Posted on 12/30/2013 9:00:06 AM PST by jazusamo
Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy.
Solar electricity is expensive and impractical. If it weren't for government subsidies, some explicit and some disguised, the solar industry would collapse. The many claims of competitiveness are always based on ignoring subsidies provided to politically correct renewable power, ignoring the costs associated with unreliability, and ignoring the cost of backup fossil fuel plants.
An example of a hidden subsidy is the California Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from so-called renewable sources by 2020. This mandate forces utilities to contract for expensive sources of energy, such as solar. The cost is passed on to the utility customers with the connivance of the government. Although the motivation behind the California scheme is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, politically incorrect sources of CO2-free electricity, such as nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric, can't be counted as renewable.
People whose knowledge of electricity production ends at their wall outlet are dictating national energy policy. Magical thinking by hopelessly ignorant political activists permeates the alternative energy universe.
How much does electricity from conventional sources cost? If I look at my ComEd (Chicago) bill, the charge for electricity is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH). Additional charges for delivering the electricity and various taxes increase the total to about 10 cents per KWH. This is electricity mainly from coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Electricity is available at the plant gate in much of the U.S. for about 5 cents per KWH.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-must not have enough political pull but about the last news before stopping its permitting process was an application for a thirty mile natural gas pipeline--natural gas needed to keep the fluids warm at night--
A friend of mine worked in the home solar market. He said the only locales where solar made sense were markets in California that didn’t produce their own power. That still required all of the subsidies and the assumption the gear would last 15 years. That was for an “on the grid system,” with no battery storage.
Even as corrupt as state and federal bureaucrats are I’m amazed this solar and wind power scam has gotten this far. I guess the old saying is true in these cases, ‘follow the money’ and especially this money because it’s free from the taxpayers.
When a big liberal city in a blue state starts running on solar power, without any nuclear, fossil fuels, or hydro, only then will I believe that it’s a legitimate form of electricity.
Green energy is a big part of the Chicago mob crony capitalism onslaught.
Amen...We won’t have to worry about that and probably our grandkids won’t either.
Probably just a coincidence that 0bama’s from Chicago. :-)
One way it could work is as a heat source to extract hydrocarbons from organic materials
that could then be refined into gasoline.
But even this is not really near as efficient as pulling the oil/natgas out of the ground and using it.
Ping!
The hatred of the oil companies is profound mainly because they keep western civilization going.
Al Gore & Co. really would like us to go back to the stone age and Gaia worship.
No doubt you’re right plus it’s made multimillionaires of algore and other scam artists.
While I agree with the thrust of this article, it is not helpful to a debate about green power costs. The reason is that peak hour power may reach 22 cents per kilowatt hour whereby solar could compete as to price (for a few hours).
In Hawaii, the cost of conventional power is already like 45 cents per kilowatt hour, so 22 cents would be a saving. The problem in Hawaii is that all those rooftop solar systems are re-selling power back into the grid and the grid can not handle it because it is too unpredictable.
Just comparing prices (which I have also done) is like a flat earth comparison to a round world of energy prices.
There is also the problem of air pollution. California has 9 smog trap basins; Texas has none. Solar doesn’t make much sense in Texas because (except maybe in Dallas or Houston during the summer) because there are no smog traps. The solution to pollution is dilution.
No tax credits here (no fat income from government allowing me to sit on my rear end while others install) and no grid power within several miles. Thanks for driving down the prices of components, so that I can add to the system for less. ;-)
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.