to renewables that major power companies and their Republican allies didn't see coming. Over the past two years, the solar industry has skyrocketed, with one new solar unit installed every four minutes in the US, according to the renewable energy research group Greentech Media. The price of photovoltaic panels has fallen 62 percent since January 2011. Once considered a boutique energy source, solar power has become a cost-competitive alternative for many consumers, costing an average $143 per megawatt-hour, down from $236 in the beginning of 2011. Backed by powerful conservative groups, public utilities in several states are now pushing to curb the solar industry, and asking regulators to raise fees and impose new restrictions on solar customers. And as more people turn to rooftop solar as a way to reduce energy costs—90,000 businesses and homeowners installed panels last year, up 46 percent from 2011—the issue is pitting pro-utilities Republicans against this fledgling movement of libertarian-minded activists who see independent power generation as an individual right. In other words, the fight over solar power is raging within the GOP itself."
If solar is doing so great then why does it need subsidies? Thats what the GOP doesn't like, not that such a thing exists, but that the government creates distortions in the economy by picking winners before the race starts. Old school republicans and libertarians both distaste government intervention. Solar will eventually become cost effective without subsidies, lets wait for that to happen.
Sooner or later, being anti-science and pro-capitalist is bound to catch up with you.
perhaps they could stop subsidizing fossil fuels and ethanol as well.
Paragraphs make text readable. You giant paragraph is completely unreadable. Please write in such a way that people can even have an opportunity to read you.
Thanks,
The Internet
Well I drive an electric car and I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing your gasoline!
https://ixquick.com/do/search?language=english&cat=web&query=us+government+oil+subsidies
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
It has nothing to do with picking winners and losers.
It never did.
It's always been about entrenched interests maintaining the status quo.
Interestingly, the entrenched interests in this case aren't gas/oil companies,
they already started diversifying years ago, it's the power utilities who are resistant to the change.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I love how you all pile on this issue. As if people say they don't want subsidies for solar MUST want subsidies for oil. Derp: People can be against both, it is an article about solar, so duh people will comment how they don't think solar should get it if it is 'doing well'
How many new coal plants were built last year?
Solar accounts for 0.17% of our electric production in this country, tripling it won't make any difference.
The numbers are not on solar's side. Electric production from fossil fuels is up more than 30% in the past 20 years, it isn't being replace by solar, demand is growing faster than solar panels are being installed.
I agree that pollution is bad, I agree that releasing tons of CO2 is probably bad (we don't know for sure, but I don't want to find out the hard way, better to play it safe and not burn it all)
My primary complaint is that people who talk about renewables simply are working from emotion and not from numbers and math. The math is not on renewables side, I'm sorry to say.
A billion people in the world are going to get access to AC and clean water over the next 50 years. It matters not what the USA and Europe do, our populations will be overwhelmed by China and India's use of coal in that time.
We need large scale power sources. Right now, the options are coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear.
The sooner environmentalists get off the solar kick and focus on reality, the sooner we can replace fossil fuels with something else. (Which in this case is nuclear, since it is the only option left)
But the GOP is against funding solar power because they don't believe in global warming.
Well, that what they say, but it's really because the oil and coal companies have them in their pocket.
As long as it's two senators per state, nobody is likely to fuck with representatives from even lightly populated corn-heavy states...
I'm in love with breathing, and I'm glad to have some of my tax dollars going to replacing coal. I'm not currently in a position to buy and install them directly on my home, so I'm glad of everyone else who is, getting incentives for doing so.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The only reason you subsidize renewable energy generation such as solar is to make it currently viable whereas otherwise it would not.
The only reason you make renewable energy generation currently viable is to jump start development.
The only reason you jump start development is if you want to be the one producing the technology or buying the technology.
There is also the matter that on a grand scale, infrastructure takes awhile to build, it isn't something you can just do overnight.
Anyway so long as the idea isn't that things like solar is going to solve all your energy issues because it will not. It is part of a generation mix. You can however increase its effectiveness and the percent used overall to help mitigate other energy related issues.
There is certainly a lot of political agenda polemic when it comes to energy, and this article is no different.
As Slashdot is theoretically geared toward engineers, having a hard look at the numbers involved is not an optional consideration. See here for Germany's story:
http://www.quora.com/Alternative-Energy/Should-other-nations-follow-Germanys-lead-on-promoting-solar-power-1?srid=ue54&share=1
Solar is great for micro/local-level offsets in particularly sunny places, and it's good if you want to build a compound for the zombie apocalypse. As a key component of energy policy for the United States, it is not and has never been practical compared to wind or nuclear power.
Politicians in every party love being able to pick winners and losers. It's one of the perks of the jobs. People imagine solar as warm, fuzzy, and mother Earth friendly. If that were the case, Germany wouldn't have a bigger carbon footprint now than it did before it had the world's largest nameplate capacity of solar power production.
If you're concerned about global warming from burning fossil fuels, the only choice at the moment that satisfies all the requirements of most first world country's energy policy is nuclear. Nothing else comes close.
You are right, and meanwhile China is pushing solar power all the way and if the US does not move fast China will be the winner (again) and the US will be the loser.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
If you don't think the government should be interfering in the free market, then stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. If an oil company can't make a profit at the current price of oil then let it die.
If there are subsidies above what companies normally get in tax breaks, why would someone against subsidies for solar companies not *also* want to end them for other energy companies? I'd be all for it.
Instead you seem to think, hey theres something wrong over here, so lets add more wrong on top of this other thing that I like.
This is how government spending grows wildly out of control, this mindset of "they got theirs so I get mine".
Stop, just stop.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's ironic that you're posting this on the Internet which was invented by government funding.
This isn't about invention of the fundamental underpinnings. Plowsharing is a grand tradition.
This is about development and deployment in the public sector. Bringing the Internet to the masses wasn't government funded. It occurred when the government got out of the way and let commercial interests play with the new toy. (THAT's what Gore rightly claims substantial credit for.) Scaling it up and the burst of innovation in using it was done with private money in a largely free marketplace, not government subsidies.
In fact, government subsidies HURT this development-deployment phase. The picked winners have no incentive to innovate - they're paid to work on what is already there. The non-picked have no incentive to innovate, or even enter the market - they start at a big competitive disadvantage, and if the did succeed they can expect the government's cronies to get still more subsidies (unless, like Solyndra, they collapse so fast the pumping is ineffictive).
Solyndra failed because they spent the government money like water, ending up with a product that was slightly MORE expensive than the non-subsidized competition - when moving potential customers to a new variant of an existing technology requires a substantial improvement in price-performance - and about a factor of ten to obsolete the previous mainstream approach.
What's driving the current burst of innovation and deployment is the loss of government subsidies around the world. Now the playing field is closer to level. More companies are playing with private investment. The products must compete with existing grid systems, so innovation is occurring and price/performance is improving to where they ARE competitive in progressively more situations.
Indeed, panels are now available at less than a dollar per watt, which is about the point where solar starts beating grid costs in most places where there's enough sun, rather than just remote places or small loads where it's cheaper than running miles of new lines.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Its not a zero-sum game, ya know. China "winning" comes mostly at the cost of their rampant ecological disaster and corrupt mid-level government. They push solar because the air is literally toxic.
Reality check:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf
http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Use.pdf
Solar uses huge amounts of land-per-MWh-- between 3 and 10, depending on who you ask, what technology, and how you measure; it also generally ignores the whole "peak solar output is very different than average", or the whole "this only works in places with a lot of room and a lot of sun". This isnt the solution youre looking for; want to save the environment, stop fighting nuclear.
Their argument, as laid out by House Republicans and libertarian organs like the Cato Institute and Reason magazine, is that the federal government shouldn't 'pick winners and losers' in the energy markets or gamble taxpayer dollars on renewable-energy loans to companies like Solyndra
Are they wrong? Harping on solar over and over when its pretty clear that the efficiency, price, and land usage just arent there isnt going to fix the issue. Solar is a good supplemental tech, but its not going to save the world, and dumping $500 million into one company that goes bankrupt really does deserve criticism. If the amount had been like $10 million, maybe we wouldnt be having this discussion.
The assumption has always been that, without heavy government subsidies, renewable energy sources like solar and wind power would never be able to compete with fossil fuels
That presents a long term problem, doesnt it? Fundamentally one of the issues is that you cant fight supply and demand-- not successfully. If fuel is significantly cheaper than solar, the government isnt going to be able to pay off the difference indefinitely; and if solar IS cheaper in the long haul, people will jump on board (which is why they do).
But the idea that solar companies cant succeed without government help is ridiculous anyways. Didnt Elon Musk help found a solar firm (solarcity) about thats going strong, apparently with no government help? I found out about this while looking him up for the tesla articles, and I was a little surprised-- heres a firm thats been around for quite a while, is doing very well, and apparently had no help from the government! They did try to get a fed loan guarantee, and it fell through, and they went to a bank (BoA?) and got their loan. I guess that doesnt really help the narrative that "poor solar firms cant compete without government help", which perhaps is why such stories arent reported more widely.
Oil was helped out by overcapacity in the rail system brought about by federal stimulus in the railroad industry. Every successful enterprise depends on services either provided by our intervened in by the government. To this day big oil is helped out by significant tax treatments and cheap lease rights as well as the HUGE intervention of the US military is global supply (Iraq alone is around 2.5 trillion in subsidy for the two wars).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Really?
Because the story more or less proves (inspite of its hate mongering) that Viable wind and viable Solar can spring up with out Government picking winners.
There are at least 12 companies working on Micro and Mini Nuclear plants, some of which can be trucked to a city, set into semi-buried location and trucked out again when their fuel or life is exhausted.
The clowns in Congress can't even keep the streets paved. Don't look to them for a solution to energy. The best you can hope for is that they do nothing and let industry develop viable solutions.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I'm a conservative and I could give a flying fuck about the GOP. I don't know if solar power is the answer but it may be a part of the answer and as long as it can pay it's own way it deserves a chance. It almost has to be better than coal. The GOP claims to be conservative but they're really just like the fucking DEMS, all about money.
Did you miss that part where utilities where lobbying politicians to punish people who switch over to solar? is that not just them playing at winners and losers as well? if utilities (or petro companies) can't compete against solar then they deserve to fade away and not be propped up by the Government.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Solar needs lots of space to produce large amounts of power, sure. But we have lots of wasted space in our urban and suburban centers. Every rooftop that doesn't have solar panels is a target for panels. In a single family home, not only do you generate electricity, the panels shade the structure and keep it cooler in the summer months.
Germany is hardly what anyone would call a bastion of sunshine, but they seem to be making quite a go of solar.
As for the subsidies for solar and other renewables: only fair. The US subsidizes oil with tax breaks, incentives and let's not even get started on the military adventures we've been on to control/protect our oil interests in the middle-east.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
A bunch of others claiming to be libertarian (like RON PAUL and many of his followers) are really states-rightsers; in other words, they're happy to let the state governments oppress you, but the feds had better not try to put a stop to it or decide to oppress someone else.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Oil came into its own without a ton of federal help, so why can't alternative forms of energy?
Seriously?
A quick Google tells me that the oil industry has been receiving subsidies since essentially day one, by being allowed to write off the full cost of drilling new wells. Even to this day the oil industry in the US gets $4 billion per year in subsidies one way or another.
=Smidge=
How about just take away the billions of subsidies/tax relief/tax refunds/etc from the oil & gas companies and give them to the solar energy companies?
$10b goes a long way towards making something 'cheaper'.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And maybe encourage saving energy more strongly. One thing that struck me when I was on business in Phoenix, Arizona, is how energy inefficient everything was. I would take warm showers in my air conditioned apartment, while it was 40C outside. The water was no doubt heating with electricity or gas. Why not use solar water heaters? And why are the offices air conditioned so much? What a huge waste of energy. The apartment was equipped with a washing machine and a dryer. Do people in the desert really use a dryer? You can just hang your clothes out for an hour and everything will be bone dry. Why were people driving huge trucks just to go to work? There is HUGE potential for reducing energy consumption, which I suspect is the lowest hanging fruit.
Everyone, including the OP, mentions Solyndra as this big failure of the solar industry, but nobody discusses why it failed. Their business model was based on selling non-silicon based panels at a time when the price of silicon panels was skyrocketing. Then, as you mention, the Chinese government hands billions of dollars to their silicon based solar panel manufacturers, and their prices subsequently plummeted.
If the US and the EU decide to leave their renewable energy sector to the whims of the free market, while allowing China to subsidizes the hell out of it- we might as well just hand the entire industry over to them.
They are the same thing.
The problem with applying your conservative principles in this case is that the impacts from global warming will be upon us long before coal is no longer economically viable. Those making money from coal do not care about the consequences, since they're making big bucks while taking a small personal risk, whereas their profits have a negative impact on us all. If coal burning had no negative impact, I would agree, but since it does, it needs to be monitored and an alternative needs to be found
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
OK, why do companies making billions in profit need "tax relief"?
The Iraq war was a gigantic subsidy to the oil industry.
From what I can see, it's a "bad" thing for two reasons:
1) The big oil companies (read: major campaign donors) haven't decided to try to make money off solar yet, and
2) The Democrats are in favor of it.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
but it's abundantly clear that the GOP is not seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
This member of the GOP -- and all the others I know -- are seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
If they were, they would be fighting against oil and ethanol subsidies
I fight against ethanol subsidies. And when I heard in the media that oil companies are subsidized, I went looking for oil subsidies, in order to fight them. But I didn't find any.
would propose winding down the national petroleum reserve (used to manipulate prices)
President Obama has released oil from the reserve to hold down prices, during a time when it would have been particularly politically damaging for oil prices to continue rising. But that was a misuse of the reserve. Its official name is the "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" and it's an invaluable enabling asset for the DoD, whose need for oil would skyrocket at the exact time supplies cannot be assured: during a major conflict.
and would never actively fight against particular forms of energy (as described in summary and TFA).
TFA and the summary are full of it, right from the very first sentence, "Clean energy technology has always been an easy punching bag for conservatives." Wrong. When a new power plant is built, conservatives want to use the energy source that will deliver the highest return on investment, because that in turn will cause the most economic growth and create the most jobs. Conservatives like me will be thrilled if and when the day arrives that solar plants deliver a higher return on investment than older energy sources.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Those getting fat off the status quo certainly realize they are shifting the costs associated with fossil fuels to everyone else in the world in a Tragedy of the Commons type of manner. This is exactly why the fossil fuel industry is so keen on denying global warming -- if people start to think that industry should bear the true costs of its products, rather than let that industry shift those costs to humanity for free (another form of privatizing profits and socializing losses) -- then there is going to be a hit on their bottom line when it becomes clear that fossil fuels are not in fact cheaper than other sources of power when all costs are factored in. To keep their position, the fossil fuel industry must pretend there are no consequences to pollution, and convince as many people of that as possible.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Everyone, including the OP, mentions Solyndra as this big failure of the solar industry, but nobody discusses why it failed. Their business model was based on selling non-silicon based panels at a time when the price of silicon panels was skyrocketing. Then, as you mention, the Chinese government hands billions of dollars to their silicon based solar panel manufacturers, and their prices subsequently plummeted.
If the US and the EU decide to leave their renewable energy sector to the whims of the free market, while allowing China to subsidizes the hell out of it- we might as well just hand the entire industry over to them.
A better approach is to NOT give money to companies, but use tariffs to make the price of Chinese-sourced panels reflect their actual, unsubsidized costs. That's what tariffs are for. This approach Offers 3 benefits:
1. China's cheap panels are no longer cheap - their Governmental payouts to buy the market are eliminated.
2. The Federal Government actually gets a few dollars via the original funding method (tariffs).
3. The "best man wins" concept of the Free Market can still work since companies must compete not to see who is handed a pile of cash from DC, but on quality and pricing of product relative to other players.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The biggest subsidy fossil fuel companies get is they don't have to pay the cost the pollution the use of their products imposes on society. That's not unique to them but they're probably benefit the most from that.
That's right. Conservatives don't have some personal grudge against silicon. The big difference between republicans and democrats is that republicans tend to make policy decisions based on calculations while democrats base theirs on wishes.
Oh, what a load of bullshit. Please stop lying. Taken as a whole, conservatives hate science, and by extension, calculations. I used to think like you do, but then the profoundly anti-science Bush presidency happened, and then the last 5 years happened, and in particular the debt ceiling bullshit happened. I (and others who have woken up) now know that conservatives make policy decisions based on hatred, fear of change, and hyperpartisanship, not on rational analysis.
Like it or not, James Inhofe is one of you. Like it or not, conservatives in America have a massive anti-science movement going, what with climate change denial, hatred and denial of what the facts say about issues like abortion, access to contraception, and so forth, and the entire creationist movement.
You tell yourselves that you are the rational ones. You repeat it to yourselves over and over and over until you actually believe that shit. But you're living in an echo chamber, not reality.
See for example my own Slashdot posts regarding solar. I, a conservative, have pointed out that once you factor in the costs of batteries, etc., solar just doesn't make sense.
So have you personally done the calculations? Or, let me guess, you read a paper published by a conservative "think-tank", one which is being paid to produce the desired conclusion?
People who actually love following the truth have found that conservative think-tanks lie. Over and over and over. They exist for no purpose other than camouflage. It's cargo cult stuff, calculated to sound sciencey enough to fool useful idiots like you.
A great example on a related topic: there was that infamous think-tank paper which claimed to prove that the lifetime energy costs of a Toyota Prius were worse than a gigantic fuckoff Hummer. Very popular conservative ammunition against the hated greens. It was riddled with what amounted to shameless lies, and has been debunked into oblivion, but I've seen still being used quite recently.
That's because nobody cares about the truth on the right. Nobody. Not even you. You're just telling yourself that you do, while being lazy about actual intellectual rigor, and about acknowledging your own mistakes and excesses. I know this because I used to be one of you. Wake up.
(Note: absolutely none of this means I think the left is perfect. Please do not attempt to derail from the topic of how intellectually bankrupt your side is by trying to point fingers at the other. That's a trap which only leads to fooling yourself.)
Getting back to solar... one of the many ways in which this conservative "oh but solar will never be any good" argument falls apart is that conservatives always try to base their objections on a strawman -- namely, that anyone seriously thinks solar is good enough for base load electrical power generation. That's the only way to make sense out of your "solar makes no sense without batteries" nonsense.
Solar doesn't have to be the base load solution to make sense. Everywhere that there are hot summers which demand lots of AC? Obvious candidate for solar as a supplemental solution, to provide peak AC demand right when you need it the most.
Now that the cost for panels is half of what it was, solar makes more sense in more situations.
Hey, imagine that. And how did we get there? Government investment in solar tech. (Chinese government investment in PV solar tech, that is.) It's almost as if the invisible hand of the market isn't perfect at attracting capital to long-term investments which might or might not pay off, and therefore you might sometimes need to have politicians spend the resources of a nation on technology d