PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Can most of us agree that energy subsidies, whether fossil, renewable or nuclear are generally bad then? And are are thus better kept to a minimum.

Also should the all the cost of the pollution and other side effects should be borne by the producer?
Side effects being bird kill, safe nuclear safeguards, loss  of value of land if used for the energy plants, risk of climate change etc, cost of upgrading distribution infrastructure to handle micro generators.
Obviously impossible to put an exact figure on these but as a general principle.

I personally think get rid of all subsidies but charge the entire cost of generation including side effects.

[coppice]

Simple fact:  Solar power produced 125 Terrawatt hours of electricity in 2013 and is growing exponentially.

Apologies if that fact terminates your thinking.

The page you quote shows a straight line increase in solar energy production for the past 4 years. There is no hint of exponential growth in their figures. The increase in capacity looks like its pretty much at the rate that existing production facilities can produce additional cells and panels. However, in the last year panel prices seem to have been in free fall. Is that because of a lot of new production capacity, or a collapse in demand?

[dannyf]

What the liberal socialist environmental fanatics could never answer is that if green energy is so good, why do they insist on me funding it for them?

I am perfectly fine that the tree huggers keep this good stuff all to themselves, no sharing is required, please,

[dannyf]

You will notice that Spain has many entries on that list.

That's also a country where its solar power market is collapsing due to the unexpected cut in subsidies to the solar power generators. Good luck to those investors in those solar projects, and good luck to the rate payers.

[zapta]

So you are ready to give up driving your car and heating your home? That's what you are arguing for. Get rid of all the direct subsidies and the price sky-rockets, get rid of the indirect subsidy (wars, industrial espionage etc.) and you are back to gathering wood to stay warm.

If they direct subsidies are real I am paying for them anyway (guess where the government gets its money?). As for the indirect ones, as usual the PV proponents make up stuff to extract more money from others. The war necessity for example is a myth, China gets its oil without being involved in wars.

Mojo Chan, your ongoing attempts to scare us to support your pet cause is futile.

[zapta]

1.  Subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear power with several references have been presented on this forum multiple times and are repeatedly ignored by those pushing a political agenda.  They are readily available to anyone who knows how to use Google.  For those too lazy to do that you can start HERE and HERE

Ok, let's look at your first link, in the US section it says (I am taking it on its face value)

"Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines."

percentage depletion allowances - a quick search suggests that this allows to deduct as expense amounts higher than the initial investment to acquire the resource. I am not an accountant but this looks like a subsidy to me and should stop.

exemptions from price controls - calling this a subsidy is a stretch.

higher-than-average rates of return - that's government interfering less with the market. calling this a subsidy is a stretch.


This small subsampling suggests to me that the fossil subsidies you claim are exaggerated.

[coppice]

The page you quote shows a straight line increase in solar energy production for the past 4 years. There is no hint of exponential growth in their figures. The increase in capacity looks like its pretty much at the rate that existing production facilities can produce additional cells and panels. However, in the last year panel prices seem to have been in free fall. Is that because of a lot of new production capacity, or a collapse in demand?

It looks exponential to me. Here is another page with more detail, and a larger version of the same graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

Note how Europe is way ahead, because we give a shit. Falling prices are due to improved manufacturing and increasing demand.

2010    30.4    0.14%
2011    58.7    0.27%   
2012    93.0    0.41%   
2013    124.8    0.54%

Those last 4 years, where the percentage had finally become significant, look like a very straight line. Before 2010 there is some tendency for their numbers to ramp in an ascending curve, but the figures are so low there that a real trend is hard to see.

[zapta]

Sadly, the US doesn't. Besides which, one of the reasons China is constantly trying to claim Japanese water is because there is oil under it. They don't really care about those uninhabited islands or a few fishing boats. They spend money sending military ships and aircraft into the area, forcing Japan to waste money defending it.

Chinese/Japanese conflicts happened way before we started to rely on underground fossil resources.

If PV is such a great technology, it will succeed on its own, without forcing people to pay for it.

[zapta]

If they direct subsidies are real I am paying for them anyway (guess where the government gets its money?).

Surely if you are against such subsidies you should start by not benefiting from them. Prove that you can live off un-subsidised fuels.

Free people don't need to prove anything to you or to their government so they can keep their money. Your view on personal liberty looks very awkward from here.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--The Governments subsidize nuclear projects, because they want the power, else wise nuclear power would not exist because fearmongering has made it impossible for insurance companies to provide coverage.

--The oil companies in the USA are provided various subsidies for drilling in places where the government wants them to drill. It is important to note that the governments make three to six times as much per gallon of gas in taxes as the oil companies make in profits, then come the corporate income taxes. Thus the net subsidy is from the oil companies to the governments and not the other way around.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html

--And now that gas prices in the USA are way down the Democrats are itching to increase Fed tax by 200% or about 50 cents per gallon.

--The NY Slimes likes to have it both ways. First they say that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, then the say soldiers were injured when thousands of artillery rounds of mustard and sarin gas were found. But how can this be because we all know that "No weapons of mass destructions were ever found, nya, nya ,nya."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

--But of course the fact still remains that the courthouse solar project is a dead loser financially, and no one is arguing otherwise. If, harumph, the equipment lasts 50 years, the government might get its money back. This is so typical of the large projects. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone would want to continue making loosing investments like this one.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. "
Margaret Thatcher  1925  -  2013

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[coppice]

Those last 4 years

Ah, I see, the old cherry-picking the time frame trick.

Ah, I see, the old no real argument so say something random trick. 

[XynxNet]

What the liberal socialist environmental fanatics could never answer is that if green energy is so good, why do they insist on me funding it for them?

They want a level field and a fair market.
Epic payback of all non-green-energy subsidaries past and present would be an alternative. Unfortunately it would sink our economy. So that's not an option.

[dannyf]

the old cherry-picking the time frame trick.

Isn't that how Michael Mann and Company arrived at those hockey stick temperature chart used as basis for global warming?

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--There is a definite pattern here with these government funded ripoffs of the taxpayers, be they millions like in Tampa, hundreds of millions like Solyndra or the Big Casino, the Ivanpah Bird Burner. The 2.2 billion dollar Ivanpah solar thermal project is producing a forth of the energy promised. So Google and company are trying to obtain a federal grant for 539 million to help pay back the 1.6 billion federal loan, meanwhile these deadbeats are stiffing the government for the loan payments. Have been expecting same.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111114-725969-rich-ivanpah-owners-want-taxpayers-to-pay-for-their-mistake.htm

"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, it's produced only a quarter of the power it was promised to generate."

--Again, the same pattern; Promise the moon. Have a bunch of glad handing politicians pose with shovels and cutting ribbons. Then deliver crap, avoid paying the money back, and beg for more, while the press moves on to promoting the next juggernaut renewable project, and the taxpayers bear the brunt.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanpah-solar-project-owners-delay-repaying-loans-documents-say-1411488730
[quote only, rest of article behind pay wall"

"The world's largest solar thermal electricity project is applying for a federal grant—to pay off its federal loan.
In order to pull that off, the owners of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project, NRG Energy Inc., Google Inc. and venture capital-backed BrightSource Energy Inc., have delayed repaying hundreds of millions of dollars of the project's federal loans from several months to a year, according to documents."

"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid."
Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) 1835  -  1910
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

It's pretty amazing that someone can still claim with a straight face that the Iraq Invasion was about WMD's. Is there anyone but the Neo-con kool-aid drinkers who still believes that?

But even if one did believe that - it still does not discredit the historical record of trillions of dollars of both foreign aid and military spending to protect access to oil in the Middle East and Africa - either directly or by protecting our partners in the House of Saud.

From our long history of involvement with Iran and Saudi Arabia to the The Carter Doctrine that basically said "that oil is ours", to the gulf war which of course lead to our military bases in Saudi Arabia, the rise of Al Queda, 9/11, Afgahnistan, the "search for WMD's" and the Iraq War, the "war on terror", Libya, ISIL, and on and on.

Any student of our history of  involvement in the Persian Gulf and North Africa understands that it has always been about access to oil.  Even politically conservative scholars acknowledge that.

As for the worldwide exponential growth of installed solar power - the facts are the facts:

[zapta]

They want a level field and a fair market.
Epic payback of all non-green-energy subsidaries past and present would be an alternative. Unfortunately it would sink our economy. So that's not an option.

Then advocate stopping future subsidies (I mean the real ones, not the imaginary ones some posters keep mentioning) rather then perpetuate the problem.  Two wrongs to not make right. Let your technology win on its merit, not on its politics.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--I am not aware of anyone in this thread discussing the rationale for the second Iraq war. I merely cited a NY Times article which mentioned that 5000 gas artillery rounds had been found, shortly after that war, to correct a previous erroneous statement to the contrary. So far, Tea Partiers and Kool Aid drinkers, who are not present in this discussion have been cited as red herrings. What next? Thirsty fundamentalists and conservative coffee klatchers.

--Back on topic. I really cannot see how energy subsidies to fossil and nuclear, can justify a 2.2 billion dollar project that performs at one forth of what was promised. Fossil subsidies are a very small fraction of what the government takes in from taxes on them. I doubt very much that the same can be said for renewable subsidies.

“Had his brain been constructed of silk, he would have been hard put to it to find sufficient material to make a canary a pair of cami-knickers.”
P. G. Wodehouse 1881 - 1975

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

Let your technology win on its merit, not on its politics.

And that sentence right there reveals the underlying motivations behind the incessant efforts of some to deny the ongoing and inevitable continued growth of renewable energy.  For some it's all about winning and politics. 

As for winning strictly on it's merits - you'd have to believe in fairies and unicorns to believe that any technology threatening the profits of the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries would be allowed to do any such thing.

[zapta]

As for winning strictly on it's merits - you'd have to believe in fairies and unicorns to believe that any technology threatening the profits of the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries would be allowed to do any such thing.

Your paranoia is a poor justification to take my tax money to subsidize your pet cause.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

And that sentence right there reveals the underlying motivations behind the incessant efforts of some to deny the ongoing and inevitable continued growth of renewable energy.  For some it's all about winning and politics.
As for winning strictly on it's merits - you'd have to believe in fairies and unicorns to believe that any technology threatening the profits of the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries would be allowed to do any such thing.

--So, the (exponential) continued growth of renewable energy is inevitable. And if you do not believe in a conspiracy of nuke and fossil to prevent this inevitability, then you are a nut cake, right? Next we will be hearing about the suppression, by fossil energy company skulduggery, of the 700MPG carburetor.   

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Eric Arthur Blair - George Orwell 1903 -1950

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SeanB]

Sarge, and if you looked at where they came from originally you will find the Made in USA stickers on them, or at least on a lot of the parts, and the plant. Saddam was the proud owner of presses that could forge US currency flawlessly, as he bought the presses, the inks and the paper from the US treasury, and had everything from the USA, including the numbering dies, just needing the copied plates to do the work. Bought to make Dinars.

South Africa also supplied some serious firepower to them, and the US military was pretty worried about the artillery that they had, seeing as it was developed in SA and both would pound them from far away, out of their range, and still hit with better accuracy at extreme range. Those 155m shells were supplied in some quantity, but the US has not as yet found all of them, orall the G6 and G5 launchers. There is also is a lot of small arms and such that just "disappeared" and still is missing. There is a lot of desert to hide stuff there, though a lot did move over borders. Then there is the stuff that was designed and built in house as well.

We joked that the only places the US invaded was for the oil and minerals. If they discover oil you get worried.

[SgtRock]

Dear Sean:

--Good points. The USA and UK were also quite happy to sell Saddam the parts for the Gerald Bull Super Gun, which Israel would have no doubt destroyed long before it went into action. It does seem likely that the guns purpose was to deliver something other than high explosive. Fascinating technology in any case.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/babongun.htm

"Does not squirrel crack nuts on bough of oak tree."
Lao Fu  1411  -  1623

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

if you do not believe in a conspiracy of nuke and fossil to prevent this inevitability, then you are a nut cake, right?

Huh?  who said anything about conspiracies?  Is it really that difficult to understand why those industries spend hundreds of millions a year to actively lobby for their financial interests?

The continued growth of Solar PV is inevitable -despite those like yourself who seem to make a career out of starting topics on discussion forums to discredit it. 

But - as I've said before it will never be able to fully replace fossil fuels - nothing will. In fact without fossil fuels there would be no ability to manufacture, transport and install solar PV.  It's not as black and white as you and others seem  to want to make it out to be.
.

[mtdoc]

a poor justification to take my tax money to subsidize your pet cause.

If you believe solar PV is my or anyone elses "pet cause" then I really don't think you understand the issue at all.

You might as well call building roads and bridges the "pet cause" of someone driving a car, or the physics research the "pet cause" of an engineer. How about the building of the dams on the Columbia and Colorado rivers?  Where those the "pet cause" of the hundreds of millions who have benefited from them?

I get the whole Libertarian thing, really I do.  I even agree with a large portion of it. But I think it's pretty obvious that there's something more than a few pennies on their tax bill motivating those who feel the need to constantly be badgering about "my tax money" only when it involves Solar PV, EVs, etc.

[zapta]

Of course it is. Different people have different top priorities that require other people money. In your case you chose PV.