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."
It's ironic that you're posting this on the Internet which was invented by government funding.
Private research is all about low risk and expected short term profit. To do big things like the space program etc. you need a big push while taking big risks of failure.
This space for rent.
I wouldn't mind so much except that the federal government also provides between $20 and $50 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
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.
Because every single traditional power source is also heavily subsidized. It's only fair. Plus, we should be encouraging solar over other sources for a host of reasons, namely environment impact and better grid resistance to failures.
Solar would have a hard time fighting against cheaper resources because of the large initial cost, and without market demand there wouldn't be much innovation. Many of its advantages aren't reflected in monetary terms, and others take years to kick in.
That's a good story - but it's abundantly clear that the GOP is not seriously opposed to government intervention in energy markets.
If they were, they would be fighting against oil and ethanol subsidies, would propose winding down the national petroleum reserve (used to manipulate prices) and would never actively fight against particular forms of energy (as described in summary and TFA).
The GOP as always is full of it. They want to pick winners and losers as much as the Dems - just different ones.
.: Semper Absurda
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
While I can't comment on the validity of the "1.3 TRILLION" statement, you are absolutely correct in that the oil industry is heavily subsidized in America. From what understand however, this is across the industry so everyone benefits from lower cost in gasoline. That, and oil is fungible. The problem with subsidizing Solar manufacturing is that you can't ever compete with China. Effectively, companies like Solyndra feed off the funding and quickly fold leaving an empty husk in the process. This is the "choosing winers and losers" that Republicans don't like. It simply isn't fair. Now subsidizing Solar ENERGY, now that I can get onboard with so long as it's sustainable. Which BTW seem to be the case with the price drop in technology.
Life is not for the lazy.
The worldwide fossil fuel industry received $1.3 TRILLION of subsidies in 2011 alone. Can you do the math on how much they received in total in the last 70 years, i.e. "before the race even started"?
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Receives-1.3-Trillion-in-Subsidies-Each-Year.html
From your article:
"The largest contributor to the subsidies is the failure to properly price carbon pollution, costing a little over $1 trillion."
So they just pulled a number out of their backside and claimed it was a $1,000,000,000,000 subsidy.
See, this is why none of us take Greenists seriously.
Does that figure count the DoD spending on being Uncle Sam's Security Services in assorted oleaginous-but-deeply-unsafe hellholes, or is that extra?
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!
Yes, the ones that pay them money, or that they personally have a stake in.
Unfortunately, so much of what the GOP says they stand for, when you look at what they really do, is a lie.
They claim to be in favor of free markets, but defend monopolies and incumbents. They claim to be in favor of personal rights, but are often first in line to restrict our personal rights. They claim to believe in liberty, but they're the first to get in line for security measures which curtail Constitutional protections.
It all boils down to "we're the party of big business and the wealthy, the rest of you can eat cake and fuck off".
And since most of us are neither big business nor wealthy, our response to them if "fuck you".
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)
Sounds good, lets cut subsidies for corn, ethanol and all fossil fuels for starters.
The idea of subsidies is to encourage growth. So why again do fossil fuels need encouragement? They need as much encouragement as people need vehicles over 3 tons (suv's for example). Because that was well thought out.
I have no problem with solar subsidies. It's still an emerging market, costs have gone down because of it and research is still being invested. I have a problem with subsidies being applied to things that don't need encouragement.
So do you just not believe in externalities as an economic concept, or do you think that the subsidy is real; but smaller?
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.
Except this story is all about Republicans making it more difficult (and trying to make it impossible) and less profitable for those who purchased solar panels, to tie them into the grid, where they help your neighbors, reduce grid losses, reduce the need for expensive peaking plants, reduce emissions, etc., etc. It's the corrupt fascists in the Republican party choosing "big coal" as the winner, and "consumer solar" as the loser.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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
You don't have to agree with everything an organization does in order to agree with some of what it does. Not ironic.
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.
And exactly just how much oil have we been pumping out of Iraq since this "investment" you brought up?
I've oft heard this argument that we went to war in Iraq for oil, yet, I've not seen where we've benefited from this glut of oil from there. If we did go for oil, I'd certainly rather see a better return for our investment, but those prices sure haven't come down THAT much.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
All production subsidies are bad
Armchair economist, much? Without *somebody* subsidizing new forms of energy development, we'd still be heating our homes and cooking with wood. Every new energy paradigm finds its footing because some entity invested money in developing the technology. Nuclear energy comes to mind. And you also fail to acknowledge that we pay enormous amounts of money to project our military might to protect shipping lanes to oil-producing regions and that we have played politics for 100 years to insure that oil flows. You can deny it until you are blue in the face, but this does amount to a subsidy.
I'd also argue that a direct government subsidy into advanced energy generation and storage will ultimately yield vast societal benefit that might otherwise never be realized if we rely on only markets. The fact is that pretty much all of our advanced technology and shared infrastructure (computers, space travel, aviation, telecommunications, interstate highway system) has its genesis in government spending. Sadly, this government spending is only ever triggered by the prospect or actuality of warfare. It would be nice if we could motivate ourselves with something other than conflict for a change.
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.
Then "stop subsidizing them" seems to be a reasonable response.
Plus, we should be encouraging solar over other sources for a host of reasons,
No, we should be encouraging nuclear first, then solar / wind / geothermal, because nuclear is actually scalable and doesnt chew up gobs of land.
If you go off % sure it is less, but if you go off the actually numbers, as in the total it is larger. Second the oil buisness does not need this tax break to survive, or to even have a competitive advantage, their profits show this.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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
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.