Future of federal solar programs in doubt

rollandelliottrollandelliott Solar Expert Posts: 834 ✭✭

Comments

  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 32,013 admin
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • monolocomonoloco Solar Expert Posts: 103 ✭✭
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt

    That would be fine if they get rid of all the other energy subsidies too, like the billions in military spending necessary to protect our access to foreign oil. Only then will alternative sources of energy be able to compete head to head with traditional sources.
  • ggunnggunn Solar Expert Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt

    We don't need no stinking renewable energy. We'll just burn oil, gas, coal, wood, and whatever else is flammable until the system collapses and we start killing each other over the scraps that are left. Oh, wait, that has already started, hasn't it?
  • nsaspooknsaspook Solar Expert Posts: 396 ✭✭✭
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt

    How about doing the logical thing like the France. We could reduce our need for oil, reduce CO2 emissions and still have a stable base generation capacity for RE to supplement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/8601594/France-to-invest-one-billion-euros-in-nuclear-power.html
    Sarkozy said a moratorium on new nuclear reactors, as some countries have declared since the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, "makes no sense."

    He said Monday, "there is no alternative to nuclear energy today."
    Sarkozy, at a news conference about government investments in the economy, said France will stick to a plan to invest €1 billion in future nuclear reactors. He also promised €1.35 billion in investment in renewable energy
  • monolocomonoloco Solar Expert Posts: 103 ✭✭
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt
    nsaspook wrote: »
    How about doing the logical thing like the France. We could reduce our need for oil, reduce CO2 emissions and still have a stable base generation capacity for RE to supplement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/8601594/France-to-invest-one-billion-euros-in-nuclear-power.html
    Nuclear energy is also heavily subsidized by the tax payer, direct subsidies, subsidized research, loan guarantees, deferred expense of waste storage, and taxpayer endemnification of major disasters, when all that is factored, nuclear is a very expensive source of energy. There is no way that it could exist without major taxpayer subsidies. I'd like to see an actual cost benefit analysis of nuclear vs. alternative coupled with energy efficiency after all the costs are factored in.
  • Eric LEric L Solar Expert Posts: 262 ✭✭
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt
    Nuclear energy is also heavily subsidized by the tax payer, direct subsidies, subsidized research, loan guarantees, deferred expense of waste storage, and taxpayer endemnification of major disasters, when all that is factored, nuclear is a very expensive source of energ

    Exactly. Right now, any new nuclear plants that get built would receive, among other things, a federal loan guarantee program to encourage investments in nuclear (otherwise, bond issuance for construction would be highly expensive given all the failed nuke construction projects), a federally subsidized liability cap limiting disaster liability to $10 billion (otherwise plant insurance would be prohibitive), and a production tax credit good for $18/MWh, which is huge when you consider wholesale prices are often in the $50 range.
  • nsaspooknsaspook Solar Expert Posts: 396 ✭✭✭
    Re: Future of federal solar programs in doubt
    monoloco wrote: »
    Nuclear energy is also heavily subsidized by the tax payer, direct subsidies, subsidized research, loan guarantees, deferred expense of waste storage, and taxpayer endemnification of major disasters, when all that is factored, nuclear is a very expensive source of energy. There is no way that it could exist without major taxpayer subsidies. I'd like to see an actual cost benefit analysis of nuclear vs. alternative coupled with energy efficiency after all the costs are factored in.

    Without being too political all that is true but the costs of countries being dependent of foreign oil has been even higher. If you want a cleaner environment overall and maybe a stabler world the latest generation of nuclear plants might be the best option.

    What people also seem to forget is that increased efficiency can promote increase usage. :confused:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Sign In or Register to comment.