Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 66 to 78 of 112
  1. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "if the government decides that no one can spend over $100 to heat and cool their house every year it will automatically happen??"

    Obviously the government can't control your thermostat direclty, but they can enforce minimum codes that are for societies good. Like minimum insulation which reduces how much you indirectly use the thermostat.

    Ever watch those earth quakes in third world countries where all the buildings are rubble. Then watch a news report from a Government that enforces structural codes and see how much better off the people are?

    Sure that house was a lot more expensive because the governement required deep footers and tie downs, etc, but I'm betting when it saves you life you wont' be complaining.

  2. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,915
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    "On the other hand, solar is great in areas where power isn't available, yet there's no subsidy anywhere for off the grid installs. "

    incorrect, Whether the solar system is on or off grid makes no difference, government tax credit is 30%. I think that is a good use of federal money, a lot better than fighting two wars in the middle east.

    "You realize that 100% of the money the government gives to someone to install an over priced solar system must first be confiscated from the rest of us"


    My solar hot water system cost around $1,000. If it was built into the new home like Hiawaii requires it would of cost even less. I'll break even in a few years and then for the next 30 or so years have free hot water.

    Do the math, solar can save you money easily if you live in the southern USA.

    Personally I think electric hot water heaters should be gradually phased out, with solar and heat pump technology we will save a lot of money.

    Funny how political this all gets. Never me a republican or a democrat that didn't like saving money on their utility bill. LOL.
    You are talking about domestic hot water, entirely different than solar electric generation.

    For the record, I'm all for solar water heating where it is effective. I'm steadfastly opposed to the government spending our grandkid's money to help you pay for it.

    Similarly, if you as an individual wish to power your home, in whole or in part, with solar panels and/or wind turbines, I'm all for that too, so long as it is 100% on your dime.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  3. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,915
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    "If a 40+ cent per kwh subsidy is needed for to make solar economically viable, it's not a viable technology."

    Average residential cost per KwH is around 11 cents.
    Average utility whole sale rate is around 3 cents.
    Difference of 8 cents. Not sure what kind of math you are doing that makes it 40 cents/kwh.

    And that is only a subsidy for residential solar plants that generate excess electricity, which is a very very small percentage. Most grid tie residential solar arrays don't even generate enough energy to make the house a net zero energy user.

    In other words your statistic is wrong.
    I believe he was talking about commercial energy production, which is in fact very highly subsidized on every level.
    In 2010 just the direct federal subsidies equaled about 7.8 cents/kWh of commercially produced solar energy.
    http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/11/2...ercialisation/

    Add in the tax breaks, state and local subsidies, and that solar power producers get sweatheart deals to sell electricity to utilities for FAR more than the normal wholesale price, even more than what the utility charges retail consumers, and the total subsidy could easily reach 40 cents per kwh.
    Yet solar power producers still whine about not being able to make a profit.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  4. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendo View Post
    Now where did you get that from. What about all that wildlife releasing methane gas into the atmosphere?? Your "carbon footprint" may be smaller but it just might have something to do with a little thing called population????
    Granted. But really up there is almost like Europe, very socialist/marxist (compared to the USA anyways) and lots of conspiracy theorists that want to save the metaphorical polar bear (at least in Quebec). Might have something to do with our French heritage

  5. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrancis View Post
    Might have something to do with our French heritage
    The only thing worse than the French are French Canadians!
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  6. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Sometimes I think you guys just like to argue. Solar subsidies are a simple issue. Either you want the technology to succeed and breathe clean air or you don't care.....in that case go back to coal and breathe deeply.

    Every major technology has been subsidized unless it is the most polluting cheap product like coal.

    Get used to it or there will be no change in this world

  7. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    There are a lot of good uses for solar power - but it's a matter of using it for the right purpose. Currently, making electricity from solar is not that effective - however, using solar to collect low-grade heat, for, say, domestic hot water, pool heating, and mild weather comfort heating, are all very good uses, and have very good payoff's.

    I've sometimes wondered how effective a solar thermal water loop, backed up with natural gas, fed into an absorber, would be for comfort cooling - at least then the use tracks the energy source.

    In short, it is a LOT easier to collect solar thermal energy, than solar PV energy - so if we focus the solar monies in that direction, there will be much better payoff's. If we keep restricting our solar initiatives to electrical generation, we are misplacing the efforts.

  8. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas
    Posts
    14,915
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarMike View Post
    Sometimes I think you guys just like to argue. Solar subsidies are a simple issue. Either you want the technology to succeed and breathe clean air or you don't care.....in that case go back to coal and breathe deeply.
    I can't help but notice that you don't list the most proven, lowest land use, and cheapest by far, of the clean energy sources, nuclear power.

    Without some extremely unlikely paradigm shifting advance in technology, wind and solar will never be economically viable sources of energy outside of some niche applications.
    Continuing to flush money down the toilet on developing the current technologies won't get us there, because the technology advance that would be required will not be an evolution of anything that is currently done, it will be something entirely new.
    If more government is the answer, then it's a really stupid question.

  9. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    " If we keep restricting our solar initiatives to electrical generation, we are misplacing the efforts. "

    30% tax break is the same for pv or for solar water heating. In other words the fed's dont' restrict anything, it's a level playing field for solar compeiting technologies.

  10. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by newstudent View Post
    " If we keep restricting our solar initiatives to electrical generation, we are misplacing the efforts. "

    30% tax break is the same for pv or for solar water heating. In other words the fed's dont' restrict anything, it's a level playing field for solar compeiting technologies.
    I said nothing about fed's incentives. I said solar initiatives, and I mean that on an industry level. How many solar pv companies are out there compared to solar thermal? at least in my area, it's very disparate. Of course, the reasoning for this, at least in my area, is that there is abundant gas supplies, so solar thermal isn't of much use - however, what if more companies made residential sized absorption chillers (I only know of 2, neither of which sell in the US) - a solar collector system, combined with a storage tank, with natural gas backup, could provide heating, cooling, and domestic hot water, utilizing all available solar heat. Unsubsidized payback, if including all 3 of those uses, is likely much shorter than unsubsidized PV electricity used for those same uses (which likely doesn't even HAVE a payback).

  11. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by mark beiser View Post
    I can't help but notice that you don't list the most proven, lowest land use, and cheapest by far, of the clean energy sources, nuclear power.

    Without some extremely unlikely paradigm shifting advance in technology, wind and solar will never be economically viable sources of energy outside of some niche applications.
    Continuing to flush money down the toilet on developing the current technologies won't get us there, because the technology advance that would be required will not be an evolution of anything that is currently done, it will be something entirely new.
    Very true, I didn't mention NUC, only because it too has been subsidized up the ying yang. We have to remember that as long as the almighty dollar is the most important thing in our lives, people will want to use the cheapest product to do the job and coal is by far the cheapest and most plentiful fuel available. NUC is not cheap in any way but once solar is on the roof, nothing beats it. No one in the NUC biz puts the external cleanup costs into the equation, same is true of the tar sands.

  12. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Jurupa Valley, CA
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarMike View Post
    Very true, I didn't mention NUC, only because it too has been subsidized up the ying yang. We have to remember that as long as the almighty dollar is the most important thing in our lives, people will want to use the cheapest product to do the job and coal is by far the cheapest and most plentiful fuel available. NUC is not cheap in any way but once solar is on the roof, nothing beats it. No one in the NUC biz puts the external cleanup costs into the equation, same is true of the tar sands.
    That's because there are very little to no real 'external clean-up costs' involved. three-mile island's 'clean-up costs' were entirely PR efforts. Chernobyl should never have happened in the first place, and I'm convinced it would not happen again in any modern designed/built plant. The fact is, the only reason we aren't 50% nuclear powered in north america is public opinion based on ignorance - that same public opinion has forced us into excessive energy imports, high-priced energy pushing industry to other countries, foreign affairs nightmares and wars. The unfortunate truth is that the damage has already been done, and I don't see a way back to a true nuclear future. THAT is why nuclear is not an option - it has absolutely nothing to do with technical, scientific, or economic limitations.

  13. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    83
    "I'm steadfastly opposed to the government spending our grandkid's money to help you pay for it."

    I'm opposed to a lot of things the government does too! Seriously who doesnt' have a complaint about something the government does? So your comment got me interested. Just how much money is spent on Solar?

    Name:  federal_energy_subsidies_by_type,_fy2002-2008-thumb-454x383-23345.png
Views: 51
Size:  44.7 KB

    From a reputable newspaper.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._how_much.html

    Looks like solar is a few billion over 6 years. Solar makes up a very small percentage of renewables, around 1% from what I have read.

    Kind of drop in the bucket compared to other things like the Iraq war which is around 800 billion.

    So while you can complaint about the government wasting away your grandchildren's money, just know that solar's contribution to that is miniscule.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event