Skip to main content

View Diary: Solar Report Stunner: Unsubsidized Global Solar Revolution (133 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Subsidize the PURCHASE (10+ / 0-)

    What if the gov't subsidized the purchase of residental solar up to a certain level?

    I mean 100% for consumers.

    Not every location can power their home off solar 100%, but say that enough people took up the gov't that  the amount produced by residental users amounted to 10% per household or something.

    Would we be looking at bending environmental law   to allow for drilling in senstive areas and would we be going full steam with fracking without really knowing the long term consequences if people could produce 10%.  Would we build new nuclear or coal plants?

    If every house produced some electricity would that be of national security benefit by having the power producing spread out? Would it help in Hurricanes?

    •  Why not subsidize for businesses? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jobobo, FarWestGirl, Paul1a

      Roofs on shopping malls and WalMarts are huge opportunities for Solar installs.

    •  Because that encourages price gouging (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest

      When consumers like you and me are paying out of pocket, we have limited funds and will shop around for the best deal.  But when the purchase is subsidized 100%, well it's no longer "our" money being spent is it?

      So people will want the best option there is, they won't care about the cost, won't pressure suppliers to hold costs low.  Uncle Sam is paying for it, who cares how much it costs, right?

      It's unsustainable, and basically makes CEOs and the 1% rich while driving up the program costs until someone cuts it off.  Do we really want home solar following the healthcare cost curves?

      I know you want everything to be free and easy, but do think about the overall system, please.

      •  Well, Uncle Sam can put limits on it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook

        100% up to x output at a maximum of $y dollars/watt. No one will want to pay more than $y dollars/watt, because the overage is (a) out of pocket, and (b) unnecessary.

        •  Fine, but it won't ever be cheaper than that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean, Whatithink

          Think about it.  If it's your money, and supplier B charges less than A, you get to keep the money.

          But if it's a subsidy, it's spend it or lose it.  So if supplier B is cheaper, it doesn't save you anything.  And supplier B will know that, and won't be cheaper.  The value of the subsidy is what the price will be.

          And then it goes to lobyists and bribed politicians to decide what the subsidy "should" be, which will always be more than it really needs to be.  And again the CEO gets rich off everyone else's money.

          You can let the market set the price, or have corruption and graft.

      •  What about Military Price Gouging (0+ / 0-)

        If we stopped depending on the middle east even if we got took on our solar panels price wise would we as a country be out anymore than we are with our bloated defense budget?? Our imperialistic meddling in the middle east?

    •  Yes, absolutely. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW
      If every house produced some electricity would that be of national security benefit by having the power producing spread out.
      Maybe, maybe not.  It would depend on whether or not the individual installation had batteries or not.  
      Would it help in Hurricanes?

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:07:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site