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.
Sooner or later, being anti-science and pro-capitalist is bound to catch up with you.
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
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.
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."
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".
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.
As long as it's two senators per state, nobody is likely to fuck with representatives from even lightly populated corn-heavy states...
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.
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.
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. . . .
China's a bit of a wedge issue, because doctrinaire free-marketeers don't really know what to make of mercantilists...
More nationalistic elements, and people who care about god, guns, and gays but also need a job, tend to get jumpy at even the faintest hints of foreign mercantilism; but the free-marketeers can never resist the fact that 'dumping' is another word for "Crazy low prices, right now!" (see also, every company who has ever offshored production, and then been Shocked, Shocked, to learn that the initial absurdly good deal was to encourage them to bring technology and skills over, and now it is Exciting Mandatory Joint Venture With State-Owned Company time...)
So long as China is willing to live in a toxic industrial hellzone and make various initially unprofitable moves, their prices for goods and labor will be too good for the free marketeers and slash 'n burn corporate reorg guys to say no to; but the nationalists and nativists will always be jumpy about it...
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.
People here want solar. Like the article mentions, there was a vote this week to raise monthly costs of solar users here in AZ. The public utility wanted an increase of $50 - $100 per month and spent $3.7 million on an advertising and lobbying campaign (in addition to the money they always contribute to the entirely-Republican-staffed committee that regulates them). After the vote, regulators approved a $5 increase per month. People here realize that APS is trying to stifle solar, and this is arguably the best state in the country for solar production. People want solar, and the regulators understand that (despite being Republicans).
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Except that's attributed to Gandhi(who likely never said it at all), when it actually came from a American union leader, Nicholas Klein, who never actually won the strike he was pushing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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=
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
You assume the growth curve of solar is purely linear and will always be purely linear, and you're already wrong. There are knees in the curve. Those knees are system price points. Above $70,000 for an installation (a decade ago) and you don't get very many new installations. At $50,000 you get more. At $30,000, still more. At today's price of under $10,000 you get many more. Many many more. Projections are 2014 will be a record breaking year for new installations. Not only is the deployment of solar power accelerating, the rate of growth of deployment is also accelerating.
Solar photovoltaics are likely to follow a growth curve that looks like the adoption of LCD TVs. It will be exponential for some period of time, then abruptly level off as all the useful roofs owned by people with available capital are covered. That's a lot of roofs, and hundreds of gigawatts.
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.
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
Here is another article comparing the subsides between oil, coal, nuclear, ethanol, and renewable. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year
Here is another article, look mine has actuall sources: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/
Here, even the FLIPPING HERITAGE FOUNDATION, the extreme right wing think tank disagrees with you.
Oil Subsidies That Should Be Removed
First, let’s take a look at oil subsidies that are obvious and unnecessary. Congress should eliminate the following subsidies: Government R&D. The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Although President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request significantly cuts funding for the Office of Fossil Energy, decreasing its size by $417.8 million below the FY 2010 appropriation, it does not go far enough. The only funding in this area should maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for which the President’s budget requests an appropriate $121.7 million. Eliminating all other fossil energy funding would save $399 million.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit. Oil producers receive a 15 percent tax credit for costlier methods and technologies, such as injecting liquids and carbon dioxide into the earth. Many EOR processes are no longer in use, and the tax credit applies only when the price of oil falls below a certain level.
Marginal Well Production Credit. Marginal wells produce 15 or fewer barrels of oil per day, produce heavy oil, or produce mostly water and fewer than 25 barrels of oil per day. The marginal well production credit is another safety-net tax provision. This is another preferential tax credit that Congress should repeal.
Applied research of any kind—not just oil research and development—is better left to the private sector. The private sector should not be subsidized because of market conditions, as happens with the so-called safety-net tax credits that kick in if the price of oil falls below a certain level.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/whats-an-oil-subsidy
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