Clinton Promises 500 Million New Solar Panels

An anonymous reader writes: Hillary Clinton, widely regarded as most likely to win the Democrat nomination for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, has unveiled her campaign climate plan. Speaking at Iowa State University, Clinton said she would set up tax incentives for renewable energy to drive further adoption. She also set a goal of installing half a billion new solar panels within her first term, if elected. Her plan would cost roughly $60 billion over 10 years, and she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry. According to The Guardian, "Clinton has promised to make the issue of climate change a key pillar of her campaign platform."

Comments

Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[acoustix]

How about attempting to end all federal subsidies and let us keep our own money and spend it how we see fit?

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that worked out beautifully so far.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[AmiMoJo]

But then people should just buy the cheapest, dirtiest energy and consumer products that they could lay their hands on, regardless of the effect on others. After a very long time lawsuits might step in the sort things out I guess. Alternatively the government could just ban all coal, gas and nuclear energy but that doesn't seem very practical.

Subsidy of the things we, collectively, need is a good idea.

Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[tysonedwards]

Cutting tax breaks for oil? 3, 2, 1, aaaaand boned.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[PopeRatzo]

Shouldn't we collectively agree on what is needed, before we collectively decide to pay for them? Is this a democratic republic?

You can have one or the other. You can be a "democratic republic" or you can decide things by "collective" agreement. Which one do you prefer?

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[khallow]

You can have one or the other.

Or you can have both or neither. There are four states after all, depending on which bits you set. Note here that by definition, democratic republics decide a number of things by collective agreement.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in other developed/First World countries.

Not in other countries that have the same level of medical resources.

For example, in the 1990's, there were more scan machines (MRI, CT, CAT) in Memphis, Tennessee, USA, than in all of Canada. Or, the recent/current stories of the UK's NIH telling the UK public that the level of care can't remain the same and will be diminished.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[guruevi]

If you don't mind making most foods and fuel unaffordable for the poorest. If you do decide to end all federal subsidies, you include immense amounts of farming and oil subsidies which the 'visible' subsidies between farming and oil are ~$500/person in the US.

If you don't raise wages, a family of 4 would suddenly have to spend $2000/year more on foods and fuel alone (~$160/month). That is not even including the $6000/year that the US government gives away to other big business such as banks and tech companies, retirement funding etc just to keep these companies from destroying either the environment or the workforce.

I would love to see our money go to 'better' companies but then you also need to stimulate a workforce that works 15-20h/week at double the current wages.

There is simply not enough work left in the US to keep everyone employed and things have gotten way too expensive to keep anything but farming here. The US is also lagging massively behind in education starting all the way at first grade and it will take at least 20 years before the first students capable of doing a proper job will graduate IF you reform the education system. As a comparison, I graduated from a "foreign" school at 18 (basically high school) with mathematics and science at a level of a second year bachelor's student in the US (some things I learned in the last year mathematics classes were multi-variable calculus, linear algebra, differential equations and geometry and an introduction to chaos theory).

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Maxo-Texas]

Things are so much better since we cut taxes for the wealthy.

The infrastructure is crumbling and college tuition which was free or nearly free now costs more than a luxury car at state universities.

We should have more of this dog eat dog stuff until we can share the glorious french experience of 1789 to 1799.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[kqs]

Sure it has; in the late 1800s and early 1900s there were almost no taxes and few subsidies. Everyone (but mostly the very rich) kept their money and spent it however they liked. The results were so unpleasant that the country decided that unions and OSHA, for all of their problems, were preferable to that state.

The problem with "spending our money as we see fit" is that we ignore externalities. I live in PA; our cheapest power comes from coal plants. Coal causes really bad health problems once it is burned and released into the air; modern exhaust scrubbers help but we still end up with lots of crud entering our lungs. But the health costs are an externality to the coal plants, so coal power's price is artificially low. I still pay the total cost in higher health care costs and a shorter working life, but it doesn't appear as a line item anywhere. By subsidizing solar panels and other less-polluting energies, the hope is to spend money now to reduce medicare and health insurance costs for the next 50 years. You may believe that this will not same you money overall, or that there is a better way to go about this, but it's not an illogical or crazy plan.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Immerman]

Because market inefficiencies make certain necessary adaptations effectively impossible.

For example, if Company A decides they want to be responsible corporate "citizens" and shift their energy consumption to sustainable sources, then they increase their costs and can no longer compete effectively with Company B unless there's a mass movement to purchase A's products because of their energy policy. And unfortunately the existence of Walmart and the like is proof enough that the mass of Americans consider up-front price to be the single most important factor in purchasing decisions, even when it increases their own long-term costs (a $50 appliance that needs to be replaced yearly is far more expensive than a $200 appliance that will last indefinitely), much less indirect social costs whose full weight won't be felt for generations.

Granted, at the moment if we removed all fossil-fuel subsidies renewable energy would look far more competitive, but to really level the playing field we would have to also impose new penalties on "socialized-cost subsidies" that have long been grandfathered in: Coal for example imposes phenomenal pollution costs at almost every stage. If however we imposed well-structured penalties/taxes to reflect the actual cost of reversing that damage then it would be one of the most expensive energy sources available.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[hattig]

Yes, ALL tax breaks for the oil and gas industry should be abolished.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[kqs]

No, actually. A democracy (direct or representative) uses "voting" to collectively decide things. Which is what we are doing when we go to the polls in November 2016. We'll never get 100% agreement, so you or I may decide that our opinions were ignored, but this is how democracy works. Non-collective agreements are what you get with dictators of various stripes who cannot be removed from office.

I'd be happier if the results were less skewed by billions of dollars of legal bribery (AKA campaign funding), but we've decided that we're okay with that, unfortunately.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Captain Hook]

I don't disagree with you about the external costs, but I've never been able to work out why the approximate external costs of an industry isn't directly charged to that industry as a licensing fee or additional tax charge.

Effectively, you are picking a possible winner (in this case Solar) instead of making the industry with lots of external costs pay their way fully and letting the market find the best alternative to that (whether it be Solar, or Geothermal, or even tiny little fusion reactors in every electric toothbrush)

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[bondsbw]

I'm not even for charging to the industry... I'm for charging the individual entities that are responsible.

An industry charge might look at two power companies and decide, because they both have $5 billion revenue per year and both use coal plants, both should pay $100 million in additional taxes.

An entity charge would look at those, and recognize that the second one is focused on clean energy and produces only 5% of the emissions that the first one does, and adjust the tax bill so that the first pays 20 times as much additional tax as the second.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Penguinisto]

External health costs? Do you have any idea how many highly toxic chemicals are used, in quantity, to turn polysilicon into a working solar cell? *

Better idea: Use environmental and workplace safety laws to enforce and minimize those health costs, instead of using the concept as a cudgel to push cronyism.

* I have worked in the solar industry - even the polycrystal and monocrystal cells use an astounding amount of toxic gases and fluids to prep and coat a solar cell, and don't ask what goes into a thin-film solar panel...

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Crashmarik]

yes, yes to more booze, guns and hookers. we need to spend more on that!

Absolutely after a day of hunting, give me a curvy redhead I only have to pay once and don't have to talk to, and a bottle of good scotch and that is money well spent. At least getting screwed by the hooker is a hell of a lot more fun than having the government do it.

Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Captain Splendid]

The problem with subsiding solar is that it causes the market to compete for subsidies instead of produceing a good product.

Funny, never once heard that complaint about oil, but renewables come along and all of a sudden it's all hand-wringing and embarrassed shrugs...

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[cayenne8]

Absolutely after a day of hunting, give me a curvy redhead I only have to pay once and don't have to talk to, and a bottle of good scotch and that is money well spent. At least getting screwed by the hooker is a hell of a lot more fun than having the government do it.

Ah....my kingdom for MOD points today!!

:)

The govt shouldn't be in the business of trying to mold or target my behavior. I fail to find in the US Constitution where that is one of its few, enumerated responsibilities and rights...

Look, I don't mind paying reasonable taxes, to fund common good things, schools, roads, etc. But that is best done by the states who are more directly answerable to MY needs locally.

I earn my my money, and should be able to spend it on anything legal I wish and I should not be having external forces, like the federal govt trying to mold my behavior by penalizing me with taxation.

That is simply NOT their job.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[DarkOx]

Better idea: Use environmental and workplace safety laws to enforce and minimize those health costs, instead of using the concept as a cudgel to push cronyism.

Except in 240 years of American government both under the Constitution and the Articles before it that has NEVER been successful. Cronyism has basically been the character of our government from the outset.

The only thing that has ever worked is to tie the hands of government and the framers knew it. Power corrupts!

A far better idea would be to eliminate liability protections, weaken the corporate veil, and stop government backed lending. Make industry responsible for the harm it can do. The tail pound from your mine leaked and now my farm land is useless. I should be able to sue the coal company for the economic value of my land and income it could have generated for my family for the next 10 generations and if the coal company goes bankrupt I should be able to collect from the share holders in proportion to the remaining liability and stock they own.

Oil spill same deal. Heavy metal toxicity from the shit your solar panel plant releases ditto. You want people and industry to behave responsibly the solution is unlimited liability.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Barsteward]

Check the Air Pollution section of this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"High cost" can mean death not just financial

worth a read as well http://www.env-health.org/IMG/...

Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[cayenne8]

Yeah, that's just what this country's over-leveraged home owners need---more loans.

And exactly who held a gun to those home owners' heads and forced them to take out loans way beyond their means?

If you don't know how to live within your means, manage your money like an adult, and overstretch yourself fiscally and fuckup and blow it and lose it....exactly who's fault is that?

And why would anyone suggest other folks having to be there to catch them when they fall?

The US is supposed to be free...free to succeed and free to fuck up.

Most good lessons in life are learned more from fucking up and having to deal with the repercussions.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[chilenexus]

As it is, we export much of our pollution production to China, since they provide the labor so much cheaper - because they don't bother much with pollution controls, workplace safety, or fair labor practices. They manufacture the goods and produce so much pollution that large cities have visibility reduced to only a few hundred meters. And we know that pollution on scales like that is not going to stay a local phenomenon, as winds blow, climates change, and wildlife dies.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Archangel Michael]

You wish that in your fellow man?

I don't wish that on anyone. Nobody does. And yet, we all still buy the stuff that is made in those factories. And instead of Americans working, we have Chinese working. We just moved the problem to another place. That is how economics solves problems (routing around them)

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[LifesABeach]

My questions to Clinton is, "Only big business is involved? Why can't americans be involved also?"

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[SydShamino]

So we think, now, 30 years after the fact, that the large amount of lead being released into the air from the automotive industry was responsible for the drastic increases in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s.

Even supposing we hadn't banned leaded gasoline, how exactly do you think the oil and gas industry would take to new efforts to tax their products today? Do you think consumers would enjoy it? Can we ever prove 100% that this was the cause? How many years back would we need to try to retroactively collect these taxes? Can we even legally do so? Just exactly how much do value do you assign to damaging a baby or young child's brain so that you can appropriate tax gasoline for the effect?

Now take everything I just said and apply it to carbon dioxide and global climate change and see how well it's working.

When applied to the commons - primarily the environment - unregulated capitalism is an absolute failure. Attempting to apply more market forces to it only works if your goal is to hasten the revolution that swings things too far in some other direction.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Firethorn]

An entity charge would look at those, and recognize that the second one is focused on clean energy and produces only 5% of the emissions that the first one does, and adjust the tax bill so that the first pays 20 times as much additional tax as the second.

Amazingly similar to what I proposed once, though I got jumped on it a bit.

I said that I'd get rid of all the 'thou shalt do' regulations in the EPA, the allowances and grandfathering, etc...

Instead, I'd charge for any pollution. Your power plant emits 1 ton of mercury into the atmosphere a year? That will be $X.

Figure out approximately how much damage X type of pollution in Y type(air, water, ground) causes - environment, medical, death, etc... Multiply by 110% or so to cover the administration costs. Charge the company.

Internalizing an external cost. Is the pollution not really that big of a deal, and cost-ineffective to handle? Pay the tax. Is it a big deal and it is cost-effective to remediate? They do that. Is it a big deal but not cost-effective? Obviously that economic activity is self-destructive to the country and needs to cease.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Zalbik]

Then whose job is it to address global concerns?

You are aware of the idea of the tragedy of the commons, correct?

Do you really expect the free market to magically solve global issues where the problem domain exists in the tens to hundreds of years rather than the next fiscal quarter? Why would it?

Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[Maxo-Texas]

Aye, and if you count the two trillion dollars we spent to protect oil fields, the subsidies are much higher than people realize for oil.

Imagine ... if we didn't do that. And oil went to $300 a barrel. We would have automatically gone to less expensive cars, solar would have surged into demand along with other alternative energies. We might have even worked on smaller, safer self contained- no human intervention nuclear power.

But since we engage in massive subsidies for sports stadiums, oil companies, banking companies-- I think the benefit (much lower cost solar panels) of subsidizing the early expensive iterations of solar panels will be a good bang for the buck. And reduce our need to spend two trillion dollars again in the future.

Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money

[GoChickenFat]

This is an interesting assertion that I would like to know more about. can you provide any sources for reference?

In the case of coal power, it's often found that the external costs per kWh is actually DOUBLE that of the internal costs. So if you get $50 of electricity from coal, it's actually costing you $150. This translates to you, on average, getting one extra upper respiratory tract infection each year, plus a small chance of lung cancer or other serious illness that can lead to death.

Yes, it's actually cheaper to spend $100 on cleaner electricity in the first place.

I live in coal fired power land and in my 4 decades I've never had an upper respiratory infection and neither has any of my immediate family. I also don't see respiratory issues in my friends and coworkers outside of those that smoke. For reference I can see a natural gas power plant out my window and I could drive 50 miles either way to a coal power plant - 100 miles to nuclear. My electricity cost is $.10/kwh.
Also, the following article give some insight to the high energy usage by at least hospitals: http://www.eia.gov/consumption... quote from article: "The 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) data showed that large hospitals (greater than 200,000 square feet) accounted for less than 1 percent of all commercial buildings and 2 percent of commercial floorspace, but consumed 4.3 percent of the total delivered energy used by the commercial sector in 2003"

Too much

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

She's getting a little ahead of herself there. She's assuming she will beat Trump.

Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply a reaction against Bernie Sanders. He is far more socialist than the original 'HIllary is a leftist (err center)' view and yet he is gaining ground (or beating Clinton in certain arenas).

I expect we'll see some republican candidates become more conservative as an action against Trump.

Also....who cares? These election promises are just hot smoke to blow up the public's collective ass. "Of course I love you, baby! No way, I'd never leave before breakfast!". etc.

Re:Reaction

[mc6809e]

Of course Hillary has no response to Bernie Sanders' honesty.

Whether one agrees with Bernie Sanders' ideology or not, you can trust Sanders to be honest.

Hillary believes lying is just part of playing the game and she will do anything to win.

Re:Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

It is certainly starting to look that way isn't it? As someone who has been in the White House before as FLOTUS and then part of the present administration as Secretary of State, she knows that Congress will not sign off on this plan to spend $60 billion by taking it from oil and gas subsidies. It might (MIGHT) be a good idea, but she knows as well as we do that it won't fly and won't make it through Congress. So why promise it? It is the classic "chicken in every pot" promise that comes down to "I thought I could get it done, but the President doesn't have as much power as I thought" crap. And SHE KNOWS BETTER.

Re:Reaction

[asylumx]

And SHE KNOWS BETTER.

Sure, all the candidates know better -- but many voters don't. They believe what they want to believe. For example when gas prices go up under a democrat president you'll hear right-wingers crying about how the president causes it and left-wingers claiming he doesn't have control. When the prices go down you'll hear right-wingers claiming he had nothing to do with it and left-wingers claiming he made it all better. Vice versa for a republican president. Nobody cares what the president can actually do when they are at the polls, they only care that what the candidate said resonates with their world view, however rational or bat-shit crazy it may be.

You and I can tell the difference between a blind campaign promise and a plan for something that's actually achievable, but many people either can't or won't make the effort to do that. That's what drags our political discourse down a series of tubes. We, collectively, get the candidates we deserve. The fact that the best candidates available right now are people like Donald Trump is a reflection of our own society, sadly.

Two birds with one stone

[ArcadeMan]

I hate that saying though... what did those poor little birds do to you?!

Her plan would cost roughly $60 billion over 10 years, and she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.

She wants to cut tax breaks to industries that are making billions in profit to help make her country less dependant on limited ressources.

She'd have my vote except for the fact that I don't live in the U.S.A.

Re:Two birds with one stone

[DrXym]

If they're making billions in profits then why are they getting tax breaks? Besides, who's to say that renewables won't make billions in due course? Not just directly either for the company but indirectly in terms of air quality, health (& premiums), pollution etc.

Re:Two birds with one stone

[ArcadeMan]

Bet you didn't know that Exxon also sells solar stuff.

If Exxon is a purely an energy company and not just an oil company, it makes sense for them to try to plan ahead. Very "soon" it won't be profitable to search/drill/pump/transport oil anymore. For all we know, Exxon could be the best energy company decades in the future. It still won't remove all the pollution they made though.

By the way, where are these panels being made?

Probably "Made in China".

Re:Two birds with one stone

[PopeRatzo]

By the way, where are these panels being made?

They're being made in countries that started subsidizing their solar industries years ago.

Re:Two birds with one stone

[ArcadeMan]

If you think Obama is a socialist, you don't understand the meaning of the word. The U.S.A. is as capitalist as ever, the poor be damned.

Re:Two birds with one stone

[Mr D from 63]

I hate that saying though... what did those poor little birds do to you?!

And if you do want to kill birds, invest in wind, not solar!

Re:Two birds with one stone

[oh_my_080980980]

Seriously? Exxon Mobile makes BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in NET profits per quarter and they still get a subsidy! Give me a break. The oil industry not longer needs subsidies. That's a bull shit argument for keeping the subsidies in place.

I have my own promise

[StikyPad]

I promise I'll vote for any semi-competent alternative candidate who is not part of the Clinton/Bush family. Hell, I might even just write in Elizabeth Warren.

Re:I have my own promise

[Karmashock]

... can we try to vote for someone that hasn't been CAUGHT lying... yet?

Look, I know all politicians are liars but do we have to be so desensitized to it to actually vote for people that were caught lying?

There are plenty of politicians on both sides that haven't been caught lying. Pick one of them please.

Re:I have my own promise

[PopeRatzo]

... can we try to vote for someone that hasn't been CAUGHT lying... yet?

So, you're a Bernie Sanders supporter?

Which of the GOP hopefuls hasn't been caught lying yet?

Re:I have my own promise

[Karmashock]

We have two parties for the same reason that there were two sides in WW2. The only way to get more parties is to lower the stakes of power such that people feel comfortable to stand on principle.

That is... you need to make people comfortable enough to not choose the lesser of evils simply to win.

Everyone is going to vote republican or democrat... red or blue... team 1 or team 2... and what holds either side together is not any central idea or shared values... its hatred/fear of the opposition. That's it.

Think Libertarians and social cons like each other? They view each other as cannon fodder. And you get the same thing on the left. Think Greens and industrial unions like each other? Nope.

As the man said, political parties is how we organize our animosities. You don't choose one side or the other based on liking one thing or another more but because you DON"T like something more.

That is the nature of the parties. They're both clubs of people that don't like the other club.

And why don't they like the other club? Because the cost of losing is too high. Republicans lost an election and the ACA happened out of fucking no where. Democrats lose an election and who knows what could happen. But the thing is that raises the stakes such that you can't let the opposition win. And that means you can't shake and be friends. And that means you afford to do anything but choose your faction of choice... dig in like its WW1... and tell gallows humor jokes while the rubble from artillary shells rains down on your mates in the trenches.

There are solutions to this... but there is no way out of this unless the power of government is cut back to something that is small enough that people don't get so worked up when an election goes one way or the other.

There are factions in both parties that don't want government power to be cut back... and those are the factions that are causing the problem. Because when the government can change everything based on a few percentage points in an election... then there is going to be hate. No way out of it unless the power is scaled back and too many people are married not only to the existing power but expanding it.

This is going to get a lost worse until it gets better.

Re:I have my own promise

[phantomfive]

Have you ever lied?

Re:I have my own promise

[Karmashock]

I have never told a lie professionally.

I have never lied to a business associate or a boss or a subordinate about something that was work related.

I've never run for office so I can neither say nor not say I haven't lied to political constituent since I've never had one.

Some politicians are well known to lie and lie often. Hillary has become pathetic on the issue lately. I mean, even her supporters know she's a fucking liar. They don't even deny it anymore.

But not all politicians have that sort of record.

Warren is another well known liar.

Please pick a candidate that isn't a well known piece of shit.

And when she reneges

[MikeRT]

And on top of it, you get a level of transparency the resembles what a blackhole does to sunlight her supporters will be just shocked--SHOCKED--that voting for a candidate with her horrendous record on honesty backfired on them.

I mean FFS, I'm generally a conservative and I'd vote for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat over her even though he's an avowed Socialist because at least the man seems to have some real integrity and respect for the middle class.

Re:And when she reneges

[fustakrakich]

Bernie Sanders is a sheep dog, herding 'hippie' money into the democratic party. He is not opposing Hillary. In fact he already said he will endorse her when she wins the nomination. This is a tag team. And the cynicism couldn't be more obvious. It's a shame people aren't seeing through the facade.

Re:Storage?

[kenaaker]

You use the electricity and solar heat to create methane with a Sabatier reaction, and dump the methane into the national natural gas pipeline system. The gas becomes part of the 7-30 day reserve supply and runs the gas turbine peaking plants. There is a German pilot plant that has been running since 2012 and further development is planned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas has more information.

She can give me 30 of them

[Lumpy]

I'll even do the install on my home myself.
  give me 30 monocrystalline current tech 300 watt panels. 9000 Watt Hour will reduce my carbon footprint dramatically, in fact I will use a syncing inverter that will push my excess power back to the grid so that my neighbors can benefit from it.

I'll even put a sign in my yard for her if she does this.

Note to the uneducated that will pipe in, This is how most solar installations work, grid intertied syncing inverters without battery storage are incredibly common for solar installs. No it doesn't cost the power company anything.

Re:She can give me 30 of them

[bobbied]

Yes, it DOES cost the power company.... Even if they don't pay you for the power you generate.

The electric grid needs to be stable, that requires that every watt of power being used, must be instantly available when the demand for it happens. When you hit that light switch, the power to run the light must be instantly generated someplace, turn that light off and the system must stop providing that power, instantly. This instant power on/off capacity is actually done using mechanical storage in the spinning parts of power generation plants.

Solar panels and inverters have no such storage capacity, they push power into the system when the sun shines, and stop doing that when it doesn't. This means that on cloudy days there is a large variation in the power available from photovoltaic solar sources. This variation can be averaged over large areas, but there remains a lot of uncertainty in how much power will be available at any instant, because it's really hard to forecast with accuracy where a cloud or thunder storm will be formed and where it will go.

So, this leads to how photovoltaic solar has "cost" for your electric provider. Because of the uncertainty of how much power your solar panels will have available, the provider must maintain sufficient margin available to handle the instantaneous load of the entire system. So they are burning fuel to be ready to produce electricity they are unlikely to use because of the unpredictable nature of photovoltaic solar and not knowing if they will get what they expect from that source or not.

In addition, there are transmission grid efficiency issues that come into play. It is really hard to keep the grid efficient when you know where and when you've scheduled power to be available and when and where it will be used. With the load variance introduced from a photovoltaic power source this problem becomes even more difficult. Power companies respond by using less efficient, but more stable configurations and power flows because of this varying load within the system. This inefficiency costs them as well.

So, I'm not saying that it's all bad for power companies. Being able to buy power from your solar panels at your retail rate during peak load where the going spot rate may be triple or more is a good thing for them, but I am saying that there ARE costs in efficiency and complexity for them.

Then there is a safety issue that's not talked about too much when the power grid goes down in local areas. Your Photovoltaic system can be pretty lethal for linemen if left connected when the power grid is down. Hopefully you have an inverter that figures out pretty quick when the line voltage and frequency is out of working range and shuts down, but there is a risk things won't work as expected and somebody gets hurt. It's a minor issue, but it does have cost for electric providers.

Re:Storage?

[Lumpy]

By using it to electrocute puppies.

Re:Vapor Funding

[Mr D from 63]

Cutting tax breaks sounds like a viable funding scheme on its face, but in the modern accounting regime that'll simply drive fossil fuel profits to offshore subsidiaries, with no substantial funding increase.

Cutting existing subsidies, conversely, offers real money to finance programs like this.

Its not a funding scheme. Its a get elected scheme. Net cost and cost benefit considerations are not even a part of it. The formula is "punish big evil companies, give away stuff to the masses". It works.

Re:How big is a "solar panel"?

[ArcadeMan]

The best way to maximize solar panel efficiency is to put them into orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Storage?

[Karmashock]

The only way it becomes enviro friendly is if it is distributed.

The big problem with the green power plant concept is that they are building power plants. These are distributed energy sources. Put them on houses.

Instead of giving the subsidies to corporations, give them to TAX PAYERS to buy panels to off set their energy usage.

Especially in places that are hot... because they have sun and their air conditioners will sync up with their solar power generation.

Don't even worry about other parts of the country. Hit the suburbs first. Possibly some rural communities.

here someone will say "what about the cities"... nuclear power.

For hundreds of years to come probably that will be the best answer for cities. People will say "but they're dangerous"... power is always dangerous. The first person to discover fire said "Ouch"... You make peace with the danger and you respect it. But shunning it because it is dangerous means you sleep in the cold.

Respect it. The Japanese plant that everyone is exercised about had shitty maintenance. They were doctoring their reports to make it look like they were doing their jobs but they weren't. Result? Problems. You don't follow procedure in a powder mill and don't be surprised when it explodes.

That's how this works. Nuclear power is wonderful. We could completely remove fossil fuels from our power grid with nuclear alone. economically.

No other technology will let us do that.

"green" power makes up about 4 percent of US generation minus the hydro. If you want to add the hydro that's still only 10 percent. Nuclear even though we haven't built a plant since the 1970s and many plants have closed... nuclear is comfortably around 22~25 percent of our power. Coal alone is about 45 percent of US electrical generation. And the balance is other fossil fuels.

Nothing short of nuclear is making a dent in that.

So choose. Nuclear or coal. Because unless your country has lots of Hydro like Canada... that's what you're doing. Anyone else that tells you differently is blowing green smoke up your ass.

Normal human translation

[RogueWarrior65]

What this means to the layperson is, "The solar industry can't survive on its own and needs a crap-ton of subsidies to keep it afloat."
This didn't work in the 70s but I guess because "the right people" will be in charge, it'll work this time around.

Re:Normal human translation

[ArcadeMan]

The same could be said for the oil and gas industries. With billions in pure profits, why the fuck are they still getting subsidies and tax breaks?

Re:Normal human translation

[ArcadeMan]

If something is making enough profits to break even (or better), it shouldn't be getting subsidies at all.

Re:Normal human translation

[tomhath]

Tax deduction for the costs of doing business aren't subsidies. Please stop confusing the two.

Re:A good start

[Karmashock]

Its not going to make any difference because it isn't a systemic change. And what is more, people keep thinking the big corps don't like the green movement. THEY LOVE IT. The pork spending in the name of the environment has been legendary. All the corps are feeding on the issue at this point. They all have some green product or green initiative and they all get big grants from the feds for it.

These solar panels... We're talking about the clintons here... there will be quid pro quo on who gets the contract.

Star-Lord

[sycodon]

That has to be the most paranoid, pedantic and inane wiki article I've ever read.

The term "Democrat..." has been used countless times by DEMOCRATS themselves on television for as long as I can remember.

You might as well get your panties in a twist because people don't call you "Star-Lord".

Suburban thinking

[Applehu Akbar]

Rooftop solar is a great offset for energy usage in sunny parts of the country where the construction is all one-story. Now what about the high-rise apartment buildings in cities where the roof area per inhabitant is tiny and where buildings shade each other at different times of the day? Renewable power sources are highly situational, in that the type and availability of each source, and how they might mesh together, is heavily dependent on location. Then consider demand: a household may not mind having to wait to turn the oven on until the sun is high, while an industrial user has no such option.

If Hillary wants the government to help, there is a better way to do it than having it subsidize all the "good" energy and hope for the best. Fix the legal system so that all forms of energy construction are limited only by the siting and safety standards that apply to that source, with the religious preferences of political pressure groups losing all legal standing to interfere. Capital will then flow to energy projects that are the best for each place.

Re:Suburban thinking

[Jeremi]

The technical problems you mention have obvious solutions.

Not enough roof space on a high-rise to supply power to all of its residents? No problem, just put the solar panels somewhere else instead. Wires make it easy to move electricity from one place to another.

Need more power when the sun isn't shining? That's a bit more expensive to solve, but the solution is obvious -- generate excess power in advance and store it in batteries, so that it is available when you need it. The cell phone, laptop, tablet, and electric car markets are all driving the costs of battery storage down to the point where this will soon be economical to do at scale.

Re:Hopefully the actual plan defines the terms

[Mr D from 63]

$60 Billion for 500 million panels = $120 per panel. Of course, panel size is not specified (not a needed detail when hawking votes), but the present incentives are more than that per panel if you are talking $1kw panels or larger. Is she proposing a reduction in incentives?

Re:Democratic nomination not Democrat nomination

[PPH]

unless you're a Republican

Shouldn't that read "unless you're a Republic"?

Re:Oil companies will spend up big on Republicans

[bobbied]

You act like Oil Companies care about solar panels.... They don't. Let me explain why...

Solar panels exclusively generate electricity, Oil companies have little to do with electricity. Yea, they sell natural gas to electric producers, but that's the limit of their involvement in electricity production. Natural gas production is not a huge money maker right now, prices are down even though demand is up and there is little expectation that this changes in the next decade. Oil companies don't care about solar panels or wind farms because they don't have anything to do with their core business. Start messing with fuel oil, gasoline and other Oil based industrial production, then you might get some interest from big oil.

Of course this Clinton position is about appealing to the liberal environmentalists. Now THAT does interest Big Oil because this position implies a national energy position that is slanted in a way that impacts the ability of oil companies to produce more domestically. Solar panels don't matter to this, but it's the rest or the implied policy that this solar panel idea betrays.

So you are parroting what really amounts to a "liberal lie", which amounts to a misrepresentation of what is really going on. Big Oil doesn't oppose solar panels... They simply don't care...

Re:Storage?

[compro01]

What's the issue with lead-acid batteries? They're one of the most recycled things around.

Re:So now?!?!!!

[bobbied]

she intends to pay for it by cutting tax breaks to the oil and gas industry.

Wow so now she is backing out of the race entirely? If she was actually serious about it she would never get elected. My guess is if elected those cuts would mysteriously change place and come from somewhere with less money flowing into Washington.

Actually, one needs to specify what tax breaks she thinks she's talking about.. What tax break is given to oil companies that isn't given to other types of businesses too? I dare say, she's intending to cripple the whole economic system in this country, or she's intending to single out one specific industry for "special" treatment concerning things like capital equipment depreciation and deduction of business expenses for paying leases and insurance..

Hillary Canute

[div_2n]

Current projections I've seen show about that many being installed regardless of what political efforts are underway. So she's basically pulling a Canute. That's really bold and ambitious of her. /s

Re:How big is a "solar panel"?

[Jeremi]

I'm kind of wondering where they would all go.
If each panel was a square meter, that's 193 square miles of solar panels.

193 square miles is 0.006% of the surface area of the United States.

Or, if we wanted to only put the solar panels on existing residential roofs -- there are currently about 6184 square miles of residential roof space in the USA. (ref)

nice pivot.

[nimbius]

public: what about rampant police abuse of power?
the constant unending stream of shadow money into political campaigns?
the nearly endless war on terror and our secret torture prison in Cuba?
What are you going to do about the impending student loan collapse and the rampant US unemployment fueled by abusive trade agreements that are largely unreported?
what approach will you take to immigration reform?
How will you address the growing number of domestic mass shootings?
What is your approach to the continued neglect of social security? the highway trust? the Veterans Administration?
Clinton: Free solar panels for everything forever.

Tax breaks for oil and gas?

[TwoEyedJack]

What exactly is she talking about? Every company has to follow GAAP accounting. Expenses are deducted from earnings to arrive at profits, which are taxed at rates set by federal law. Depreciation schedules are also set by law. Is she talking about requiring gas and oil companies to follow more punitive tax laws, which have not been written or passed? Is it even legal to treat some companies differently than others depending on their product?

Re:She is better then jeb bush

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Not trolling here, but you assume a lot of people think all those are a bad thing.

My check from the government is my earned entitlement. Your check from the government is an amoral welfare. Paul Ryan hates Social Security, but when he drew Social Security to get to college, it was somehow fine. Even Ayn Rand drew government checks.

Also JEB Bush is redundant, like typing your PIN Number on an ATM Machine. J.E.B. is an acronym for John Elliot Bush. The Bush is redundant, much like Bushes in general ;) Ok, that last part was a troll, but the first part not, I swear.

Is it like Romney's 2$ gasoline?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Romney in 2012 made dramatic and what he thought would create shock value by promising 2$ a gallon gasoline. Obama actually saw 2$ gasoline for a brief period! Free market has a way of doing things no one predicted.

The current trend is 500 million new solar panels without any special action by any legislator/executive. Simple market forces and trend lines. Residential solar is becoming competitive with subsidies and net metering. Utility scale solar is on track to become competitive with natural gas in a few years. It is already competitive with coal for fresh installations. No new coal plant has come on line this year and last. The pipeline is dry too. Number of coal plants have fallen from 633 to 518 in the last decade. Coal has lost 20 GW of capacity in that time, and is on track to lose another 40 GW. Natural gas providing base load and solar meeting the peak load is going to become the norm in the next 10 years. No new breakthrough in energy storage, no battery wall made by Elon Musk, no widespread investment by home owners needed. Simple existing technologies, free market forces, interest rates and world flush with 2 trillion in capital not knowing where to invest for good returns.

So half billion new solar panels might happen no matter who wins, Hilary or Jeb! or Walker or Trump or Bernie. We might even look back and see Hilary's half a billion solar panels the same way we look at Romney's 2$ gasoline.

Promises, Promises

[SuperKendall]

She also set a goal of installing half a billion new solar panels within her first term

Come on, even working four years straight there's no way she can install that many solar panels!

On the other hand, if she's doing that there's no way she has time to screw up the country like past presidents... OK, i'm in, as long as she keeps her promise to just install solar panels.

Re:Democratic nomination not Democrat nomination

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'm voting for Bernie, the Independent Social.

like typical left, she has it wrong.

[WindBourne]

We need to drop the subsidies and simply say that all buildings less than 6 stories are to have enough on-site AE to equal the energy used for the HVAC (and require AC as well). In addition, the local utility must buy any daily extra at the maximum price that it costs them to buy electricity from elsewhere.

If she gets that passed, then not only will it put a stop to energy growth, but it will pretty much encourage cheaper buildings, and storage mechanism.

Where in the US Constitution.....

[cayenne8]

Hmm.

I"m still trying to thumb through my US Constitution and find where within the enumerated responsibilities and rights of the Federal Govt. that it is charged with picking winners and losers in industry. Also,where in there is the Fed govt supposed to figure out health costs of one industry vs another and penalize one over another?

And no, it has nothing to do with the "General Welfare" parts....

Re:Where in the US Constitution.....

[D.McG.]

It has everything to do with the general well-being of the populace. "Life" is referenced a few times in the constitution. If coal byproducts will shorten my "Life" then I'm all for the government to at least pick out the losers. Now, since we cannot be left without electricity after taking down coal, I'm also fine with folks proposing an alternative. Classic "don't complain without a solution". Clinton is proposing a solution. That's all it is, a proposal if elected.

Re:Where in the US Constitution.....

[shutdown -p now]

It has everything to do with the general well-being of the populace. "Life" is referenced a few times in the constitution.

You might want to be careful with that line of thinking. For example, forcing you to exercise would also measurably lengthen your life; do you want the government to be able to mandate such a thing?

Re:She is better then jeb bush

[DarkOx]

My check from the government is my earned entitlement. Your check from the government is an amoral welfare. Paul Ryan hates Social Security, but when he drew Social Security to get to college, it was somehow fine. Even Ayn Rand drew government checks.

Because as an individual its not a moral act. You leave nothing on the frigging table. Rand and Ryan I am sure never voted to support those programs, they also never voted for the taxes and regulations they labored under before or after utilizing them.

If there were an option to opt out of society and only opt back in when the time to collect comes that would be wrong. The way I figure it even though I totally support dismantling most of what the federal government does until someone tells me I don't have to file a 1040 form and sends me a check re-reimbursing me with interest for all the various activities my tax dollars have paid for along the way that I did not support you better believe I feel entitled to collect from and utilize programs I qualify for. I did not vote for them, I did not get my way. My fellow citizens did however.

Its a democratic republic. We take the consequences of elections good or bad. There is nothing wrong with voting to end programs, distributions, etc and still taking advantage of them if you loose. That is inherit in the rules of our society.

Re:She is better then jeb bush

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I forgot to put something in my original rant... and Slashdot doesn't allow editing of comments, so I'll post this here.

Paul Ryan rails against people getting their entitlements. He calls people who take those entitlements freeloaders. Yet he himself took an entitlement. Why is he allowed to get his entitlement, yet others, who don't want to "leave anything on the table" bad? It's duplicitous. And technically, Ryan wasn't even entitled to it directly, it was his dad's SS benefits. Also, his family had enough cash to send him to college, but he took the government entitlement. Again, leave nothing on the table is fine, but that's not my point.

I don't mind either Rand nor Ryan taking benefits. I don't even think Ryan duplicitous for trying to dismantle the same program that spawned him - though I view it short sighted. What bugs me is people who take entitlements who rail against others taking entitlements. Either don't take any, or shut up about others taking the same help you took.