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.
How could there be GOP figures busily lobbying in favor of state taxation and repression of individuals in the interests of incumbent corporations?
I've been assured, with a level of seriousness that only they can muster, by any number of internet randroids, that the right is the side of personal freedom and autonomy, and the left is the path of collectivist fascism and agenda-21! How could this be?
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
The GOP allowed solar -production- to be kicked over to China. First, the solar companies were complaining about Chinese intrusion attempts, then China started dumping panels on our shores for cheaper than it cost US makers to buy the rare earths.
However, the split is going along two lines of two GOP platforms. Dislike for government versus respect for Big Oil/Big Coal. Solar allows people to be fairly independent [1].
Solar also scales well. One can have a one watt panel to keep a vent fan spinning on a RV's roof, or a multi-megawatt array powering a city like Austin.
Solar is also fairly easy to deploy. Got a clear line of sight to the south? Might as well slap a few panels up, add a grid-tie inverter, and have a lower power bill, or if in a more rural area, have the power feed into a battery bank for complete off-grid use, or even a combination of both with some outlets in a house on utility powers, others feeding from the batteries. Same thing if one has a carport. Might as well have the flat roof do something.
As for price, solar panel prices have gotten to a point where it becomes a "why not?" as opposed to a "why bother?" This is especially true in the RV industry.
[1]: Almost. Good luck having a modern building in the southern US without air conditioning unless one is content to deal with high humidity.
...where much of the government is Republican but a lot of the power on the grid comes from solar farms?
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Just to point it out... Just because a few very vocal groups in the GOP are claiming to be libertarian, that does not mean that libertarians are GOP. The interests of the two groups do not align very well, so a conflict such as this is only to be expected.
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
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
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.
Solar power is a source of energy that does not affect the climate the way burning fossil fuels does, which is what it has "to do with global warming."
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!
The sooner the One Party morphs into something better than what it has become the better for the entire world.
FTFY. There are no good guys in Washington, DC. Not as a group, anyway.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
The government tax revenue on oil companies is higher than their profit margin. so you no longer need to shake your head.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Given that the cases being described are haggling over the pricing of grid-connected; but partially solar-powered, utility customers, this seems like it would be about as close to a generic, company-neutral 'subsidizing solar energy' as one could reasonably imagine: Since it's major inconvenience is darkness, a problem that can either be fixed expensively with on-site batteries or generators, or cheaply (but with costs, of vehemently debated size) for the grid operator, by an electrical grid hookup, the T&C on the electrical grid hookup is more or less the major variable that you have access to for either helping or hindering solar installs without direct entity-subsidizing.
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.
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.
oh i'm aware. sometimes i forget sarcasm doesn't translate well on the interwebs :P
in my estimation, we should be pushing for research and investment in alternative fuel and energy tech. the U.S. should be at the forefront, creating new industries and manufacturing jobs in the process. of course, the current status quo and current companies have a problem with losing their "privileged" status, and their political proxies foist it off as "picking winners and losers".
I've bought a fair amount of Solyndra industrial automation components off ebay over the last 2 years. I usually get these components for 10% of retail cost. In most cases they are new, in the box. Solyndra's bankruptcy has helped me.
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
It's the same crap as over here in Germany.
Rightwing politicians (our Liberals are right wing conservatives) complain about distortion of the energy market, wanting to cut off all renewable energy sources from subsidy while they still provide a lot of money for oil, coal and nuclear power. While the costs of renewable energies are openly dumped on the citizens of Germany, there are a lot of hidden costs for coal, oil and nuclear power, like tax deductions, government funded permanent repository and insurance in the case of catastrophes, which makes the funding of nuclear power almost as expensive as all renewable energy sources combined.
Look at it this way, with renewable energy sources a lot of the energy generation is in the hands of the public, private, independent persons. Bigger power suppliers never liked the concept of independence because an independent customer is a bad customer. They can afford high quality lobbing, convincing politicians that conventional energy sources are far superior, create jobs and therefore need more subsidies.
Another thing is that renewable energy sources encourage research and development of better energy storage, a good longterm development for humanity, which also isn't needed for oil, coal and nuclear energy, since oil, coal and uranium 'are' stored energy.
As long as it's two senators per state, nobody is likely to fuck with representatives from even lightly populated corn-heavy states...
I like that the market is starting to work to promote solar, and I think soon it will pick up on other "green" energy things. Oil came into its own without a ton of federal help, so why can't alternative forms of energy?
That being said...I hope the govt also doesn't jump in (either party) and start trying to regulate to death the fledgling solar industry or other green energy companies.
Govt should be there just enough to allow the market to roll, but also stay out of the way once it starts rolling.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Congress (especially GOP members) don't seem to understand that we have no choice but to pick losers and winners. Their reluctance to fund research into alternative energy sources just ensures that the United States will lose. By the time they finally realize we have no choice but to get on board, we will have to pay China, Germany ..... to use the technology because it will have already been developed and made practical (and profitable) by them.
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
AH, nvm Ill read up on it myself http://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/60_Years_of_Energy_Incentives_-_Analysis_of_Federal_Expenditures_for_Energy_Development_-_1950-2010.pdf
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
i.e. it has as much to do with global warming as not stabbing you has to do with murder.
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.
Many states can use the cheap solar hot water systems, costing $3-5k professionally installed, less than half that if you're not scared of plumbing. It's not all about generating electricity, spinning meters backwards or off-grid storage.
Some countries around the Mediterranean have laws that all buildings have to have solar systems to heat domestic water. They're different designs from ours, looking somewhat clunky and like the old USSR hodgepodge satellites, but they're effective.
Here in FL, every other cookie cutter house has a pool solar system, but very few have domestic hot water panels, even though they're cheaper and take up far less roof space, and save having to have the 50 gallon tank powered all day every day. I find this very bizarre.
Our house (2 adults, 2 kids) hot water is purely heated from the sun bar the 10-14 days of the year when I have to switch on the power to the tank due to extended cloud coverage. We also have pool panels, but to get the benefit of extending the pool usage period, we have to have the pool pump running a lot longer, which uses a fair amount of power.
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 ...
Okay. Step 1: Cancel all subsidies / tax breaks and tax loopholes for the Oil Companies. Sure they're *only* about $2-4 billion / year, but it's a start. (Note: Reason.com - slogan "Free Minds and Free Markets - thinks these are okay).
Just noting from the Think Progress article:
Last year, the five largest oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil — earned $118 billion profit at a time when consumers paid record-high gas prices. This haul follows after a year the companies earned a record $137 billion profit.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
That's not how taxes work. Corporate taxes come as a subset of profits, and not revenues. You just made an assertion that is literally impossible.
People sense a contradiction. Something like solar frankly deserves to be subsidized, there's no reason we shouldn't be using and storing the energy that hits the country every day. It deserves a kick in the pants to get it started. So when people see others opposed to those kinds of subsidies, and notice that oil companies are getting billions every year in subsidies when they are earning record-breaking profits, there is an obvious contradiction. The future is not oil, the past is oil. The future is solar.
How about this: we shift all of the subsidies currently going to oil companies, to solar. We have no net change in how much the government spends, but we provide a much-needed boost to the future of our energy production. The oil companies will continue to earn record profits, no one is going to shed a tear for Exxon. If we then want to phase out subsidies altogether and let both industries move forward on their own, great.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
But any war that involves the Sun, I predict the Sun wins.
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
If solar is doing so great then why does it need subsidies? ... Solar will eventually become cost effective without subsidies, lets wait for that to happen.
Because it would have never gotten to this state without enough investment to make it viable during the early decades when the technology for it just wasn't there yet. Part of what government is good for is doing things which are beneficial to society but not profitable or not profitable yet. When we reach profitability, we start backing off and letting the market take over.
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.
Hard to win a race when everyone else has such a centuries or decades long lead. I think more than enough people have pointed out that every other form of energy is subsidized too -- largely because energy is absolutely essential to the economy and the well-being of the public.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
STFI, lazy! http://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/60_Years_of_Energy_Incentives_-_Analysis_of_Federal_Expenditures_for_Energy_Development_-_1950-2010.pdf
lazy lazy lazy! http://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/60_Years_of_Energy_Incentives_-_Analysis_of_Federal_Expenditures_for_Energy_Development_-_1950-2010.pdf
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
After reading your post I was wondering if you're correct, however a ten second Google for "subsidies for the oil industry" shows there's all kinds of material explaining how subsidies work and how much the oil industry is actually getting. I understand your need to ask the question though I find a lot of the time people start posting something then it just snowballs and becomes generally accepted. Although I have to say there's one particular side of politics this seems to be worse for, and it's not the side of the road they drive on in England.
At the time, Solyndra's CIGS thin film technology was a smart idea with standard solar panel polysilicon running at $400 per kilogram and China cutting global access to their supplies of rare earth elements. Had those conditions continued, the company would have been very profitable. Hindsight may be 20/20, but nobody in those days was predicting polysilicon dropping to under $30/kg, China relaxing its rare earth access and subsidizing its own solar exports to dump under cost of production. Certainly Solyndra attracted its share of private financing as well as the US Government's.
I didn't say you were against both. But all indications DO point to a large portion of the GOP being against one and not the other. I thought this article was about the GOP stance against solar subsidies, not yours.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Here, let me Google that for you:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/06/12/coal-companies-receive-taxpayer-subsidies/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/
http://www.cato.org/blog/clean-coal-subsidies
http://illinoistimes.com/article-permalink-12589.html
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.
Simple: because we want to profit from the industry's growth in the future. What the "Old school republicans and libertarians" are missing is that if there isn't an up-front Angel-type investment in the industry's growth in the USA, then govermnents overseas will do it instead. Solyndra failed because of dumping from China (they have us beat on the state-sponsored industry game, no doubt) and the reluctance since then to even consider more investment has just opened the door for Chinese manufacturers to get a stranglehold on the industry.
In short: we may benefit from green energy infrastructure after its installed despite your "wait and see" attitude, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits we would reap if we invested properly in the industry as well. You clearly would rather work for a chinaman than work for yourself.
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.
Did you even read the article you linked to? Most of those subsidies take the form of things like allowing corporations to deduct expenses from their taxes (much like any other business). One of the supposed subsidies to the oil and gas industry cited in the report is government heating assistance for the poor.
He very clearly objected to the arbitrary price tag attached to the externality, not that there was no externality.
If children are so great, then why do we spend so much money on them, but get so little labor out of them? (i.e. from a national/economic standpoint, children are a money pit for decades. But, once they mature, they do become productive. I feel much the same way about a lot of technologies. If you're going to judge a technology on the basis of whether it's a net-positive in the short term, you'll be brainlessly following short term incentives and undermining your long term future.)
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.
If enough people start putting in solar arrays and going off grid and or feeding back to the grid it will undermine the electric operators.
Delivered electricity costs might very well go way up for traditional customers. Distribution is a high fixed overhead. Either you sell enough generation or your really screw a certain groups of customers with high fixed minimum charges.
Don't misunderstand I am opposed to doing anything to discourage people from going off grid, installing solar or selling back to the grid. I am also against doing anything specific to encourage it. Government should just stay out.
But consider this their could come a day when having reliable electricity available at your home means paying very high monthly fees to be connected to a grid with fewer and few customers, or being able to invest and maintain an solar array and some kind of storage bank, be it kinetic, capacitance, or chemical batteries. That might create some haves and have nots out of what has become a pretty universal condition presently.
The next thing you know some prick like Obama is going to be arguing for an individual grid connection mandate; because its only affordable if we all participate.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
Wrong. Go back and read the article again.
The reason that solar power is taking off is that huge government subsidies and research grants got it to the point where it achieved the scale and efficiency it cost effective.
Republicans along their oil and utility company sponsors want to quash it.
Some libertarians are starting to realize that now it's starting to look competitive and it would be a good idea not to regulate it out of existence.
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
To me we need clean affordable energy whether Global Warming is real or not. We need cheap energy to keep our economy going and we need our children's children to be able to drink clean water and breathe clean air.
What we really need is a President who will tackle energy with the same kind of committment that JFK gave us for the space program. As a country we invested mightily in the program and the process of getting that man on the moon created huge technical advantages for our nation. As a viable program it all went to crap after we reached that goal but we had already made the gains in technology that propelled us for the next few decades.
A similar effort that yielded clean affordable energy would also yield lots of new technologies. We need that and a coordinated effort by the Federal Government is probably the quickest way to get there. That being said, it cannot just exist as a way to reward the President's supporters and just end up as money stuffed into pockets like Solyndra.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
The big US government-subsidized solar production efforts like Solyndra failed because the *Chinese* government put up *even bigger subsidies* for their own research and production (without which, Solyndra was originally in line to be solidly financially successful). So, China will control the major energy technology sectors in the upcoming century, and America will become a technological laggard dependent on Chinese technology and manufacturing. Brilliant long-term planning for critical national infrastructure needs and technological leadership!
China is a country with actual intelligent leadership and planning for long-term stability. They may be repressive authoritarian fucks, but at least they're not repressive authoritarian fucks like the Republican party who will also run their country into the ground for short-term greed.
I know you're biased and can easily see where your preferences are but I have to say I agree with you, at least partially. If instead of saying the GOP you had said "virtually all politicians" I would agree 100%. The liberal politicians happily wallow in the same mud as the so called conservatives. I myself, as a conservative, when President Obama was elected said that "at least he'll get rid of that damn Patriot Act." Turns out he's not even a good liberal.
Serious question for you then: Should it have to pay its own way NOW when fossil fuels are still cheaper? Or should we wait until fossil fuels become harder to come by and the prices go up and we get economic impacts as a result and only then invest in replacement power sources because they will be able to pay their own way then? In my opinion avoidance of the disruption inherent in waiting is worth some investment now.
Solar uses huge amounts of land-per-MWh
Solar can use space that's not being used for anything else, like rooftops.
this only works in places with a lot of room and a lot of sun
My friends have an off-grid house. Solar panels that feed a battery bank, plus a gasoline-powered generator as a backup. They very rarely run the generator, mostly in the winter. This is in central NY, which definitely doesn't get a lot of sun. Their heat comes from a wood stove. So they meet most of their energy needs with non-fossil sources. It's really not as hard as you think.
You're rather cherry-picking your data. Solyndra made a big bet: that the raw cost of the silicon in solar power would be important, and that a remarkably cool manufacturing technique to use a lot less would have a ton of value. As it turns out, that's not how the industry went: silicon costs dropped faster than anticipated, and the manufacturing costs of the Solyndra didn't.
We weren't "picking winners and losers" here: we enabled a big bet. Big bets don't always work.
And the internet was absolutely funded for years by the public purse to develop all of the major technologies and to make the same set of "big bets" about the valuable and non-valuable aspects of internet communication. Private people only became interested because of that investment.
And part of the investment was the "picking a winner". The key to the internet is that it worked across multiple vendors. If we hadn't have done that, there would be an ATT network, an IBM network, a Unisys network, and so on. The government chose a winner (cross platform) and a loser (per-company networks).
Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
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=
I don't mind tax incentives for homeowners to install Solar. It helps people and can help drive costs of solar installations down by bringing volume up. This crazy kind of thing they did with Solyndra I don't think we need.
China and the EU are in an on-and-off trade war over photovoltaics. China is heavily subsidising production there in order to churn the panels out so cheap, European manufacturers cannot match them - thus effectively securing a production monopoly which can later be leveraged. Taking a loss now to secure a strategic advantage. The EU is not happy with this.
If you want to assert that oil companies are subsidized, you must first offer some valid and specific criticism of this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil
So far, nobody has been able to tell me where David Blackmon got his facts wrong.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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
Not including the occasional war fought to secure access to supplies.
Wrong again.
The grants failed, the companies failed.
But cheap overseas manufacture succeeded.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It's not getting the oil in Iraq that matters. It's maintaining political stability in the Middle East so we can continue to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, etc....
Why did we get involved in Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran but not in Rwanda, Central African Republic, Uganda, Darfur? Because political instability in those parts of Africa doesn't substantially affect the US economy.
Are you referring to that bullshit story that was posted here a few days ago, that made it sound like the EPA police would be going into people's homes and ripping out their stoves?
Bringing the Internet to the masses wasn't government funded.
Yup. At no point was the telecommunications industry given billions of dollars in loan guarantees, grants, low-cost or even free use of public lands/eminent domain claims, and tax write-offs to build out the national internet infrastructure. That never happened and it most certainly isn't STILL happening. Telecoms are a free-market utopia and a testament to how great private industry is in the absence of government intervention.
=Smidge=
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.
I spent most of the past five years arguing that the Democrats were the lesser of two evils. Then the Obama Administration and the NSA took the Fourth Amendment out back and shot it in the head. The Bush Administration may have started the PRISM program, but the Democrats had the opportunity to cut it back and instead they ran with it.
The One Party indeed. It's largely a wasted gesture, but I plan to vote third party or "none of the above" in every Presidential and Congressional election going forward. Too bad the US Pirate Party doesn't have a Pennsylvania branch, PRISM is enough for me to join.
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"?
Umm, what about the Keystone XL Pipeline... That single project is receiving between 1 and 1.8 BILLION dollars in subsidies.
For reference ALL renewable received $5.93 billion.. over a 15 year period...
Plus the real benefit that oil, coal and natural gas receive are liability protection from spills, poisoning etc plus eminent domain lad purchases for pipelines etc.
These issues are not represented in the typical accounting of subsidies and easily doubles the value.
I remember reading that is all benefits were removed from oil than the price of gas would be between 12-15 dollars a gallon!
Also not including the cost of health care associated with pollution.
=Smidge=
Research is cheap. Most of the discretionary budget is cheap. The real money is in the 2/3's of the budget that is mandatory. And guess what will blow the doors off the budget in the coming years? Yup, the Blue Haired and the AARP.
Research at least creates job either in the near term or the far term. What the U.S. spends on research is pixie dust compared to the mandatory budget.
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.
..... 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.
Actually its covered under the economist Bastiat's Broken Window Princicple. Essentially, the green economy was explained to create jobs and increase GDP. Since its actually just creating inefficient rebalancing of the economy its hurting the economy more than the most efficient distribution of labor.
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
True, that is the policy of libertarians and the reason libertarians believe in this is because the people most affected by inefficient and expensive renewable energy are the poor. Whenever the costs of implementing expensive energy are put onto the power companies the cost is deferred to the users, mandated or not, this affects the poor with higher energy costs more than any other group.
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.
Maybe math is hard but this is still more expensive than coal or natural gas (which market forces are decreasing the cost of sans government interference) and consumers are going to have to pay for the difference. And where does this money go? To Non-American solar array producers instead of jobs in natural gas or coal in the United States, further reducing employment and skilled labor jobs for the poor or lower middle class.
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.
Ok this is the statement that forced me to comment because it is so false and manipulative. The only way Public Utilities could curb solar companies is to ask them to compete equally in the market with other forms of energy. They are not moving to ban solar imports as this makes it sound, Republicans are simply trying to give consumers the lowest cost of basic energy. Consumers can decide for themselves if they want to purchase their own solar arrays for their homes. Additionally, its generally the rich who qualify for solar array subsidies on their homes and electric car credits at the expense of the middle class and the poor to fund rich people's energy savings.
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."
Otherwise known as Republicans who are under the sway of Environmental lobbyists at the expense of the poor or Libertarians who want the free market to compete for the lowest cost energy for consumers. I agree a natural monopoly occurs with something like a utlity company and therefore some government regulation and oversight is neccesary. But the government oversight committees should be working in the best interest of their customers, the taxpayers, to provide the lowest cost energy to them. They are not supposed to be activists raising the cost of energy for the poor to further lobbyists and the rich's goals of providing cheap energy to the rich on the back of the poor.
This is an interesting point I haven't heard before (granted, I don't look much into this stuff). I'm conservative and generally against most tax breaks/subsidies, but your post has me reconsidering. I think a big sticking point for me would be how the government decides who gets funding. Ideally, it should be merit-based (obviously), but I just don't trust anyone in Congress or the White House to do things properly in this area. If all we get are failures due to bad choices, then the market's going to China anyway, and we've lost a lot of money in the meantime.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
You might want to look a little more into your assertion that oil came into its own without a ton of federal help. And in case you want to specifically focus on the real no kidding "birth" of the petroleum revolution that is fine. But make no mistake oil has and still does get a TON of federal help. I think a lot of people would be fine cutting alternative energy subsidies if only the petroleum ones were cut as well.
The problem as I understand it though is that the US petroleum industry "needs" all that help in order to compete with the rest of the world. I can't say for sure if that assessment of "need" is really valid, but non-US petroleum production and refining does get some non-trivial level of government support and so it would harm the US if they did not do the same in order to compete.
So given that, you have to ask the question, "how can a nascent industry like solar/wind/storage/any other renewable" have a chance to compete in a market where the entrenched incumbent has the advantage of both a lock on the market and government support?" Easy answer, it cannot.
As to picking winners and losers, that only applies where the government is specifically choosing a technology/company to the exclusion of others. I'm pretty sure that has only happened in one case; Ethanol and specifically corn-based Ethanol. Barring that, or in case we have been a little too specific, then the easy solution is you fund basic research,the kind that is high risk-long lead and not suitable for most commercial ventures, and you create pots of money that can be applied for (loans, grants, whatever) by anyone looking to demonstrate commercial-sized production.
Everything below here is more a response to other posts above yours, so if my comments don't apply to you, please don't take offense :)
Everyone likes to point to Solyndra and say, "SEE!!! That is what is wrong with renewable energy and picking winners and losers!!!" No, that is just what happens when you decide to spend money to find the right solution out of many. Some fail, some succeed, and some fail only to be picked up by smarter/better/better-timed people to finally succeed. And while Solyndra itself might also be an example of bad politics (I think the final post-mortem showed it actually wasn't), it is also proof that politics should be kept out of that sort of thing. The government should not feel the need to find a poster child for what amounts to good general policy of a country investing in its energy future.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
The thing is, I can put solar on my house, and I will be to able to generate enough power, on occasion, to have some extra to put back on the grid. With the right configuration and local storage, I can even go off the grid. As a consumer, the other options you mention are things I can't do. Sure, solar is more expensive per KWH, but at least it's doable for lots of homeowners.
Separately, you may not have noticed that the Republicans have held effective veto power over new legislation in the Senate until just yesterday. Thus, making the claim the Republicans (even with a minority in the Senate) can be held somewhat responsible for lack of progress in the area seems reasonable.
The Internet has no garbage collection
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
Yes, a healthy portion of the subsidies could be considered tax breaks and write-offs. Part of the argument is that these tax breaks should not be in place for such a profitable industry in the first place. Our dear friend Wikipedia distills a few research reports that indicate a large percentage of subsidies also went towards credits for "non-conventional fuel generation" which I expect is mostly ehtanol and biodiesel, as well as direct compensation for exploration costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies_in_the_United_States
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Not if your solar panels are not based on silicon which was what Solyndra was trying to do with its panels.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
All this idealized free market reverence is misplaced. Even the free-est markets are not free.
Every time there is a lot of money at stake and there are some extra-large entities involved (very large corporations and governments come to mind, but I'm sure you can think of others) those large entities try to push the system by manipulating the meta-market so the rules work in their interest. The more money or power the entity has the more it is able to game the system in its favor. When government is working well it is gaming the system based on the interest of its constituents (the people, the long view, individual freedom, fairness) but the other big entities can also influence the government in many ways to game the system to their liking.
Corporations today are almost completely beholden to stockholders and a quarterly report based view of the world. Modern democracy-based governments are designed to take their directions from the people, but none is perfect.
Every time the rules change, either because of disruptive technology, scarcities, changes in government, or whatever, someone is going to be on the losing end of it. The big entities will fight any change that makes them the loser. If it is a change that can't be controlled then they will try to change the rules so they can't lose.
There is some ebb and flow here. The big actors don't always know what the best thing for them will be, but they will be out there pushing things around in a direction that someone thinks is in their favor. There will be bizarre structures left in place by strange interactions between some big actors and some (perhaps different) big actors will fight to keep that bizarre structure in place and it can get pretty Byzantine.
This is the nature of the world. Economics and politics are always intertwined. Whether it's the government or a giant corporation someone is picking winners and losers and influencing the "market" in ways contrary to what a "free" market might be.
Anyway I hope there are some big actors that can take the long view and try to make things generally safer, and more stable while also being aware it is a 900 pound gorilla. Promoting alternatives to fossil fuels seems like a good idea.
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!
Here in Georgia, Georgia Power has been very hostile to anything but coal, nuclear and as reluctantly been replacing coal plants in non-attainment zones (areas that violate the clear air act) with gas powered plants. They have been quoted as saying the sun doesn't shine enough in Georgia or that the wind doesn't blow hard enough off the eastern coast line in the Atlantic ocean. That said, what is most amazing is that Georgia Power it attempting to get a rule passed that states they are the sole provider for all sun derived power for the state of Georgia. Yes, that is correct. If you want to buy solar power from a 3rd party you can not do so in Georgia because only Georgia Power can provide your company solar power. You can put the panels up yourself but you can't enter into an agreement with a 3rd party to install and maintain the panels for you as a monthly business expense. Apparently in Georgia, Georgia Power owns the sun.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2013/10/21/2756402/georgia-public-service-commission.html
http://gareport.com/blog/2013/03/27/hb-657-georgias-solar-monopoly-bill/
http://www.gasolarutilities.com/index.php/news/130-solar-becomes-battleground-for-georgia-electricity-regulation
you mean like coal, gas and oil pay their own way? They get hundreds of billions of dollars worth of subsidies every year.
The program that Solyndra was funded under is still under the budgeted failure rate last I heard. There were a bunch of other investments under that program that are working just fine. Not all investments work out and practically nobody foresaw the precipitous decline in solar cell prices that caused Solyndra's demise. The reason it became a big deal is the GOP saw it as a way to make political hay against the Obama administration. If it had happened under a Republican President you never would have heard of it.
What they did with Solyndra? You mean bankruptcy? Adoption will come when the price drops. That probably means they will come from China. Throwing free money at bad corporations will not magically shift production from China to the US.
They should stop subsidizing things like coal, oil and gas and "let the market decide the most cost-effective options for electricity generation". Oh and that counts for any other energy sources subsidized by the government including Corn Ethanol.
Stop subsidizing energy production in any form, remove any blocks, red tap or other things that result in anything other than a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may.
If that results in higher electricity prices, introduce a direct subsidy on electricity that is totally unrelated to the method of generation.
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.
Iraq pumps about $20B/year of oil out of the ground. There isn't enough oil under Iraq to pay us back. I know a lot of people don't get this but the war over there might have been about something other than oil.
Do you have ESP?
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.
"Oil came into its own without a ton of federal help..."
Too young to remember Drew Pearson's "Washington Merry-Go-Round" syndicated column and his many mentions of the "Oil Depletion Allowance" tax break giveaway to the oil companies and how in about '66 or '67 Texaco payed less in Federal Income Tax than just one of the cleaning ladies at its New York headquarters, I take it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Here's one thing from the basic electricity texts - consider thousands of DC power sources all with electronics under your control to pump out whatever AC signal you want at the time. Does that sound like "instability"? It sounds like the opposite to me. It sounds like the instability thing came from some Washington Intern who had never been anywhere near such a textbook and it's been a political talking point since.
It would be more useful to talk about the science, technology, economics on the issue. The politicking is killing the country.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
States rights is not about allowing oppression, but allowing the people of a state to organize a government fitting their culture. Our current system does not allow this. Rather, it forces each state to adhere to what the federal judiciary and Congress believe should be a one-size-fits-all vision of America. Anyone who has looked at a "red/blue map" of America knows that we are dividied country, now more than ever in our history, and we need to devolve decision making down to the community level as much as possible. Most of our bad federal policies these days come from forcing all important decision making as high up the government food chain as possible rather than letting communities decide. So now you have a culture war between Chicago and the rural South and Midwest over gun rights because the federal government is inextricably involved that the two views cannot coexist within their communities.
As America becomes more diverse, poorer and the federal government more strained we will face a choice. Either we can devolve decision making to communities to take pressure off of the central government or face the inevitable acrimony as large minorities decide to break away because they are tired of having their visions consistently crushed by a small majority.
The further down decision making is pushed, the easier it is for political rights to be upheld. It's easier for a minority (political, racial or otherwise) to rebel or relocate when most decisions are made at the local level than the federal level. The further down you go, the smaller the political authority you are challenging. It's easier to challenge a mayor and sheriff than a governor; it's easier to rise up against a governor than the President with the backing of the US Army. It's much harder to justify federal involvement in an armed conflict between a revolting minority in one city when the federal government is not being challenged.