Thread: Coming Soon to Rooftops

Solar Cells to be Printed Like Newspaper, Painted on Rooftops - US News and World Report

Similar Threads:

• Cheaper Energy Coming?
• Big Snow Coming - Postpone Inspections?
• $hit on a Shingle Coming to North Texas
• New Roofs Coming With A Dangerous Problem
• Slower times coming again

Utilities Don't Want You To Have A Solar Panel On Your Roof

Thats unfortunate. Up here the utilities welcome micro projects. Spoke to previous client the other day who installed solar panels on his barn roof with surplus put back into the grid for 70 cents a kilowatt. Much like this system installed to the north of me.

TSC Collingwood

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thats unfortunate. Up here the utilities welcome micro projects. Spoke to previous client the other day who installed solar panels on his barn roof with surplus put back into the grid for 70 cents a kilowatt. Much like this system installed to the north of me.

TSC Collingwood

Pretty impressive link if it is accurate,
According to the link, over $4000 revenue over the last year, how big is this thing?
Please tell us more.
That is more likely 7 cents per KW, I pay between 9 and 12 cents.

Fritz

I stand corrected 80.2 cents per kw!

Couple shine light on solar power - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA

Ontario Solar Feed-in Tariff 80.2 Cents

TheStar.com | sciencetech | Solar-power feed tariffs windfall for homeowners

The impressive part, she said, is the fact government programs currently being offered mean residents who decide to place solar panels on their home and pump the electricity back into the grid can do so at 80.2 cents per kilowatt. The Isenors told visitors they are currently paying 7.2 cents per kilowatt to have electricity delivered to their home so selling it back at 80.2 cents means there’s a direct benefit.
“There’s a 71 cent gain for every kilowatt you raise,� Jean said. “That’s a good return.�

Wow, they pay over 10 times more for the power they buy back than they sell it for. Talk about subsidies. But even at that rate, a 10 year payback is not exactly spectacular.

But after 10 years you are getting free power, mind you in 10 years the price to install will most likely drop signifigantly as more and more systems come on line and technological improvements.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

But after 10 years you are getting free power, mind you in 10 years the price to install will most likely drop signifigantly as more and more systems come on line and technological improvements.

But from a pure economic sense, it does not make for a good choice for your money. Even with the 90% government subsidy, putting the money in a CD with a return of 7% will outperform with doubling your money in 8 years.
I love the idea of solar, it is just the economics that get in the way.
Maybe with dropping of prices of technology the economics will make more sense.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

But from a pure economic sense, it does not make for a good choice for your money. Even with the 90% government subsidy, putting the money in a CD with a return of 7% will outperform with doubling your money in 8 years.
I love the idea of solar, it is just the economics that get in the way.
Maybe with dropping of prices of technology the economics will make more sense.

JL: There are, after all, other things in this life to consider than just the money.

OLAR ARRAY SPECIFICATIONS
CAPACITY: 2.4 kW
SOLAR PANELS: 12 Sanyo-200W panels panels
MOUNTING: Pole mount, single axis tracker
INVERTER: Xantrex GT 2.8 kW grid tie inverter
MONITORING: SolarVu cachelan.com
DEALER: TSC STORES - TSC STORES
INSTALLER: SOLERA - Solera Sustainable Energies Company®
LOCATION: TSC store - Collingwood ON Canada
INSTALLED: June 2008

CACHELAN OFFICE - Toronto, Canada

Fwiw I installed a small 45 watt dc solar panel which runs a 12 volt auto compressor to a bubbler for my pond. Has been working consistently for five years thus far.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JL: There are, aftger all, other things in this life to consider than just the money.

Precisely why I included my personal preference, but to say that they pay for themselves in ten years and they you get free energy was discussing the economics of the decision, not the "feel good" value. If you factor in ALL the side components, it may be a great move for the environment, the economy, the neighbors and the field mice but that was not the discussion.
Again, I love solar, wind, renewable energy and might make the investment because of those preferences, just not because of the economics.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Again, I love solar, wind, renewable energy and might make the investment because of those preferences, just not because of the economics.

Well if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, go for it.

But the economics suck on all three of your preferences.

Paybacks get much better as you increase the size of the system. Install a 10kW dual-axis pole mounted system ($95K) and you get a 14% ROI. You can also borrow 100% of the funds at 2.75% (TD Canada Trust) and the system will pay for itself in about 10 years, with no money out of pocket... then the electricity after that IS free.

Of course, you can't go over 10kW and still get 80.2 cents per kwh. Between 10kW and 250kW, the rate drops down to 71.3 cents per kwh and then it must be on the rooftop, not pole mounted. Oh... and it's a 20 year contract with the government, with no rate changes.

Sound like a good investment to me.

Originally Posted by Bruce Knight

Sound like a good investment to me.

Investment?

Why would anyone pay 80.2 cents k/W when it cost 2 cents k/W to produce buy other means?

It's not an investment. It's a subsidy from other tax paying citizens for a feel good product that only a few will buy.

Nobody has mentioned that in 10 years you will see very high fuel prices. Cheaper to invest today at todays prices than in the future.

As to 80 cents per kw, its still cheaper for the government to pay that amount than invest in nuclear reactors, or other large hydro electric projects.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Nobody has mentioned that in 10 years you will see very high fuel prices. Cheaper to invest today at todays prices than in the future.

As to 80 cents per kw, its still cheaper for the government to pay that amount than invest in nuclear reactors, or other large hydro electric projects.

Any math to support your claim?

And unless Canada has a magic money tree, the government funds come from the taxpayer.

Do the math? How much do you think a nuclear reactor costs? BILLIONS! Not to mention the disposal problems.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Do the math? How much do you think a nuclear reactor costs? BILLIONS! Not to mention the disposal problems.

I didn't think so.

Here's how the math works: As a general rule of thumb it costs $10,000 to install 1kW worth of PV on a rooftop in Canada, so a typical 3kW system would cost around $30,000. In most regions in Canada, you could expect a capacity factor of 15% to 18% (to put it another way, over the course of a year the system will produce on average 15% to 18% of it's maximum rated load due to cloudy skies and night hours). Therefore this 3kW system will produce on average around 4,336 kWh/year.


In Ontario, the regular residential rate for electricity is around 11 cents per kWh, so if a consumer is paying 11 cents/kWh, but earning 42 cents/kWh produced, that household could make $1,344 per year, which would payback the original investment after 22 years - not a great value proposition for most investors!


Assuming the standard offer was raised to 80 cents/kWh, then that system would earn the household $2,991 per year and pay for itself in just over 10 years - still not a great financial investment, but at least it would put it in the range acceptable to financing for most banks and lenders.


LINK

Interesting cost comparison. But it looks like you didn't do the math either you are quoting one industry source. But there remains the costs involved in setting up other forms of electricity production. Land costs, regulatory, environmental assessments, labour market conditions, disposal, pollution. Ontario is phasing out remaining coal based plants and recently decided not to move ahead with another nuclear plant and has in the past dealt with very large over runs for nuclear development and refitting. Looks like the tax payers are on the hook regardless.

Energy Subsidies and External Costs

This facts remains.

Without government/taxpayer incentives solar is not viable based on current technology.

Think Ethanol.
20 plus years of subsidies and it still cannot stand on its own as a viable fuel.

It typical government social engineering and not much else.

Mike, can you run your math past me again.... 4,336 kwh x 80.2 cents = $3,477 per year. How did you get $2,991?

Again, if you lease the full cost of the system, then the solar system will be completely paid for in about 10 years and your lease payments stop. Thereafter, the monthly check goes into your bank account.

Government Incentive - this rate only applies to small residential systems where the power is produced and consummed at the same location. Being solar, the power is only produced during peak load periods (daylight) which reduces the demand for COAL fired generating plants. As well, is "local" production doesn't require infrastructure - produced where it is used.

Solar PV is not the sole answer to our electrical generation needs, but it's part of the equation. Add in biogas, biomass, hydro and wind and you get a complete solution that doesn't comtribute to global warming.

By the way, Ontario asked for bids this year, to replace an existing nuclear reactor - the price came in at $26 BILLION and they put a hold on the whole process.

Originally Posted by Bruce Knight

Mike, can you run your math past me again.... 4,336 kwh x 80.2 cents = $3,477 per year. How did you get $2,991?

Again, if you lease the full cost of the system, then the solar system will be completely paid for in about 10 years and your lease payments stop. Thereafter, the monthly check goes into your bank account.

Government Incentive - this rate only applies to small residential systems where the power is produced and consummed at the same location. Being solar, the power is only produced during peak load periods (daylight) which reduces the demand for COAL fired generating plants. As well, is "local" production doesn't require infrastructure - produced where it is used.

Solar PV is not the sole answer to our electrical generation needs, but it's part of the equation. Add in biogas, biomass, hydro and wind and you get a complete solution that doesn't comtribute to global warming.

By the way, Ontario asked for bids this year, to replace an existing nuclear reactor - the price came in at $26 BILLION and they put a hold on the whole process.

You're forgetting the $0.11/kW paid for usage.

Frankly, with the amount of oil Canada has why they even bother with alternative energy.

Oh yeah! Kyoto protocol an big bad carbon.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

But from a pure economic sense, it does not make for a good choice for your money. Even with the 90% government subsidy, putting the money in a CD with a return of 7% will outperform with doubling your money in 8 years.
I love the idea of solar, it is just the economics that get in the way.
Maybe with dropping of prices of technology the economics will make more sense.

Now where do you find a CD with a 7% return! About the best I have seen in the past five years has been around 5.5% and that was a couple of years ago. Now you are lucky to find a 3% return.

Coal and oil are cheap only because most of the costs are accounted for elsewhere. Market rates do not necessarily reflect the "cost" of a particular fuel choice on a society. For example, if you believe the US invaded Iraq to protect its mid-east oil interests, you'd need to add the cost of that conflict to the price of oil coming from the region.

It's nearly impossible to calculate the "true" cost of any system for a level comparison. Some systems are subsidized overtly (rooftop PV panels), others a bit more roundabout (military for protecting trade routes and oil producing countries).

Excellent topic!..
I would buy without looking back if I had money laying around just from the perspective of going cleaner..but like Larson says I agree that this is a subsidy, not a tax credit...
However, I like to think that I know that big scientific discoveries were achieved on the way of looking form something else...if one only criticizes, nothing will get done..

I have looked into frys Fry's Electronics | and harbor freight Harbor Freight Tools just to think about what I could achieve by installing the units myself...will probably not happen this year due to many ongoing projects at the house...
currently saving big bucks on a retaining wall and gutter repairs.

FRYS.comÂ*|Â*Solar
Now here is something we can all agree on from Fry's

Innovation happens.

When we can paint a sunny surface and attache a few wires, we will all be going solar.

Until then, coal, NG, nuclear and oil are the cheapest sources of energy for our needs.

Anything else takes money away from productive uses and that brings about the reality of lost opportunity costs.

They are hard to calculate but they cannot be ignored.

The third world wants and needs cheap energy to grow their economies and when we deprive them of that resource we are enslaving them, dooming them to little or no growth or any improvement in their standards of living..

When they figure that out it will not go well for us first worlders.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

But from a pure economic sense, it does not make for a good choice for your money. Even with the 90% government subsidy, putting the money in a CD with a return of 7% will outperform with doubling your money in 8 years.
I love the idea of solar, it is just the economics that get in the way.
Maybe with dropping of prices of technology the economics will make more sense.

Two things to keep in mind other than today's price of electricity:
If 'dirty' energy like fossil fuels gets taxed, all rates will go up. So rate of return in likely to rise.

Depending on the meter you put on, you might actually be independent of the grid. That's a helluva bonus in catastrophe situations.

Originally Posted by James Foy

Two things to keep in mind other than today's price of electricity:
If 'dirty' energy like fossil fuels gets taxed, all rates will go up. So rate of return in likely to rise.

Depending on the meter you put on, you might actually be independent of the grid. That's a helluva bonus in catastrophe situations.

JF: Good points.

Originally Posted by James Foy

Two things to keep in mind other than today's price of electricity:
If 'dirty' energy like fossil fuels gets taxed, all rates will go up. So rate of return in likely to rise.

Depending on the meter you put on, you might actually be independent of the grid. That's a helluva bonus in catastrophe situations.

Additional taxes(cap & trade) on so called "dirty" energy simply remove money from the system that could be more productively utilized and in effect act as a subsidy for more expensive generators of electricity such as solar and wind.

Maybe someday solar and wind will be competitive but we are not there yet and as Ethanol has demonstrated, it may never get there.

If we were actually running out of oil, coal and nuclear this might be a worthy discussion but that is not the case and won't be for well over 100 years IMHO.

For example, if you believe the US invaded Iraq to protect its mid-east oil interests

CW: And what other reason could there have been? To collect gay headwear?

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You're forgetting the $0.11/kW paid for usage.

Mike, that's not how it works. You get 80.2 cents per kwh produced. There is no deduction for usage. If you produce 4,336 kwh then you get paid 80.2 cents for every kwh.

If the home I live in, on the same property, uses 8,000 kwh per year, every year, there is no impact on the $3,477 that my 3kw solar system makes.

My "home" use might have been $880 last year, this year and next year, but that does not have any impact on the $3,477 income I get from my $30,000 investment for a 3kw system.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Additional taxes(cap & trade) on so called "dirty" energy simply remove money from the system that could be more productively utilized and in effect act as a subsidy for more expensive generators of electricity such as solar and wind.

Maybe someday solar and wind will be competitive but we are not there yet and as Ethanol has demonstrated, it may never get there.

If we were actually running out of oil, coal and nuclear this might be a worthy discussion but that is not the case and won't be for well over 100 years IMHO.

I was actively avoiding the political implications. When the politicians don't have time to read the bills, they obviously aren't writing the bills. If they aren't, who is? The really large corporations who have money to hire lawyers to write the bills which get signed by the legislators who get 'political contributions' and who 'miraculously' invest in technology that will get paid for by, you guessed it, the taxpayer. So we pay for the politicians jobs, and subsidize their insider trading. And they tell us how much they're doing for us--nothing like insult to injury. Now I'm completely off-topic.

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I was just trying to avoid saying it in this forum as this is generally a really smart forum. Some of the guys here even know everything.

I have already invested in tomorrow by installing a geothermal heat pump with super deheater.

As to pay back; for me that was not really a consideration, I considered it a good investment for my location and lifestyle and the economics of operation.

Subsidies aside I would not hesitate to install a solar array but for the set up cost alone.

The economic benefits and spin offs are too huge to ignore as we must start retooling and training for the technologies of tomorrow. Solar and other alternatives will be what the industrial revolution was to the late 1800's in my opinion.

Our power authority has already either moth balled coal plants, or converted to gas, or will be phasing out the one plant left operating.

We have a energy deficit up here which must keep pace with growth, industry, and lessen the loads of environmental degredation which occurs with all other sources of carbon based fuels.

Originally Posted by Bruce Knight

Mike, that's not how it works. You get 80.2 cents per kwh produced. There is no deduction for usage. If you produce 4,336 kwh then you get paid 80.2 cents for every kwh.

If the home I live in, on the same property, uses 8,000 kwh per year, every year, there is no impact on the $3,477 that my 3kw solar system makes.

My "home" use might have been $880 last year, this year and next year, but that does not have any impact on the $3,477 income I get from my $30,000 investment for a 3kw system.

Go review the link in my original post. Read it carefully. If there is a mistake there please point it out.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

We have a energy deficit up here which must keep pace with growth, industry, and lessen the loads of environmental degredation which occurs with all other sources of carbon based fuels.

If you have a true deficit it one that of your(not you personally) own making.

Originally Posted by James Foy

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, I was just trying to avoid saying it in this forum as this is generally a really smart forum. Some of the guys here even know everything.

I was not trying to be overtly political but as usual the decisons the pols make have an affect in the real world and our everyday lives.

You shouldn't talk about Raymond that way.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Mike, that's not how it works. You get 80.2 cents per kwh produced. There is no deduction for usage. If you produce 4,336 kwh then you get paid 80.2 cents for every kwh.

If the home I live in, on the same property, uses 8,000 kwh per year, every year, there is no impact on the $3,477 that my 3kw solar system makes.

My "home" use might have been $880 last year, this year and next year, but that does not have any impact on the $3,477 income I get from my $30,000 investment for a 3kw system.
Go review the link in my original post. Read it carefully. If there is a mistake there please point it out.

Mike, ... under the present proposal, not the 2 year old proposal that your link connected to, the OPA will pay 80.2 cents for the production of electricity via solar PV, for systems up to 10kw in size. This is not a net metering situation, this is an outright purchase of electrical power. Therefore, your assumption that the price is reduced by 11 cents is a mistake. Thus, as pointed out, now for the third time, the revenue from this 3kw system is $3,477 and not $2,991 as you stated.

Do you understand?

Originally Posted by Bruce Knight

Mike, ... under the present proposal, not the 2 year old proposal that your link connected to, the OPA will pay 80.2 cents for the production of electricity via solar PV, for systems up to 10kw in size. This is not a net metering situation, this is an outright purchase of electrical power. Therefore, your assumption that the price is reduced by 11 cents is a mistake. Thus, as pointed out, now for the third time, the revenue from this 3kw system is $3,477 and not $2,991 as you stated.

Do you understand?

Here I will post it again to help you understand.

In Ontario, the regular residential rate for electricity is around 11 cents per kWh, so if a consumer is paying 11 cents/kWh, but earning 42 cents/kWh produced, that household could make $1,344 per year, which would payback the original investment after 22 years - not a great value proposition for most investors!
Assuming the standard offer was raised to 80 cents/kWh, then that system would earn the household $2,991 per year and pay for itself in just over 10 years - still not a great financial investment, but at least it would put it in the range acceptable to financing for most banks and lenders.

System produces 4336 kW/yr

4336 x 0.42 - (usage of $477) = $1344

4336 x 0.80 - (usage of $477) = $2991

If you have an issue with the numbers take it up with the author of the article but as you can see the math works with the information that is given.

The point is that without a massive taxpayer subsidy, few would find it cost effective to install a system. If you add in the cost of batteries and conversion and transfer equipment to go off grid the math is even worse.

Electricity Prices in Ontario | OEB

We are not paying anywhere near 11 cents per kilowatt fwiw from our hydro provider.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Here I will post it again to help you understand.

In Ontario, the regular residential rate for electricity is around 11 cents per kWh, so if a consumer is paying 11 cents/kWh, but earning 42 cents/kWh produced, that household could make $1,344 per year, which would payback the original investment after 22 years - not a great value proposition for most investors!
Assuming the standard offer was raised to 80 cents/kWh, then that system would earn the household $2,991 per year and pay for itself in just over 10 years - still not a great financial investment, but at least it would put it in the range acceptable to financing for most banks and lenders.

System produces 4336 kW/yr

4336 x 0.42 - (usage of $477) = $1344

4336 x 0.80 - (usage of $477) = $2991

If you have an issue with the numbers take it up with the author of the article but as you can see the math works with the information that is given.

The point is that without a massive taxpayer subsidy, few would find it cost effective to install a system. If you add in the cost of batteries and conversion and transfer equipment to go off grid the math is even worse.

Let me try one last time - THERE IS NO USAGE DEDUCTION.

Assume you have no solar panels today - you pay for your electricity, and phone bill, etc.

You decide to install a 3kw solar system and pay the average $30,000 for the complete grid-tie system installed. This 3kw system makes 4336 kwh of power and you get paid 80.2 cents per kwh. You get paid $3,477.

4336 x 80.2 = $3,477

What you get paid from this new 3kw solar system has nothing to do with your existing electricity bill or phone bill, etc. The new system has a separate meter and you get paid for every kwh that you produce.

In Ontario, installing a residential solar system not only helps to reduce the demand for coal fired generating stations, it is also a good business decision.

Bruce,

It's dark at night and the panels cannot supply the entire desired load all the time so yes there is usage.

I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Take it up with the author of the article.

Maybe you can convince him.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Bruce,

It's dark at night and the panels cannot supply the entire desired load all the time so yes there is usage.

I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Take it up with the author of the article.

Maybe you can convince him.

Sorry Mike, but there is no usage from these solar systems - it is completely separate from your existing home, barn, garage, whatever.

In Ontario, under the new Feed-in Tariff, you must install a new electrical meter with your solar system and you get paid for every single kilowatt hour you produce.

YES - that electricity may in fact go into my house, or my neighbors house, after I have produced it, metered it and been paid for it. But that fact still has nothing to do with the money I'm being paid for by solar system and therefore the ROI.

Originally Posted by Bruce Knight

YES - that electricity may in fact go into my house, or my neighbors house, after I have produced it, metered it and been paid for it. But that fact still has nothing to do with the money I'm being paid for by solar system and therefore the ROI.

Like I said if you have an issue with the numbers take it up with the author.

I doubt is you will like his math anymore than you liked my explanation.

The point remains that with out the the taxpayer taking on the burden of paying for overpriced electricity these things would not fly.

I wonder how many of the populous in Canada understand how badly they are being fleeced with this "green energy" tax.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Like I said if you have an issue with the numbers take it up with the author.

I doubt is you will like his math anymore than you liked my explanation.

The point remains that with out the the taxpayer taking on the burden of paying for overpriced electricity these things would not fly.

I wonder how many of the populous in Canada understand how badly they are being fleeced with this "green energy" tax.

Just trying to clarify your original comment - you did a cut and paste from an article that was two years old, as if that information held true today. If fact, over the past two years the rules have changed and the "assumptions" that were mentioned two years ago, do not hold true today.

Thus, in September of 2009, the new feed-in tariff policy states that you are in fact paid for every kwh of power that is generated and that there is no deduction from your generated power, for usage from a residence or existing business. Thus, this example of a 3kw system would generate $3,477 and not $2,991 as you stated.

The cost of subsidizing solar is peanuts compared to the cost of building nuclear reactors, hydro damns, et ceteras. It makes good economic sense to provide these incentives as we have an energy deficit. No one wants a nuclear reactor in their back yard any more then they want an incinerator for garbage, or a coal fired electrical plant.

In Ontario our electricity bill has a charge for debt retirement tax for the debt Ontario Hydro incurred over the years, its in the billions, then we are also charged for line loss, and a delivery charge, the energy we actually use, then provincial sales tax and goods and services tax. Personally speaking I have no issue with the purchase of power at 80 cents per kilowatt if its creating jobs, a clean environment, low maintenance.

Yes I would go off the grid tomorrow and certainly it appears that at some point within the next 10 years these systems will more than likely be at less than half the cost.

I have no issue with the purchase of power at 80 cents per kilowatt if its creating jobs, a clean environment, low maintenance.

I have a hard time believing even the most liberal person would not have to swallow hard to pay over 10 times the normal rate for electricity. For me, that would push the electric bill up from $150 to $1500+ per month. $16,200 more per year
How do you afford to pay all that extra, Raymond?
Oh, I guess I missed the point. I guess you really meant it was worth spending other people's money.

But you're not paying that and I am not buying my power for 80 plus cents but more like 7 cents a kilowatt. Whose complaining. Not me.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

But you're not paying that and I am not buying my power for 80 plus cents but more like 7 cents a kilowatt. Whose complaining. Not me.

But you and your fellow Canadians ARE paying 80 plus cents unless you have found some way around the basic economics that SOMEBODY has to pay for the subsidized prices paid, either through higher electricity rates, fees, tariffs, taxes or whatever other name is placed on it. There is no free lunch.
Again, I am NOT against technological advances that provide alternative energy. Let's just be honest as to the economics.

Liberal math is something of wonder and fantasy as this thread has made obvious.

Fact

There are many industries which are provided subsidizies. Lumber, pork producers, cattle producers, auto mobilies .... so its not only solar power subsidizies and yes we all pay for those subsidizies one way or another and has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but then you would know that as an American where subsidizies seem to be very popular.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Fact

There are many industries which are provided subsidizies. Lumber, pork producers, cattle producers, auto mobilies .... so its not only solar power subsidizies and yes we all pay for those subsidizies one way or another and has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but then you would know that as an American where subsidizies seem to be very popular.

Subsidies make no sense. They are nothing more than vote or contribution buying and distort the free market.

Get rid of all of them.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Subsidies make no sense. They are nothing more than vote or contribution buying and distort the free market.

Get rid of all of them.

ML: I might take a moment to point out to you that if the government in this country did not subsidize the lumber industry you would need to learn how to inspected concrete block houses. And, due to the subsequent increase in building costs, you would likely not be able to afford to live in a single family dwelling.

In fact, if all governmental subsidies were to disappear tomorrow in this country, chaos would prevail.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Subsidies make no sense. They are nothing more than vote or contribution buying and distort the free market.

Get rid of all of them.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

In fact, if all governmental subsidies were to disappear tomorrow in this country, chaos would prevail.

Not only that, but his property takes, which are subsidized by businesses paying higher property taxes, would go up.

As well as his electric bill, gas bill, gasoline costs, food bill, and if he had to pay for his fair share and use of the roads he drives on he would not be able to drive.

Shows you why the conservative extremes have lost so much in recent years.

Any fool knows that the balance is toward the middle, and ML is about as far right on one can get on the see-saw without falling off the end, and then only because he is holding onto the handle while dangling in the air off the end.

Aaron, grease the handle he is holding onto and maybe his hands will slip and he will fall off the end.

Aaron, grease the handle he is holding onto and maybe his hands will slip and he will fall off the end.

JP: The extreme righties have become uncannily adept at undermining themselves. ML needs no help in falling off his rocker. That is a foregone conclusion. Besides, that "grease" would nearly have to be extracted from a goose's derrière in order to avoid anything less than terminal slippage by a subsidized product.

Maybe you boys can explain how subsidies do anything more than take money out someones pocket and give it to someone else.

Get your liberal approved calculator out and do the math.

I'm sure there is a special function that says "apply misdirection factor".

Ta Ta

Extra credit question:

Does a truly viable product or technology require a subsidy to succeed?

Maybe you boys can explain how subsidies do anything more than take money out someones pocket and give it to someone else.

ML: As Hemingway espoused, you are not an island. While living among others in a society it is both desirable and your responsibility to assist in the support of others who in turn do the same for you.

Get your liberal approved calculator out and do the math.

ML: I use only an empirical calculator, thank you very much.

I'm sure there is a special function that says "apply misdirection factor".

ML: No attempt at misdirecting the already lost is required.

Does a truly viable product or technology require a subsidy to succeed?

ML: A Socratic answer might be: does the truly viable human being require aid (subsidization) from others in order to succeed?

A serious question, no spin on either side boys, Can someone tell me "When did the idea of subsidies come into being in the US?
Was the idea to stem chaos?

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

A serious question, no spin on either side boys, Can someone tell me "When did the idea of subsidies come into being in the US?
Was the idea to stem chaos?

Video: David Cay Johnston - A History of Government Subsidies

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Maybe you boys can explain how subsidies do anything more than take money out someones pocket and give it to someone else.

First explain to me what you think money is, then I'll answer your question.

As for electricity price...
Hidden and excluded from the price of your cheap electricity is the increased medical expenses for treating asthma due to particulate pollution (which, it must be argued, is less bad now than when everyone was burning wood for heat). Missing from that price is the loss of livelihood from farmers and fishers when mountaintops are dumped into streams, or coal ash dams breach.

Subsidies include more than just direct payments to individuals and corporations. They exist in regulations (or lack thereof) and trade policy. Your ham sandwich is cheap because meat production is subsidized through tariffs on imports, discounted grazing fees on federal (read public) land, direct subsidy payments to farmers to keep feed prices low, lack of regulation around livestock waste lagoons, and lax enforcement of labor and safety policies in meat processing and packaging plants. That subsidized meat is then transported across subsidized roads on subsidized tractor trailers burning subsidized oil. Repeat after me: the is no such thing as a "free market."

As with most discussions, people typically only argue on the surface and don't appreciate the larger, much more complex picture. They also take words as synonyms, take "price" and "cost" for example, when they are in fact entirely different. Conservatism succeeds because people will always accept a simple answer, no matter how wrong, over a complex one.

Conservatism succeeds because people will always accept a simple answer, no matter how wrong, over a complex one.

CW: You are so right! But then, what else would one expect from those whose sole purpose in life is to dig in, refuse to make forward progress for fear of change, and then create an unreal mental world in which to live which somehow justifies their perennial cultivation of ignorance?

Ahh! the complexity argument.

Let's keep it simple.

It you have to hide behind "complexity" as a way of saying "you're to stupid" to understand I am guessing you have no ability to explain why it is perfectly OK in your world view to remove money from my pocket to give to someone else who has not earned it.

No don't get me wrong, I think taxes of some type are needed for a very limited number of legitimate government actives and the truly needy and unable to work need to be provided for within reason.

But let's not pretend that a subsidy to a millionaire corporate farm(for an example) is legitimate.



Money is something we exchange for value.

It is a result of the fruit of our labor which we should be entitled to keep to the furthest extent possible except for reasonable taxes to fund necessary government responsibilities.

Paying someone $0.82 for a kW of electricity is not cost effective or reasonable.

Now of course that is my opinion but is based on common sense.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Ahh! the complexity argument.

Let's keep it simple.

Let's not continue to live in the land of make believe and pretend complex systems can be explained simply. If you don't understand economic theory or monetary policy (and you've given no reason for me to assume you do) that's one thing. I'm happy to explain it if you're willing to learn, but your attempt to dismiss complexity as an argumentation style rather than a representation of our interconnected reality doesn't give me hope.

It you have to hide behind "complexity" as a way of saying "you're to stupid" to understand I am guessing you have no ability to explain why it is perfectly OK in your world view to remove money from my pocket to give to someone else who has not earned it.

The ratio of ignorance to words in the above leaves me wondering where to start. Give me some time, I'll figure it out eventually. Perhaps you can aid me a bit and let me know if you took any economics courses in college and if so, attended those lectures.

Money is something we exchange for value.

Wrong.

It is a result of the fruit of our labor which we should be entitled to keep to the furthest extent possible except for reasonable taxes to fund necessary government responsibilities.

Wrong again. Wait, you're a capitalist, right? And you think money somehow equates to labor? You're not even understanding the economic theory you profess. Instead you're parroting a conservative talking point which feels good but is nonetheless a ruse. It focuses people on the government taking a half-penny more or less from every dollar so we don't notice when someone else takes a quarter.

Paying someone $0.82 for a kW of electricity is not cost effective or reasonable.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, depending on their goals (which may be spurring investment and scale in PV technology rather than generation capacity or peak shaving). In either case, the price paid for locally generated electricity can not be compared to the price charged for utility delivered electricity in any meaningful sense.

Speaking of peak shaving, no one has brought up the fact that the "flat" rate we are charged doesn't actually represent the cost to the supplier. During peak hours, utilities may be forced to buy additional capacity for far more than they can charge. This is averaged out over the day and customer base to create a much smaller series of flat tariffs that we pay. If you paid the pass through price of every electron you'd shut off your mains between 10AM and 2PM.

Now of course that is my opinion but is based on common sense.

Common sense can nonetheless be incorrect. After all, once it was "common sense" that the sun went 'round our flat earth.

Common sense can nonetheless be incorrect. After all, once it was "common sense" that the sun went 'round our flat earth.

CW: Be nice now, those are Flat Earth folks you are talking to.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Let's not continue to live in the land of make believe and pretend complex systems can be explained simply. If you don't understand economic theory or monetary policy (and you've given no reason for me to assume you do) that's one thing. I'm happy to explain it if you're willing to learn, but your attempt to dismiss complexity as an argumentation style rather than a representation of our interconnected reality doesn't give me hope.

Which economist most closely reflects your economic view?

Keynes or Friedman?

Go ahead and try to explain, in as complex terms as you need to, that involuntary redistribution of wealth in the form of subsidies is beneficial to the greater good.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

The ratio of ignorance to words in the above leaves me wondering where to start. Give me some time, I'll figure it out eventually. Perhaps you can aid me a bit and let me know if you took any economics courses in college and if so, attended those lectures.

Start by not bringing out the favorite name calling routine of the left when they are challenged.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Wrong.

I'm sorry my simple definition on the use of money wasn't sufficient for you.
Money remains a medium of exchange of value.

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Wrong again. Wait, you're a capitalist, right? And you think money somehow equates to labor? You're not even understanding the economic theory you profess. Instead you're parroting a conservative talking point which feels good but is nonetheless a ruse. It focuses people on the government taking a half-penny more or less from every dollar so we don't notice when someone else takes a quarter.

Is that a liberal talking point?

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, depending on their goals (which may be spurring investment and scale in PV technology rather than generation capacity or peak shaving). In either case, the price paid for locally generated electricity can not be compared to the price charged for utility delivered electricity in any meaningful sense.

So says you. I'm sure you are aware that industrial use electricity has a much lower rate than residential and rightfully so.
Peak shaving by shedding loads is a useful tool to avoid building additional generating capacity but what happens on a cloudy day with your precious PV?

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Speaking of peak shaving, no one has brought up the fact that the "flat" rate we are charged doesn't actually represent the cost to the supplier. During peak hours, utilities may be forced to buy additional capacity for far more than they can charge. This is averaged out over the day and customer base to create a much smaller series of flat tariffs that we pay. If you paid the pass through price of every electron you'd shut off your mains between 10AM and 2PM.

And again what about cloudy days?

Originally Posted by Corn Walker

Common sense can nonetheless be incorrect. After all, once it was "common sense" that the sun went 'round our flat earth.

And it was once common sense to believe that a man had a right to the fruits of his labor. It's sad how times have changed and how the "enlighten" among us now proclaim "we have a better way, trust us".