Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This comes at the expense of many other jobs. People in the fossil fuel industry lose their jobs, because of the increased cost of electricity goods cost more and you also have increased taxes to subsidize these projects. Bottom line is it may benefit the workers for the renewable project but it adversely effects many other people.
The fossil fuel industry gets subsidized in many ways, including using the military industrial complex (three beneficiaries... oil industry, military industrial complex and the politicians... one loser: tax payers/consumers). But as far as jobs are concerned, well, welcome to the future. One form of jobs are going to be replaced by another form, it is inevitable.
If you do the math, solar is a poor investment for individuals even with government (other people's money) paying half of the cost.
Depends on where you're at, here's a quote one my forum members got:
Quote:
$65,000 installation with 5 yr. warranty of system malfunction (but not hail damage, etc.)
$12,000 credits within 6 months of install from state.
$19,500 Fed. tax credit which I can use over 15 years (it rolls over).
Earn $4000 a year in renewable energy credits sold like commodities on exchanges.
Everything was guaranteed except the renewable enegy credit, in my state the power distributors are required to have a certain percentage of their electric produced from renewable resources.
The Pennsylvania Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) requires that an annually increasing percentage of electricity sold to retail customers in Pennsylvania is from alternative energy sources. The program requires that retail energy suppliers utilize Alternative Energy Credits (AECs) for demonstrating compliance with the standard. An AEC is created each time a qualified alternative energy facility produces 1000 kWh of electricity. The AEC is then be sold or traded separately from the power. This makes it easy for individuals and businesses to finance and invest in clean, emission free solar power.
The cost to the distributor is passed onto consumers. Assuming the value of the credit he was given is accurate by his estimate within 6 years he would generate income but this is on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers.
Quote:
So we have (mostly rich) people all over the USA installing solar panels
You don't necessarily have to be rich but you would need to have the initial investment if you wanted to reap the full benefits. There is a lot of business's taken advantage of this with various schemes where people can't afford them:
Google is making its largest investment yet in clean energy in an effort to help private homeowners put solar panels on their rooftops.
Skip to next paragraph
Topics
The $280 million deal with installer SolarCity is the largest of its kind. SolarCity can use the funds to pay for a solar system that it can offer to residents for no money down. In exchange, customers agree to pay a set price for the power produced by the panels.
Google earns a return on its investment by charging SolarCity interest to use its money and reaping the benefits of federal and local renewable energy tax credits.
But as far as jobs are concerned, well, welcome to the future. One form of jobs are going to be replaced by another form, it is inevitable.
Yes but with renewables it's only because the government is manipulating the market. In a natural market jobs are lost to cheaper and more efficient implementations. Solar and wind are neither.
As far as the subsidies go coal gets very little, you couldelimante coal subsidies and it would have no effect on the market. Eliminate the renewable subsidies and they go bye bye.
Yes but only because the government is manipulating the market. In a natural market jobs were loss to cheaper and more efficient implementations. Solar and wind are neither.
It is government's job to secure the welfare of the nation. It has to govern every major part of the economy. Why do you think corporate charters existed?
Quote:
As far as the subsidies go coal gets very little, you couldelimante coal subsidies and it would have no effect on the market. Eliminate the renewable subsidies and they go bye bye.
It doesn't matter whether it gets a lot or very little. The fact is that we need progressive thinking in governance. Businesses and people have their own priorities. Why do y'all believe that the government's priorities shouldn't be any different or, worse, not have a priority at all?
Making electric more expensive is securing the welfare of the nation?
It's funny you'll rail against welfare to the fossil fuel industry but for renewables it's different. Hypocritical don't you think?
Personally I want to see elimination of all subsidies to every industry in this country. It breeds corruption and waste no matter who it is going too.
Welfare of the nation is preparing for the future and ensuring that circumstances don't lead to chaos. Cost is a people versus business issue.
Speaking of funny, your railing against promoting alternative technology via incentives while suggesting... "but coal industry gets very little incentives (never mind oil industry)" would fit perfectly. But then, you seem to think that free market will sort it out for the people and businesses. What your thinking lacks is that the government has to operate a little differently. It has to consider what isn't popular but at least promising.
The left would have everyone fooled on wind/solar/biofuels technology... but if you look carefully, you'll notice that the money spent on this isn't to improve the technology, its to get you to buy and make others rich... what is the efficiency of solar panels? 20%? That's with billions invested in solar energy and that is what it got us? Could it be better with billions? Absolutely, so the question is, why IS IT NOT? Same thing with wind and biofuels... where is the technology that was promised after billions spent... why hasn't it gotten to implementation stages? It didn't take that long before we started using gasoline and petroleum products from oil... and we hear the left keep chanting all this about alternative energy without actually doing anything with that money other than to enrich their friends... you think the left would of learned by now...
Speaking of funny, your railing against promoting alternative technology via incentives while suggesting... "but coal industry gets very little incentives (never mind oil industry)" would fit perfectly.
Oil gets very little too in the grand scheme of things. Using figures from 2007, it's fractions of a penny on the gallon. Compare that to the 50 cents a gallon on ethanol and that doesn't include other subsidies like those going to the farmers.
It's the same thing with coal and because they are in the unique position where most of the subsidies go to R&D elimination of them would have no effect on the market.
It's ironic but most of the subsidies go to production for renewables to lower the sticker shock, if we're going to subsidize anything I'm sure you could agree it should be R&D.
Oil gets very little too in the grand scheme of things. Using figures from 2007, it's fractions of a penny on the gallon. Compare that to the 50 cents a gallon on ethanol and that doesn't include other subsidies like those going to the farmers.
It's the same thing with coal and because they are in the unique position where most of the subsidies go to R&D elimination of them would have no effect on the market.
It's ironic but most of the subsidies go to production for renewables to lower the sticker shock, if we're going to subsidize anything I'm sure you could agree it should be R&D.
I think you missed the funny. A little or a lot, is merely an excuse. Regardless, subsidies ought to go into technologies that promise something better into the future. What do you think is the point of an incentive, regardless of its size (if you're opposed to the idea as something leading to corruption, the excuse based on size would be non-sensical)? To motivate decisions, development and adoption, no?
Regardless, subsidies ought to go into technologies that promise something better into the future.
Looks like coal to liquid fuels technology is on the horizon providing diesel for about $50 a barrel, ready to subsidize it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
