Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California wants more solar energy
The Guardian via the Teipei Times ^ | August 7, 2004 | unknown

Posted on 08/07/2004 12:22:24 PM PDT by snopercod

California is proposing to add solar power to a million homes in the next 10 years, paid for by a surcharge on electricity bills equivalent to about US$0.27 a month.

The plan, proposed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to honor an election pledge of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to ensure that half of all new homes in the state are built with solar power facilities.

The surcharge would raise US$1 billion in 10 years for the installation program, with the state using the money to give rebates to home builders who install solar panels on new homes, and incentives for installing panels on existing homes.

Homeowners would be able to reduce their power bills and even make money by selling "unused" solar energy back to the electricity companies via two-way meters.

Electricity supply has been a sensitive issue since the energy crisis in 2001 when a free-for-all market pushed prices so low that many stations shut down leaving the state short of power. Solar power became more popular.

According to the California Energy Commission, while 900 photovoltaic systems were installed from 1998 to 2000, more than 11,000 systems were installed from 2001 to the middle of last year.

Most of the changes were to older properties, but with 150,000 new homes being built a year the greater potential led to a campaign for the state to use its "greatest asset" -- sunshine.

Tim Coyle, the senior vice president of the California Building Industry Association, said home systems could cost from US$17,000 to US$20,000 and would not pay for themselves as customers would typically pay US$120 a month to repay the purchase price and then receive about US$70 in "returns" in electricity generated.

The state grants are designed to make the system pay.

According to the draft plan, "each month the homeowner will save more money in reduced electricity charges than [will be paid] on the solar mortgage."

Together the solar installations would equal 36 new, 75-megawatt natural gas plants, and would avoid adding millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air a year.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: energy; environment; passthebong; soloar
Systems could cost from $17,000 to $20,000 and would not pay for themselves as customers would typically pay $120 a month to repay the purchase price and then receive about US$70 in "returns" in electricity generated.
1 posted on 08/07/2004 12:22:26 PM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I'm still trying to get the hang of this new posting system.


2 posted on 08/07/2004 12:23:24 PM PDT by snopercod (Nine out of the 10 recessions since World War II have occurred after a big run-up in oil prices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
The state grants are designed to make the system pay.

There is a fallacy in here somewhere. Can't quite put my finger on it.

3 posted on 08/07/2004 12:25:13 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"There is a fallacy in here somewhere. Can't quite put my finger on it."

It's called "NIMBY"....needs a ton of "environmental", "architectural" and "aesthetic" assessments and permts.

Like the guy in Palo Alto CA (peoples republic off) who after installing a state of the art solar panel system was told by the council it "didn't fit in" and either had to take it down or cover it up..

Enjoy the sunshine.

4 posted on 08/07/2004 12:30:20 PM PDT by spokeshave (strategery + schadenfreude = stratenschadenfreudery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

The amount of energy required to manufacture and install a solar panel is roughly equivalent to what the panel will itself produce over its entire projected lifetime, so I'm not sure I see the point.


5 posted on 08/07/2004 12:32:49 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

Hey! I'm doing my part. I have a solar powered calculator around here somewhere. Where's my rebate???


6 posted on 08/07/2004 12:35:39 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
There is a fallacy in here somewhere.

Well, the cost of energy in the state of california must run something like $5,000 per year per household. We are going to fix the problem by a $4.00 per year subsidy per household. If solar were really that cheap no one would use other sources of electricity except at say Pt. Barrow.

There is a slight complication in public policy regarding energy costs - which is where the debate on public policy comes from.

According to classical economic theory, the market cost for electric power will be equal to the marginal cost of producing the next kilowatt hr. This is a windfall to those who have cheaply produced energy such as hydro-electric (which is limited) or natural gas or oil fired systems (which passes the windfall on to those with cheaply produced sources of oil or natural gas). So, one tries to create a system of taxes and subsidies to flatten out the return across all sources. However, by trying to encourage things that will never be economic (such as large-scale us of windfarms) and trying to discourage the much-hated nuclear industry, "reasonable" economic adjustments fall into political squabbling and one ends up with an irrational political mess rather than a rational system. Instead of trying to correct market failures (as they are called) one screws up the whole notion of a market all together. One then makes accommodation with market manipulators such as Enron whose opportunity was created by this mess in the first place, and you produce California.

7 posted on 08/07/2004 12:35:43 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

yes, the nuclear power industry and hydro power industry were just good business decisions made by entrepreneurs, no federal government participation in those fields.


8 posted on 08/22/2004 2:12:20 PM PDT by babble-on (what is "IT" again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson