Posted on 12/10/2004 9:36:53 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO – The solar panels gleam like black fish scales on the roof of Mark Louvier's Santa Ana factory. They save him $2,500 a month as they pour electricity into the machines below that grind out doors and fixtures for tract homes.
They also cost $1.2 million to install, way beyond Louvier's budget without the government subsidies and tax breaks he got that brought the bill down to less than $600,000.
"Without the credits, I wouldn't have anything to do with it," said Louvier, president of Trimco Finish.
It's businessmen like Louvier and homeowners throughout California that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is targeting with a brewing proposal that could more than double the government rebates that make energy- saving solar panels affordable.
On Monday, Schwarzenegger's top energy adviser and resources secretary will unveil the administration's plan to put solar panels on 1 million California roofs by providing millions of dollars in subsidies.
The plan, to be carried in legislation co-sponsored by Sen. John Campbell, R-Irvine, expands an earlier proposal that Schwarzenegger rolled out this summer but failed to get through the Legislature.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I thought Cambpell was conservative - at least that's what I thought when I voted for him. I wonder how much Timco and these other sun-baked companies gave to him & Arnold.
... affordable for Paul. Peter gets robbed.
Is there a reason why the government is willing to spend this kind of money?
If solar panels are mess produced, would the economy of scale bring the price down? This might be a good investment in the California economy if it is meant to jump start an industry. Otherwise it seems like a backroom deal, and the environment is being used to protect criminal politicians.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
Gov't or utility credits, which often are the same thing. What is the price of solar cells? $5 per watt, just like it has been for a long time? If the price were 5 cents a watt everybody would already have solar cells all over their house and yard.
BTTT!!!!!!!
There's nothing that says you can't be a conservative who supports initiatives like this. I think alternative energy is a great issue for us to steal from the Democrats. They've screwed it all up. Someone needs to take an approach towards alternative energy that's geared towards profitability instead of subsidies and forced measures that increase the cost of doing business.
Even at just $600,000, it would still take over 10 years to pay for itself. Not a great investment.
Even at just $600,000, it would still take over 10 years to pay for itself. Not a great investment.
Try 20 years, without maintenance costs.
Environmentalists, however, warned that unless the plan forces homebuilders to install solar panels, many customers won't seek out subsidies.Who is Environment Now? Look no further than Arnold's Cabinet Secretary, Terry Tamminen."Here we are spending money from ratepayers to subsidize solar," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, a solar advocate with Environment Now. "If we let builders off the hook, we don't have a guaranteed market for the money we're putting in."
From LA Times, September 7, 2003 (Schwarzenegger Is the GOP's Green Candidate)
Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has been a leader in legal battles to force the cleanup of Long Island Sound and the Hudson River. In 2001, he was jailed in Puerto Rico on trespassing charges stemming from his protest of U.S. Naval bombing exercises on Vieques.“We, as a team, approached Arnold, and he welcomed us in after he and Bobby spoke at length,” said campaign advisor Terry Tamminen, executive director of the Santa Monica-based Environment Now. Tamminen, who launched Santa Monica Baykeeper, has a long association with Kennedy.
Without MASSIVE (50%+) subsidies, photovoltaic (PV) solar power cannot compete with even gas fired electrical generation, which is currently the most expensive option. Despite tremendous increases in production volume and decreases in production cost and an almost doubling in efficiency, the subsidy to make PV solar competitive has not changed much in the last 30 years. In a developed nation with an established power grid, solar makes sense only in remote areas where the grid cannot or will not go.
Massive PV power generation is one of those chimerical mirages like fusion power that pundits are always promising is just around the corner. Just a few more federal dollars for research and subsidy. I don't mind the research spending, since in the engineering and scientific areas it always pays off in the long run, but subsidies to promote sales are antithetical to this nation's philosophy. If it cannot make it on its own merits, then off the the ash heap of history for it.
And the panels only last about 20 years, UV radiation breaks down the silicon and the genaration capability falls off rapidly. No fix possible, the only alternative is complete replacement. You could make PV panels that would last 40 years by using NASA specs for space applications, but you are looking at the initial cost at least double that of commercial spec PV panels.
A "guaranteed market" for whom? BP Solar?
Don't leave out the great Evergreen Solar Inc (ESLR).
That's the one DFA has an interest in, so Arnie benefits as well.
Check out http://www.daycreek.com
If you can handle the authors occasional liberal blatherings, it has a lot of good information. He even has a set up for solar heating, by heating a concrete slab foundation with solar heated water. Lots of good info.
I can stand in my garage and call myself a Mercedes Benz, but that doesn't make me one. Limited government and lower taxes are bedrock conservative values. This violates both.
I think alternative energy is a great issue for us to steal from the Democrats. They've screwed it all up. Someone needs to take an approach towards alternative energy that's geared towards profitability instead of subsidies and forced measures that increase the cost of doing business.
Exploring alternative energy is fine - let the private sector do it. The government should not be involved and driving up the cost of homes by mandating alternative energy nor should they be taking my tax money and redistributing it for people to put sun panels on their homes. If alternative is such a great & profitable idea, the private sector would be all over it. As it is, Louvier admits he couldn't do it with out subsidies (read: my tax money).
The truth of the matter is that there are abundant resources of oil & gas. The resources are so abundant that oil & gas remain cheaper than any alternative source. That is why private industry invests their own money exploiting those reserves rather than wasting their money on alternative energy. Because they are using their own money, rather than taxpayers, they use it wisely (another conservative principle).
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.