If Solar was subsidized like Fossil fuels

Any sane society would be subsidizing solar instead of those poor fossil fuel companies.

Actually, I read somewhere that if fossil fuel companies were not subsidized, they would be unprofitable now. Not unlike the banks, whose profits track suspiciously close to the level of subsidies they receive. Very odd, that.

Those rigs out in the ocean? Fracking?

When oil was first brought to market from Pennsylvania fields it was just oozing up out of the ground. Took a while to get the technology we have today that permits extracting it from the arctic or from the ocean floor.

Solar is still in its infancy. We need to subsidize it. Here in Southern California, solar energy is a no-brainer.

We would have it, but our electricity bill is far to small to make it pay. If it were subsidized as it should be, we would have it.

We don't have air conditioning. We have trees. That's of course another form of solar power in a kind of round about way. The sunshine makes the trees grow, and the trees shade our house. We are just lucky because if we did not have our trees we would need air conditioning.

fossil and nuclear energy and put them into clean and renewable energy like solar instead? I would sign petitions, march, sit in and vote for such changes.

It's nice that some people have the money to play with solar and wind but there's no chance that it ever be enough. It's just not possible.

but I am a pessimist , or realist, in view of the death-grip fossil fuel companies have on our lawmakers and economy. But, other countries - look at chart regarding Germany- are taking a step back from fossil fuels. I think the development of a storage battery, which is making great strides, will be the lynchpin for the solar industry.

an equivalency. Energy use world wide is at an all time high and growing with the population. We will end up using coal in the end and the necessity of energy use will trump global climate change. Many who were once advocates of clean energy change after examining the facts. There was one of these converts on PBS the other night who was saying the same thing. If you look at enough pie charts concerning fossil fuel use compared to clean energy use you can see the enormous and impossible challenge it really is. There's no way to stop the train that has left the station a long time ago. I wish it was not so but then I'm on my way out in the next ten to 20 years.

Data please.

--imm

I'm just stating that solar cell manufacturing produces toxic waste ...like a lot of other processes. Solar is not pure energy in that respect. There is a lot of energy used to produce solar cells as well. They are not hand made in someones basement. Could you produce enough energy on the same plot of land from solar cells to power the manufacturing of solar cells on that same plot of land? Heh ...I seriously doubt that. Energy use in all of its forms produces various amounts of waste ...nothing new there. The large hurdle to get over is the energy used for transportation. When they figure out how to accomplish that hurdle then maybe the train can be stopped. otherwise it's going to go on until it crashes.

The jury is far from consensus on the best way to make solar cells, including minimizing waste materials. It's a technology in infancy. (Remember when car brakes were made of asbestos? And they wore out in 5000 miles? And they said that asbestos was irreplaceable?)

The entire energy appetite of the country could be satiated by a few hundred square miles of solar grid. Some countries, and a few states, already get a significant percentage of their power from renewables, and in some areas of the world, solar is the only electrical generator they will ever know, due to economics.

--imm

... then there's no reason to do it at all? I wonder how your grandchildren would feel about that attitude?

Just as no energy sector has ever flourished without government largess, there is also no completely clean form of energy. Coal mining is toxic. Oil production is toxic. Fracking is toxic. There's not an insurance company in the world that will write a liability policy for a nuclear plant - the government has to provide that insurance (i. e., YOU & ME! ... is that a business that you WANT to be in?) Are you advocating that we completely forget about a pretty good solution while we look for the perfect one?

So, who's "baking" your pie charts? Exxon/Mobil? The Heritage Foundation? ALEC? Koch Industries? Are you unaware that the Kochs are HEAVY subsidizers of PBS? - but that support is quite contingent upon content control.

I'd assert that if we stopped subsidizing fossil fuel, your metaphorical train would either be converted to run on renewable energy, or it would, indeed, just STOP!

My guess would be that you, personally, are heavily invested in fossil fuels, so your opinion about what's good for EVERYBODY is completely decided by what's best for your bottom line. Or ... perhaps you just don't give a tinker's damn about anyone else.

Jeeze attack is all you got. Whatever. Don't like what someone has to say so you go on the attack. Not very mature IMO.

Really ...now I am advocating for a perfect solution? Jeeze ...can't have a real chat with you I guess.



LOL Nice try but I have no investments whatsoever ...you have no clue but thanks for playing.

I was hoping their views would be put forward here.

... for so handily demonstrating your belief that the ONLY sign of intelligence is sharing YOUR opinion.

and taking into consideration your comment, our civilization will collapse. Attitudes like yours will not help to drive fossil fuel depletion (or climate change) mitigation and neither will simply "playing" with solar and other renewable energy sources.

Cars will not and can not go back to steam power. Solar cars have been tested and will never replace conventional weight transportation methods. At best they can only transport one person for a very limited amount of miles and that's only if the vehicle is covered in cells. Same thing with air craft. The physics of mass come into play when considering how much energy it requires to move mass over various terrain paths. With a little research one can find charts and stats that will confirm that is it impossible to replace world fossil fuel consumption at the increasing rate of use per year. Here's just one chart that shows how far away anyone is from fossil fuel use replacement. I would dig up more but I realize most are not going to accept the reality of our situation anyway. The train has already left the station and it is not going to stop until it meets the end of the track.

The proliferation of renewables is increasing exponentially, while its cost are decreasing similarly. The production of fossil fuels is at, or near, its peak and will only get more expensive, as it takes more energy to extract and refine the obtainable fossil fuel.

Why don't you dig up a chart to show how much renewables have taken of the total energy market over the last 20 years?

--imm

--imm

We all here understand the reality of the status quo, it is - I hope - the goal of everyone on a progressive site to hope and to work to change that seemingly intractable mire we find ourselves in. Reality is -forgive the pun - relative. Reality , at one time, meant 12 hr. work days, women not voting, slavery, no ACA, dirty air/water, etc., etc.

Sorry, not going to throw up my hands and "mock" reality-too defeatist.

and nothing ever disappears but only changes form. When we get around that we will have a solution.

but I don't think it's reality that he's mocking.

Solar is the gift that keeps giving out here. The toxicity involved in making solar panels pales compared to the toxicity of what goes into most of our electronic gear, nuclear energy, and the fracking of gas. You make a solar panel and it lasts for a long time.

I believe we will get better at producing solar panels and use less toxic materials as we produce more solar panels. Markets motivate innovation. If the market for solar panels continues to grow as it has been growing, the toxicity problem will be solved.

Southern California. Haven't seen rain in months and months.

Any real solution is going to have to deal with the use of cars and trucks. Are you going to commute from Oceanside to LA or San Diego everyday with a solar charged car? Good luck.

We have done amazing things in this country.

We will develop solar energy and it will make fossil fuels and nuclear energy obsolete. It will take time, but it will happen.

have a chance of replacing fossil fuel based transportation. If people were really serious we could slow it down a lot by eliminating meat consumption. That ain't gonna happen. The energy and fuel needed to supply meat is enormous. Bottom line is we are all spoiled and we are not going to give up what we have right now without a fight ...and a large part of that is to remain willingly ignorant.

We are the land of sunshine, a desert basically. We will be using primarily solar energy within 30 years, faster if we subsidize solar as much as we do fossil fuels. It gets more expensive to extract fossil fuels slowly but surely day by day.

We passed the time when fossil fuels make economic sense some time ago.

A car that runs directly on solar power is not currently practical. And I don't hear anybody claiming it is. But very few cars are driven more than a hundred miles a day, and it won't be long before battery power will be double that. Fuel cell cars are being tested.

That fossil fuels will run out is a certainty. Here's a long shot that no body talks about because wolf cries have been aplenty:
http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

--imm

Deriding cars powered by onboard solar cells - that's your best argument?

These are a bit of the expensive side, but have come down in price in five years from pipe dream to slightly spendy commuters. But then you don't care because you decided that you will have bought the farm by the time the become the dominant commuter vehicles.

http://www.plugincars.com/cars

You got nothing ...huh.

--imm

You have derided solar cell cars run in endurance tests by universities, because you want to avoid the topic of real, production electric cars that are on the roads right now. (Hint, you have to click the link)

When the cost of extracting oil becomes too high (and it will, there's in no denying it) electrics are the only existing alternative.

For someone who doesn't care because you are going to be dead soon (your statement, not mine), you sure seem to expend a lot of energy denying...

When solar technology (or any other green tech) matures the market will demand its dominance. But until that happens oil is what we've got so like it or not its what we're going to use.

Sure, electric cars are actually ideal for relatively short commutes, as opposed to, say, cross country hops.

And you can get the electricity to put in those batteries from any source that generates electricity. Coal, oil, steam, nuclear, hydro, even solar or wind. Electricity is electricity, it doesn't care what the original energy source was.

into the atmosphere so where does that leave us?

Everyone believes that they have a right to do the same that the US has been doing. Who's going to stop them from using fossil fuel and or coal? Good luck with that.

When the climate changes, everything changes.

...with the very real caveat " But the big question remains – do we have the political and popular will to make it happen?"

http://thesolutionsproject.org/#tsp-section-stats

for the transportation sector

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

page 1158 table 2

biggest problem is still political and popular will

You'd have to rearrange cities and work places so people could get to and from work without cars.

massive new damn they have would be reducing the use of coal too.

"You'd have to rearrange cities and work places so people could get to and from work without cars..."

Much as the social fabric dramatically changed during the market changes from horse to combustion engine.

I'm glad they get to voice their opinions here

over access to the sun or the wind or the waves for that matter.

It's as if we were given this great gift and we do nothing with it.

We prefer instead to waste enormous sums on nuclear energy and burn up our environment with oil and coal when we could simply convert the sun we have been given for our fuel.

We could at least use solar energy to run our air conditioners during the day. It is absurd that we in California burn gas or oil or coal or use nuclear energy to run air conditioners. Here in Southern California we live in the desert. With the exception of very few days, it cools off at night. Almost every night.

We need bigger subsidies for solar and smaller subsidies for other fuels. The subsidies for nuclear energy are particularly galling.

[center]
Click pic for link[/center]

solar vs electricity from the grid

then 1/3 of the power we get today would be coming from solar.

nice to have their views represented here

I want to use this but I can't read the source.
Thanks

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/half-germany-was-powered-solar.html

http://pureenergies.com/us/blog/what-if-solar-power-had-fossil-fuel-like-subsidies-infographic-b/

MUCH easier to read, too.

like an idiot I forgot to post the source of the chart which was Pureenergies.com

I believe the only way to change this situation is based in superconductivity technology, that or something else that has yet to be discovered. Passive technology such as wind and solar can help to reduce our reliance in fossil fuels, but it will never be the answer.

The fossil fuel industry will fight us to the death to prevent solar energy from being widely adopted in the USA. They get free money. Why would they give that up.

4/2014~~

"At long last, the Koch brothers and their conservative allies in state government have found a new tax they can support. Naturally it’s a tax on something the country needs: solar energy panels.

For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, which have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don’t need back to electric utilities. So they’ve been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.

Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently, the Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a month in Arizona.

But the Big Carbon advocates aren’t giving up. The same group is trying to repeal or freeze Ohio’s requirement that 12.5 percent of the state’s electric power come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025. (me: Koch bought our Gov Kasich quite successfully and he put a "freeze" on renewable incentives in Ohio.) Twenty-nine states have established similar standards that call for 10 percent or more in renewable power. These states can now anticipate well-financed campaigns to eliminate these targets or scale them back.

The coal producers’ motivation is clear: They see solar and wind energy as a long-term threat to their businesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0

of fossil fuels. That's just to look at it another way.

over 2011 to 2015.
I'm curious as to why this is necessary if solar power is so heavily subsidized.

i had a monitoring system installed at the end of september (there was a delay for various reaons)
in the month ive had the monitoring system operating ive generated 860 KWH of electricity.
based on my cost of 10.8c/kwh that is a savings of $92 off my bill.
i expect payback in 10-12 years assuming a 4% annual increase in electric costs,and also assumin that if i sell my house after that 12 years the solar panels add nothing to the house value

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/04/a-closer-look-at-obamas-90-billion-for-clean-energy/