Utilities Take a Dim View of Solar Energy

[garbon]

If every individual owner customizes his windows, the building will look horrible. 

That's rich

[Monoriu]

If every individual owner customizes his windows, the building will look horrible.

As opposed to the marvel of architecture they look like now?

Oh you have to see it to believe it.  Imagine 10 such buildings, all look exactly the same, lined-up side-by-side facing the same direction with no space between them.  It really does look quite imposing. 

[Monoriu]

Like this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_West_Kowloon_Giants.JPG

Each unit costs like US$5 mil each, or more

[garbon]

Oh you have to see it to believe it.  Imagine 10 such buildings, all look exactly the same, lined-up side-by-side facing the same direction with no space between them.  It really does look quite imposing. 

A pack of bull dykes looks imposing as well. Aesthetically pleasing? Not so much.

[The Minsky Moment]

Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired.  I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.

They are there; for example if some of the coal is liquified, then you can get fat "synfuel" subsidies; the various "clean coal" iniatives have brought in hundreds of millions in federal R&D support money over the years. 

Total coal related subsidies for 2007 are estimated in excess of $3 billion.

[Valmy]

Because the time one mosts need a desk lamp is when solar rays are streaming onto one's desk 

Um it has a battery dude.

[Valmy]

Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired.  I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.

Well you would be wrong.  They are subsidized to the tune of billions every year.

Edit: What Joan said.

[derspiess]

I don't know about the IKEA one, but a lot of those sort of things store up energy during the day so that they can be used at night.

Yeah-- the solar cell/battery pack module can also be popped out so you can place it near a window to recharge.

Plus, for each one you buy, IKEA donates one to UNICEF to give to some poor kid

[alfred russel]

Electricity in the US is mostly coal-fired.  I'm not aware of much, if anything, in the way of coal subsidies.

They are there; for example if some of the coal is liquified, then you can get fat "synfuel" subsidies; the various "clean coal" iniatives have brought in hundreds of millions in federal R&D support money over the years. 

Total coal related subsidies for 2007 are estimated in excess of $3 billion.

$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.

[alfred russel]

In terms of the "subsidies" for oil, the supporters of the heavy subsidy argument tend to go into one of two directions when pressed for details: 1) taxation, and 2) military/foreign policy.

To address point 1), the taxation of oil companies is very complex, but suffice it to say that they pay significant taxes. I am guessing now, but probably safely, that Exxon has paid more taxes than any other entity in US history. The effective tax rates of oil companies tends to be in line or higher than other corporations, and certainly far less than pharmaceutical companies or some finance related entities.

Point 2) is in my view unfair. Afghanistan and Iraq were not major sources of oil before the invasion, and are not now. The middle east isn't responsible for all of our military spending, and even then isn't the major source of our problems there (Israel/Palestine, Iran's nuclear ambitions, terrorism). You could argue that the oil revenue creates wealth in the Middle East fueling the problems we deal with, but it isn't obvious to me that a dirt poor middle east would suddenly make the region placid.

[The Minsky Moment]

$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.

What does the size of the total GDP have to do with it?
$3 billion is a lot of money period.  Solar doesn't get anything near that. 

If your point is that a $3 billion subsidy doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme I don't agree.  But even if true it would basically concede valmy's point that there is no real harm to higher solar subsidies which are presently at orders of magnitude less.

[alfred russel]

$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.

What does the size of the total GDP have to do with it?
$3 billion is a lot of money period.  Solar doesn't get anything near that. 

If your point is that a $3 billion subsidy doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme I don't agree.  But even if true it would basically concede valmy's point that there is no real harm to higher solar subsidies which are presently at orders of magnitude less.

Because there seems to be an undercurrent in Valmy's threads on this (not just in this topic) that fossil fuels are the predominant energy source because of subsidies. I hate that line of argument because it is essentially denying the fundamental reason we use fossil fuels--that we have ready made and abundant energy sources buried under our feet that are very economical to obtain.

At the end of the day taking away a $3 billion a year subsidy to coal and even giving it to solar isn't going to turn us into a nation fueled by solar panels. It just isn't enough money to transform the economy. That is my point.

[DGuller]

$3 billion for the major source of electricity in a $14 trillion economy is peanuts. I would agree with Yi that there are not much in the way of coal subsidies.

What does the size of the total GDP have to do with it?
$3 billion is a lot of money period.  Solar doesn't get anything near that. 

If your point is that a $3 billion subsidy doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme I don't agree.  But even if true it would basically concede valmy's point that there is no real harm to higher solar subsidies which are presently at orders of magnitude less.

Isn't comparing absolute amounts in subsidies beyond pointless?  What's important is comparing subsidy per MW generated.

[Valmy]

Isn't comparing absolute amounts in subsidies beyond pointless?  What's important is comparing subsidy per MW generated.

Hilarious that suddenly the dude whining about how unfair it is some energy sources get public funding goes into full retreat once it touches his precious fossil fuels.

You can dislike new energy sources all you want but don't bitch to me about fairness.  Fossil Fuels are massively subsidized world wide.

[Valmy]

Because there seems to be an undercurrent in Valmy's threads on this (not just in this topic) that fossil fuels are the predominant energy source because of subsidies. I hate that line of argument because it is essentially denying the fundamental reason we use fossil fuels--that we have ready made and abundant energy sources buried under our feet that are very economical to obtain.

But it is not sustainable.  There are plenty of arguements about finding and developing new energy sources.  Oh but no we cannot put any money there because it would be unfair and the free market should decide.  But guess what?  The market isn't free.  That is an entirely pro-fossil fuels arguement and not balanced at all.

Besides if they are so freaking economical to obtain then why do they require hundreds of billions worldwide to keep the prices down?  Why do we keep going to war to secure their supply?

I am sorry you hate the arguement, but it is a completely valid one and I stand by it.

At the end of the day taking away a $3 billion a year subsidy to coal and even giving it to solar isn't going to turn us into a nation fueled by solar panels. It just isn't enough money to transform the economy. That is my point.

Wow talk about moving the goal posts.