Late-Night Radio Show Caller Rants Over Subsidies for Renewables
I got a call shortly after dinner last night from a radio host in Denver, explaining that due to a last-minute cancellation, he had an hour-long opening on his show. He asked if he could call me for the interview – at 1 AM!
I agreed, stayed up late, reading, checking out Jay Leno, and fighting off the yawns.
The highlight of the show for me was a caller attacking clean energy based on the fact that the government subsidizes it. When I pointed out that fossil fuels get 12 times the amount of subsidies as clean energy, he responded that since clean energy is only 2% of the total grid-mix, the subsidies it receives represent four times those of fossil fuels per installed megawatt. In other words, because clean energy hasn’t happened, there is no reason to make it happen.
I asked the caller if he happened to be a hard-line libertarian who believes government has no business effecting changes in the public landscape. When he said no, I indicated that his position strikes me as considerably shortsighted, in that it employs a kind of circular logic. It’s like saying that we shouldn’t have built the Internet in the 1990s because there were a only few people online; his argument is really no better than that.
And in the case of renewable energy, I pointed out, we’re talking about a subject that really doesn’t compare well to the Internet; the imperative to move to clean energy goes well beyond the convenience and niceties of our modern age. Whether your concern is long-term environmental damage, national security, lung disease, the ballooning national debt (just take your choice), we are dealing with real dangers here that government, I believe, is duty-bound to address.
I also note that the subsidies for oil have been in place for 80 – 90 years — long past the point that the industry became incredibly profitable. Yet Washington is so completely bought off by the oil companies and the 7000 lobbyists they employ that it simply doesn’t have the integrity to bring this disgusting state of affairs to a close; this is rank corruption in its purest and most obvious form. By contrast, you’ll have a hell of a hard time finding an advocate of clean energy who thinks renewables should be subsidized through the year 2190 — and on indefinitely.
Did I change his — or anyone’s — mind on this subject? Who knows; I was too tired to think about it. Got to bed around 2:30. A bit groggy this morning.
Frankly, I think you wasted a good nights sleep. I doubt seriously that you changed anyones mind. You will never convince Birthers that Obama is an American citizen. You will never change a Liberal to a Conservative. You will never change a Logger into a Tree Hugger. We are passionate about our beliefs and most of us have set them in stone and carved them on the stone for all to see. Try to find the “Undecided” They are at least open to discussion.
Sleep well next time.
You’ve certainly got a point there, Ron. We all tend to look for data in our lives that confirm, rather than disconfirm, our beliefs.
The reason we cannot change anyones mind about the world is we do not recognize the real problem!
I say take all the support. That would include the 18 billion big oil get every year about this time of the year from the US Treasury. He is likely another coal wonk or big oil scum bag. They pretend as though they are some disinterested non partisian citizen and when you ask them if they think first degree murder is ok they are not sure what to make of it. Funny thing is that if you understasnd the poison that you put into the air and water leads to heart attacks, asthma attacks resulting in death is that not first degree murder. It is pehaps a little slower than taking a bullet to the frontal lobe but not by much. These worthless slim balls try and chacaterize clean energy is a bunch of bums. I got news for them. I never have seen a guy with a solar panel fighting a resouce war. We would not be attacking a country that was not a threat to the United States and we darn shure whould not be torturing innocent men to get them to say their was WMD. No, I am sick of these scum bag liars. They listen to Fox Noise and they have no idea what on earth they are talking about. Then we have the illustrious Princess Not So Bright-AKA /saraha Palin. A true brainac in the Fox Noise audiance. We are trillions in debt. We barrow billions of dollars from the Chinese to pay for oil that we can not afford just to send the money to the guys cutting each others heads off in the middle east. What is wrong with this picture. Is they not one man amoung us who is not a coward. A man willing to stand up to these stone cold baby killers? If not sit down and shut up and I will take it to them. I am not at all afraid of these men. I fear what the world is going to look like in the future. We are truly on the brink of extinction as the planet continues to disintergrate around us. There is a nexus between our government and big oil and until this changes there is not going to be one thing done to end our addiction. Presidents have been saying this for more than 40 years and we are no closer today than we were then. We have put ourselves in a worse position. Look around you-we lost over two billion trees this year in the Amazon forrest that is addition to the 3 billion trees we have lost here in the US. Taken with the 10 million square miles of ocean that have been declared ecological dead zone we are losing a lot of oxegen replacement. This thing is accelerating and my fear is these idiots are going to keep up their lies until the very end. They are playing a very dangerous game. One in which there are no winners. There is only losers.
Thanks, Craig. Change is always slow and most people can’t see beyond tomorrow while the carbon in the atmosphere will be there 1,000 years and the HALF life of plutonium is 24,000 years. We need to keep trying!
Interesting article, Craig, I didn’t know Big Oil has been subsidized for so long. I did some checking online and found that Cleantech Group says, “Greenpeace … thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.” Makes me wanna hurt somebody. So much bald-faced corruption. The public should be up in arms.
Could there be any connection between this and the bail-outs of Chrysler and GM? Makes one go “Hmmmm…”
I hope your caller as a principled conservative will hurry to get his car off the road because according to a study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group highways pay for themselves less today than ever. “User fees” pay about half of the cost of building and maintaining the country’s system of highways, roads and streets. The rest comes out of general tax funds that come from everyone, drivers and non-drivers alike.
As for energy, by another estimate if we figured in the cost of having the military and a navy fleet stationed in and round the Middle East to each gallon of gasoline we purchased, the cost would be upwards past $10 a gallon.
So really, now. Who is subsidizing whom?
Oh, and as a driver of a new Nissan Leaf, please thank your next caller who offers the same opinions. I just couldn’t pay 2 cents a mile without him (or her)!
I see the “Old School” as Great Americans who did what was real then. I see them not wanting to grow old and die being told they were wrong, or that that way is wrong now. What we need is a way to respect the past, and move on . As much as I agree with Roy, I fear the polarity is no better than the problem it’s self. I own Solar PV and Thermal at my house. I started installing Solar in 82′, I am a Trainer for Green Plumbers USA, and I get the old school crap from kids! This old school crap is handed down to the youth, that is where I say hey wait a min. Sir., you had your day, let us have ours.
Greg Chick
PS, Conflict negotiations skills are needed domestically and internationally.
In our sinking Europe it is very difficult to find out how the subsidies are rised: the government has no money at all, but subsidizes. As Craig says it would be better stop waisting the money (paying the banks debts…) and invest in university research. In fact what happened in Europe especially in consequence of Bologna treaty, we produce half-baken technology and science specialists and what is worse, no humanitarian graduates at all. This is not a future. The culture is killed slowly (not softly, as many humanitarian university teachers are jobless already and at a big scale).
I also occasionally listen to talk radio and some of the commentators are very entertaining but the accuracy of any technical comments are generally less accurate than a Fairy Tale. The Sane listeners are aware of the entertainment value so only the schizophrenic believe them.
the “Gov’ment” subsidizes pollution, oil & gas, Kansas (corn) and OMG the Interstate Highway System. politics has nothing to do with logic, regardless of your affiliation.
There are many people and organizations out there dedicated to ‘exposing’. For those of you that seek to unite with a real organization dedicated to exposing the real issues plaguing the world, and the solutions to help save it, check out and join the CCRG, asap.
You name it, they have a solution. When you’re ready to stop talking, and start kicking some ass, these are the guys to join to do it.
Check out the site and mission statement to see what makes them different from everyone else.
Laura, What is CCRG? There are too many accronyms to guess, I guess. Thanks, Will
Everything that is good for society and creates jobs have been subsidized. Do you think Henry Ford who fathered mass production of cars was not subsidized by the people? Who built the roads and the highways for the cars? The taxpayers did. It created jobs and was good for the economy.
The aerospace industry was subsidized by the people, and it created a lot of innovations from robotics to micro chips and solar cells.
President Obama understands that we need to transition our country from the gray economy built on coal and oil, to a green economy to be powered with renewable resources. We are exporting $1.1 billion a day to import oil to feed our addiction.
Give me a break! Do we subsidize people who hates us or do we subsidize innovation to create a sustainable future for generations to come.
I think I know that caller from solarpowerrocks.com , he posted in the Mississippi forum down toward the bottom and boy did he get a response. I would think they use our passion against use especially when we rant and rave, as I some times do, causing the politicians and other people in society to look at us as outcast or extremest. I was just trying to save a little money on energy when I invested in PV but the power companies in Mississippi have made it clear there’s not room for renewable energy on their wires. They use advertising and boldface lies to get the public to think solar power does not work in MS and forget about the local news channels doing a report on it, the power company spends plenty of advertising dollars their making sure they keep a lid on renewable energy and any facts that go along with it. The latest ad was trying to get Mississippians to call senators to stop cap and trade, they went on to say how if they had to invest in renewable energy it would cost the average home owner $160 more per month on their electricity bill. The power company is not above lies, tactics and inflating the cost of solar power to keep that coal a burning. I fall under the group of people that feel we should be using the energy that hits the earth every day and stop digging up the past.
I hope they do see me as an outcast crazy fool. The planet is disintergrating around us. You name it and mankind has had an impact on every corner of the globe. Population stands of 6.9 billion people and each and everyone of takes a piece of the planet every single day. We still dont get it. We are all linked together in ways these greedy worthless scum bags could never imagine. Pumping billions of tons of toxic slude into the air and water every single day is killing the planet. Our automobiles run over more than 26 million animals a year. Some are crippled for life. Children die as they turn blue suffocating while trying to breath in what the coal companies and their spokeman call acceptable levels of pollution. Their idea is that they are the victims because we pointed out that they were killing babies with their toxins. No, I will not apologize to a group of greedy corrupt men that belong behind bars.
I find it interresting how these people working for big oil and coal suggest that we are all going to die if we do not allow them to continue pumping billions of tons of toxic sludge into the air and water. They tell us that they are far cheaper than any other souces of energy. No, that is not the case and I am calling them out on it. If the rest of you are cowards then shut up and sit down and let me address these issues even if it means I have to run for the senate. The time has come where we are at a breaking point. If we cross this line there is no going back. Big oil and coal have just as much opportunity to invest in clean energy as the rest of us. They are either too lazy or greedy to make the change. I do not want subsidies and they should not have subsidies either. The rail roads in this country were given one alternation square mile for every mile of tack laid. When we began putting up utility poles and extending power it was the tax payers who paid for it. It was not the same utilities that are whinning and crying we have to put in a transmission line to bring renewable energy into the grid. No, these worthless cowards control the tempo of the conversation by throwing out bold face lies. Fox Noise and the slob down in Florida are perfect examples of why we do not allow idiots to hold a microphone. The sad part is there are enough idiots out there that they can sell their garbage. It is pathetic. One man will cause the entire system to crumble. I may not win the senate race but everyone will know and understand the free lunch for big oil and coal is over.
There is a nexus that exist between the government and big oil as well as coal. The government makes a lot of money off of the sale of oil and gas. This is a big part of their yearl budget. This is principally why they can afford to hand these pukes 19,000,0000,000,000 billion dollars a rear in rebates. I would nationalize the big oil companies and throw the CEO and top officers in jail for crimes against humanity and the killing of innocent people. Perhaps you are so deluded that you think that it is acceptable to have collateral damage but I am not of that opinion. It is first degree murder. There is no difference between these thugs in suits and a serial killer. The result at the end of the day remains the same. Where does it end? When is enough too much. How many have to die before the cowards limp wussies finally grow a pair and say somthing. Like I said if you want to cower in fear than sit down. I will say somthing. This is wrong and you know it.
We launched a war on a country that was not a threat to the United States. An illegal war I might add. Our President Chenny then ordered the torture of innocent men to force them to lie and say there was WMD in Iraq. Do you realize how sick this is for a country like us who for the past two hundred years has been on the side of truth and justice? Now, lets add up the true costs of fossil fuels. The illegal war in Iraq is costing more than 45 billion dollars a month. We will not leave until we have drained this country of their oil. The Afgan war is costing us 28 billion dollars per month and sometimes more. The amount of people who enter emergency rooms and hospitals in this country every year is staggering. It usually involves the poor who live and work in areas where the concentration of pollution is greatest. In Riverside County in the southland California die every year as a direct result of pollution. That is a staggering number of people that die. Children with asthma is at record levels. I am not certain how much this costs but I am certrain it is not cheap. Ironically the same big oil and coal companies are the ones whinning and the fact is they are the biggest contributors to the sickness and death of hundreds of thousands of people. I know this is a crazy world we live. I simply do not want to be defined as the generation that wiped out humanity because of deceit and lies by men who know better. Why? How could money be so important that you are willing to stand by and watch innocent men women and children die a horrible and terrifying death as they suffocate. Think for just one minute what we are doing to our own people. Are we that sick and callous that we look the other way? That is not the country that I know and love. We would never stand for this and I will say that until the nexus between our government and big oil and coal is broken we will never get to a clean energy economy. Presidents and Congress have been working and talking and promising for more than 40 years and we are no closer today than we were then first time it was proclaimed. We are at a crossroads and I am looking at the abyss. It is cold and dark where we are headed. Nothing good can come from continueing what we are doing. More will die. Wars will be fought for resouces and nations will rise up against each other. Food security and water scaricity are the other two shoes ready to drop. You have to believe men when I say it is going to get ugly. It is going to get really ugly. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Did God create planet earth to have mankind comedown here and destroy it?
THAT COULD BE THE PROBLEM, ROY. DID GOD CREATE THE EARTH? That is just a belief, isn’t it? It is a mis-interpretation of Spiritual doctrines, perverted by the early church to control the masses. The earth has evolved, never mind how limited we people are. God has given us our Holy Mind, and because we see the earth as being outside our mind, we believe someone had to have made it. How primitive our basic belief are. Stone Age, actually. I am a minister. As such, I make it my primary purpose to know the truth about all I see. Because people fear lack and suffering and do not trust, they make it real for themselves is untold ways. We can see the world differently, and when we do, it will all change rather quickly, and not until.
Frankly, I am shocked beyond limits….aghast to hear about this. I will hardly ever believe that these people are educated. Their sensitivities for what is happening around us globally, climatically, people’s suffering, deaths seems to be nearly zero. God bless them.
1. We can talk about the oil subsidies and toss numbers around, but I have yet to see defensible, detailed comparisons of the magnitude of subsidies to various energy sources. If someone in this group has defensible data, please send me a reference. I do not consider special interest groups that start with the answer to be credible.
2. We can talk about what the US government should do regarding energy, but what the government will do is decided by their constituents, the American public, not the government. Until the general public is educated on the costs, sustainability and risks of various energy alternatives, the inclination is to maintain the status quo. The simple fact is that all sources of energy have a down side. What matters is how this compares to the up side.
3. A majority of the public, many seemingly well educated, at least formally, do not believe that mankind’s contribution to global warming is significant. People are no longer willing to accept that because climate experts believe this or that, they should follow suit and accept the experts claims to be factual. Scientific bodies have little credibility in the eyes of the general public and are seen as just another special interest seeking to get their hands in the pockets of taxpayers.
Most of the general public could careless until they lose something like food, water, electricity or gas. And when that happens they won’t have much time to change anything.
Craig,
Long ago I learnt that paying attention to the talking heads is a waste of time, because they think that they know everything and that they have the moral authotity to tell everyone what is good for the whole world. Also as long as you go along with their thinking they let you talk, as soon as you bring a good argument against their logic then they interrupt you, get defensive and in a very rude way they don’t let you talk if you are able to raise your voice above their level then they go to a commercial and end of the story.
I am glad that you pointed out to him and his audience the fact that the oil industry is still getting subsidies despite of the fact that they are making a lot of money and that when they pollute and that is often we the taxpayers have to get the bill. Maybe you can also ask why GE and many large companies pay a fraction of what you and me pay in taxes here is a telling link http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110325/ts_yblog_thelookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-on-5-1-billion-in-profits
Cheers pal there is a lot of education that we need to do.
Rogelio
Craig, I think you did an excellent job in rebuttal, and very skillfully and thoughtfully employed his patently ignorant argument not only to disarm itself, but also as an opportunity to gently educate all those borderline listeners, by using some genuine logic.
Bravo, my friend!
If too many of our humble species persist in a regressive spiral, and force each other to live more and more by the law of the jungle, we will continue to make of ourselves a cancer on the face of this jewel of a planet, and we will be no better nor more deserving of survival than an overgrown culture of bacteria in a stale Petri dish.
I believe that you have not only defended the more enlightened path before us in this short-lived time of choice, but you’ve also likely inserted a justly placed nagging sliver of doubt in the minds of those few listening fascists* who possess a rational conscience and a shred of un-quelled logic.
Lest anyone think the word “fascist” an extreme and unwarranted rhetorical antique, here’s how fascism is defined:
A form of government characterized by the merging of business leadership and the state, rigid one-party rule by the extreme right-wing emphasizing strong centralized power, with militarism, an aggressive nationalism, and the suppression of all opposition.
Sound familiar?
Incidentally, anyone who asserts that Obama is a “socialist” – or remotely deserving of the term “left-wing” – is welcomed to point up precisely which policies of his administration differ rigorously in their practical effect from those of his predecessor, and to show also how many radical and regrettable polices of that recent ex-tenant of our White House have been thoroughly carried on and expanded by this current Oval Office occupant.
Further, to show how broadly our present American political structures differ from it, here is an operative definition of socialism:
A system of social organization in which the founding doctrines emphasize non-coercive communities of people working together noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all. It is a political philosophy whereby the distribution of wealth is subject to social controls, and by which is instituted the firm public control of industrial capital, productive property and natural resources (rather that letting these fall under private ownership that restricts the maximum benefit to only a select few)… You know, it’s just like those “primitive” tribes and villages that allowed early members of our species to lift each other out of a scrabbling competitive animal existence, and to develop agriculture, art, music, language and science. Another word for it is “sharing” and it’s a very useful concept.
Incidentally, one of the most robust economies in the world in this time of economic crisis is Germany, which for decades has been known for satisfying the popular expectation for governments to ensure a moderate degree of social wellbeing. With a multiparty system of government, mixing conservative and social democratic forces with a strong influence of Green, liberal and socialist parties, Germany has adopted and preserved a vast array of wise subsidies. The social protection of all its citizens has ling been considered a central pillar of German national policy.
Fully 27.6 percent of Germany’s GDP is channeled into an all-embracing system of health, pension, accident, long-term care and unemployment insurance, compared to 16.2 percent in the US just for healthcare alone (in a system that leaves 19% of Americans under age 65 without any coverage at all, while Germany pays just over 10% for its excellent healthcare system that covers everybody.) There are also tax-funded services such as child benefits, and basic provisions for those unable to work, and for anyone with an income below the poverty line.
Additionally, higher education is heavily subsidized by states within Germany. Nearly all German universities are entirely public institutions, charging only low tuition fees ranging from €50–500 per semester for each student.
Anyone who thinks Europe is sinking should consult Forbes summer 2010 list of the happiest countries – the top five are Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have maintained substantial subsidies to ‘promote the general welfare’ (a phrase that should be familiar to American patriots). Oh, and when it comes to national happiness, Canada is #8, and we’re #14.
In case you’re wondering if “happiness” is something other than prosperity, all five of those European nations are in the top seven by the nominal mean income of the middle 60% of each country’s populace. We’re #10 by that measure.
We are #1 when it comes to per capita personal income – when all of our personal income combined is divided evenly across the entire population (although that’s not at all realistic picture of our prosperity, nor is that exact equality a goal that I would ever support). Yet, when it comes to widespread prosperity as judged by the ratio of the top 10% of incomes to the bottom 10%, we’re way down in the 77th position – at 15 to 1 (just behind Ghana).
Germany is #2 in per capita personal income, while their ratio of top to bottom 10% in income places them 17th – at 6.9 to 1.
What am I saying here?
Greed is bad, sharing is good – for everyone. It’s that simple.
While we personally might remember them from grade school, these simple ideas are of course very old indeed. That though is the unique challenge of being human – all too soon and all too often the old wisdom dies with the old, or is forgotten, and every new generation has to remember or relearn the same old lessons… or suffer the consequences.
Given our massive array of indiscriminately lethal weaponry, and our clear propensity for responding to conflict with violence, those consequences may now prove particularly ghastly indeed.
When Solar Compete Will A State Run Regulated Monopoly Become A Moral Issue!
We Stand Together To Save Our World & Humanity
16 Feb 2008 by Mr. Dawud Muhammad , PV/Solar Consultant Revised 2011
When Solar Compete Will A States Run Regulated Monopoly Become A Moral Issue!
It was interesting when we were in attendance at the Missouri ‘s Public Service Commissions hearing when I mentioned that this was a monopoly, and the gentleman responded by saying yes its a state ran regulated monopoly.
Then the questions leaves us to ask why are we asking the wrong people to find the solution to the power outages and continuous annually rate increases from these power companies along with high gas prices when its apparent there hasn’t been any new power plants to meet the ever increasing demand for power.
And for all parties to come to terms with a fact that power lines and power substations is an late 18th century old ancient and inadequate energy method of delivery which has become more costly then they are willing to admit.
Open The Market Place With True Competition !
The Electric Power Companies are in fear of the term competitions within the market place and the Public Service Utilities Commissioners are thinking of ways to find a balance between the middle ground for the state run regulated monopoly utilities companies and the public interest but the real solution may bring in even harder choices for both parties which speaks in behalf of the public interest but what if the liability increases from the wrong choices and decisions ?
And what danger will it take for a sudden major loss of life due to the Power Companies inability to provide prompt and fast life saving services from which the communities lives depend upon during a crisis.
A wrong choice of decisions may have an serious consequences resulting in major loss of profits affecting the businesses communities in 100s of millions of dollars .
This we do not want see either in behalf of the people or the power companies if an clear an moral decisions is reach in quick and enough time before an serious natural disaster hits .
This process is to allow for true competitions to be distributed evening from these rate increases should be only used to the maintaining what now exist of the electrical grid and share equally to the implementation for an smart alternative energy de-centralized electrical grid systems .
Which would operate more independently if where under severe environmental conditions would allow for an great level of sustainable when public is called upon in addressing major disasters.
These are deciding factors for which the PSC Public Service Utilities Commissions & Power Utilities companies will have to make decision to prevent future disasters .But what would the legal compensations look like from this losses in the near future?
Major loss of lives and business profits could had be prevented.
What would it mirrors n the terms of settlement agreement and at what cost ?
More Open Transparency
We must have more open transparency on the hidden issues which factors in hidden cost that must be examined !
At what cost will the affects of up to an 75% percent electrical rate power increases will have upon the city municipalities ,water treatment plants, sewage , and street lights, etc but what will the cost increases translate to on the budgets within every the State and including the Federal governments.
Is This A Form A Corporate Tax Subsidy
When the poor who are living in subsidized housing can’t afford the electric bills, who steps in the Federal government and is this some form of tax subsidy coming out of the pocket of the American public for which this cost should be associated with alternative choices of introducing in the market place the strong net metering laws and interconnections agreements for companies and homes to become independent , small alternative energy power plants which could have address the supply and demand problems. The inability to addressed these serious problems by these state run – regulated electrical monopolies impedes economic growth .
What Is The Definition For An Economic Disaster ?
For it can be the difference between
A natural disasters or a man- made disaster which can result from wrong policy decisions.
A true definition meaning by from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Definition: A natural disaster is a calamity or catastrophe brought about by a natural occurrence such as a thunderstorm, tornado, earthquake, etc., …
Man Made Disasters are disasters created by humans
A disaster (from Middle French désastre, from Old Italian disastro, from Latin pejorative prefix dis- bad + astrum star) is the impact of a natural or man-made hazard that negatively affects society or environment. Disasters occur when hazards strike in vulnerable areas. Disasters are generally more limited in scale than doomsday events, the global impact of which would threaten a large proportion of life on earth.
The word disaster’s root is from astrology: this implies that when the stars are in a bad position a bad event will happen.
Meaning within just one year two public hearings or public meetings had to announce for addressing the severely long power outages calling in from 12 states and 7000 dedicated linesmen to work either in extreme weather conditions starting from over 100 degrees in the summer to 0 degrees temperatures before the officially coming of the winter but leaving the rural areas vulnerable .
We ask this question, how important will modernizing an de-centralization electrical grid system away from an centralized single -source power generating plants would be upon addressing natural disasters and stabilizing rising inflation within American economy .
Market prediction see rising increase cost for copper wire transmissions lines & transformers replacement which would possibly be manufactured by China .
And outside of the demand for an strong net metering and interconnection agreement more creative market process must be explored for rapid alternative energy deployment that would require utilities companies to purchase its power from alternative energy across this country.
An modern new 22 nd century design model is needed .
By the issuing in the renewable / alternative energy technologies would be the key to developing strong alternative ideas that would increase competition within the market?
Building An Community Co-Op that offers true competition within the Market.
More communities awareness on energy co-operatives where the people invest in its own electrical power plant that shares in even distributions of its profits owned by the people.
In the small city Carbondale ,IL the mayor considering using the power of eminent domain to take back its electrical lines and power system infrastructure and run it themselves .
Which would mean for the utilities companies having to address class actions suits due to neglects relating to its inabilities to provides adequate power during an natural disaster. Will American public and business take this issue up even before to the Supreme Court.
The legal battle would examine the land usage or agreement of the land the city own lease to the power companies. Strong efforts in front of strong electrical rate increase that impact the poor, the elderly , children , and the most particularly hardest hit is the Black ,Latinos, and Whites communities.
With major unemployment being felt across the nation today upper income classes are now falling to impoverished positions with other income groups .
Massive foreclosure are not only related to the ARM adjustable rate mortgages but the higher energy cost is compounding on top of the rates increases causing even more serious economic problems within the market places.
Predictions of over 100 dollars per barrel oil and gasoline prices predicted at over 5 dollars per gallon is now a reality for the future for everyone across this country.
Will taking control of our own energy needs provide more energy saving and new jobs within the market place?
These questions maybe a paradigm -shift for us to think about because in the definitions of terms which must be learned are what strong net metering laws & interconnection agreements are for ,they are not clearly understood .
About the important aspects which strong net metering laws & interconnection agreements within new feed-in tariffs laws would help replace the neglect caused by years of impediment by these energy monopoly and that only green alternative technology solution may offers !
It simply means that each individual building whether a resident or business can become its own a small electric power plant which produce electricity power back to the electrical grid or self -sustainable itself during time of crisis.
It seems ludicrous that the oil industry in the US still gets subsidies. These subsidies should all have been transferred to renewables years ago.
Dr Wisdom, It seems obvious that USA English is not your first language. You may have good points, but it is difficult to interpret them. Calm down and proof read or get someone to do that.
WHat Can I say that has not already been addressed? Anyone what to join me in a vocal revolt? I mean to find others that really want change. This means Civil War right here in the Good old United States!
I have thots about competition. It has been central to the capitalist method of development. It is also central to the conflicts and wars of the world. The entire belief that competition is necessary may actually be entirely false, and made certain because the promoters of it have been encouraged by it themselves, and see ways to profit from it indefinitely. The truth about it is that is is entirely without merit to the mind at peace. It’s optimal end result is always war and death. All peaceful Spiritual doctrines support this. Unfortunately, there may be interpretations of some, Christian and Muslim, for instance, that do not. One must first understand their basic mission statement, per se, before picking out parts of stories to expound belief upon. If you do not, you can easily be decieved. The same thing occurs with the USA’s Constitution and Bill Of Rights. One must always ask, what is it’s purpose and overall intention.
The radio show caller needs some education about what actually is, as well as what is possible before further “auto-humiliation” can be halted.
The government doesn’t know what technologies they should be asking for, while simultaneously refusing to even consider accepting unsolicited proposals that would give government a clue as to what purpose designed technologies have been developed in anticipation of the issues “under-performance” of the politicos could or would probably bring.
It’s a shame that the spirit that made America great in generations past, has been supplanted with the idea of “Me first” at every level, instead of “Us first”. It is demonstrated that the idea of, “We’re all in this together, by ourselves.” was discarded for profit through wanton corporate greed delivered through the betrayal of the American worker so euphemistically called, “outsourcing”.
Part of going green is the creation of many tens of thousands of “unexportable” jobs in domestic (de-centralized) renewable energy production. BigOil will take care of BigOil, not the people of the nation which they owe their immorally subsidized existence.
Greed IS good, within reason. But government and BigCorp have conspired to have the word “reason” removed from the English language.
Another reason for this kind of a “closed mind” and absurd arguments based on illogical reason could be Vested Interests.
In response to James Gover, here are a couple of links about US Energy subsidies.
http://www.good.is/post/transparency-how-much-does-the-united-states-subsidize-energy/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
These show that depending on who is presenting information and what their agenda is, the numbers can support any argument.
Please do note that the EIA information is dictated by Congress and the Administration in power at the time, lags real time by a considerable margin, and has never been shown to be very accurate historically.
I suggest we first define what constitutes a subsidy, direct or indirect, and second we establish a time frame for comparison.
In my opinion, all subsidies should be terminated before we can really talk about a “free market” that sets prices based on supply and demand. But there is so much money to be made in prolonging the status quo that I don’t expect sound economic or energy policy in our lifetimes.
Craig,
You do us all a service by providing the info.
People are mostly unaware of this stuff, and the only way for this huge change to happen is for each person to change. Unfortunately, people do not see what they stand to lose if we don’t change.
Let’s hope enough people will start and the rest will follow in time to preserve the beauty of our planet. Because the old saying “you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone” still applies…
Helen
I’m late getting into this discussion, so just scanned all the posts. Looks like nobody anywhere said anything abt ‘using less energy’. This is a huge neglect in just abt all the current discussions here and elsewhere, yet it was central only a couple decades ago – central to how to transition to a more sustainable future in a most affordable way. Right now we’re still growing our energy use. As long as that’s happening, almost no energy supply solutions will make sense or be affordable or sustainable, not even the conventional energy supplies we have right now.
When I’m designing a solar-heated house, first I cut the heating energy we need by half or two-thirds, using low-tech stuff like sealants and double or more insulation than code. Then the task of solar becomes simpler and lower cost. Same before designing solar water-heating for a home. If we applied this same m.o. to electric, our situation would be far less dire. Heck, we could cut our oil use and CO2 by whopping amounts simply by driving higher mpg vehicles! Just checked US-DOE and saw that in 2009 the average mpg of US noncommercial vehicles (cars, p/u trucks, SUVs, minivans) is still only abt 20 mpg. Meanwhile, I’ve been averaging over 40 since 1992.
Wake up America! We can’t just expect practical or affordable solutions from switching energy technologies or staying the way we are. We need to change: use less, become way more efficient and conserve. Then the solutions bacome much lower cost and reliable.
As for why the govs subsidize energy supply but not the kind of hard-core conservation and efficiency I’m talking abt? I think it’s because govs at all levels tax energy supplies! Govs actually want us to use more and more, regardless of what kind, simply because govs make more money from our purchases. The main reason our govs don’t incentivize cutting energy use by 30% or 50%, or even using solar to go off-grid, is when that happens, the govs have no way to tax the flows. Impossible to to tax a kWh not used, or a gallon of fuel not used. So most solar subsidies are for grid-tied net-metered PVs where the accounting and connections are still in-place. Anybody subsidizing backyard-made grease-filtering for diesel vehicles? Nope because that fuel can’t be taxed. Even most efficiency subsidies are for programs run thru utility companies, which add up the program costs AND how much losses from estimated kWhs not sold, then rates go up to ‘take care of that’. See the problem yet? It’s abt money, and energy money is big time at many levels. This is why our understandings and solutions must go beyond the specific energy proposals. I’m beginning to think that most government and utility programs have underlying motives, namely “money”.
To understand where I’m coming from, I live in a solar home, with solar heat, water heat and some electric. My car gets 42 mpg. I teach solar and energy courses for homeowners, designers and contractors. Been in the biz since 1983. So I know what I’m talking abt, based on 27 years of experience as a designer, consultant and instructor. As long as we sit around arguing abt subsidies instead of how to change in major ways, starting with using much less energy, we’re not likely to accomplish what we’re all talking about.
Another way to say all this is FOCUS MORE ON REDUCING HOW MUCH CONVENTIONAL ENERGY YOU USE THAN ON HOW MUCH ALTERNATIVE ENERGY YOU PRODUCE. I wrote an op-ed abt this a few yrs ago in SOLAR TODAY magazine. In many cases, how much renewable energy we install or buy doesn’t have much correlation to how much conventional energy we use. Attended an energy webinar last winter where the presenter actually said that many new homes featuring PVs aren’t even low energy users. Got a call last fall from a San Francisco electrical consultant who told me he was working on a ‘green’ home with geothermal and 9 kW of PV, yet it was an energy hog, both the house and its occupants. In other words, GREEN should be more abt how much less conventional energy, not how much more RE or nonconventional. This is just like weight loss, where we focus on losing weight, not how much of what kind of diet foods.
The 2011-published, “Free Market Solar Power” book explains that, to win over the Red-States Solar PV is best advocated as a wealth generator for “Joe Six Pack” and only secondarily for its ecological benefits — benefits that greenies too often exaggerate (Solar PV, for example, will NOT lessen our dependence on foreign oil). Hence, the solar vendors should work toward bringing Solar PV’s cost down to $1/watt installed — without subsidies. That includes eliminating costly government regulations.
$1/watt will open up a “Solar Aisle” at Home Depot, commodity (like PCs) level sales, and resulting epic ecological benefit. It will also trigger a tidal wave of prosperity built on net-new-wealth, not “government-printed” wealth.
The book also explains why two wrongs STILL do not make a right: The answer to subsidizing brown power is NOT to subsidize green, which only inflates prices (so solar vendors cop much of the spread) and thus creates even more Corporate Welfare Queens. The answer is to de-subsidize brown. Government officials, like all central planners, are the last people who should be making choices for the free market. Consumers should.
Even so, if we must have subsidies, then the book proposes the most efficient kind: Back-end, tied to performance, and use private solar vendor dollars to do it. Those vendors can stream “supplemental reverse meter credits” through local utilities and receive highly targeted, valuable advertising in return. That would also further commit the utilities to green power — a twin benefit.
My book is completely free, no gimmicks, come-ons or ads: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/ It includes photos and details of my 10KW Solar PV array and a new, Ultra-Green (but less costly than conventional) housing prototype that I designed.
James Christopher Desmond, I skimmed the beginning pgs of your book, very nice to read! Like you, I also work primarily for the not-so-rich, mostly in rural areas in KY. For those who don’t know, KY is mostly rural, less than the avg income of most industrialized urbanized states like, say, Ohio to my north. So if I want to work projects down here for my average client, it’s probably a lot like you in GA. BTW, I have 2 brothers in GA.
Your most important point is that we need to focus on how many participate, rather than how much RE is installed. The PC analogy is great, since it’s how many folks bought and began personally using PCs regularly that made that sector successful, not merely counting how many PCs were sold. Yet here in my region, namely KY and OH, most of the big push and incentivation of PVs and solar thermal is aimed at encouraging the biggest-scale projects. Even the solar stuff itself is subsidized based on how much you install, not how much less conventional energy is used. This has resulted in PVs going up to power stuff carelessly left on when unused, even incandescent lightbulbs! In Cincinnati there are minimum-energy-code structures going up (i.e. 2×4 walls) with PVs on the roof. This is because the super-heavy PV subsidies make them more attractive than insulation, which is just wrong. Or more precisely, driven by the profit-motives of the solar sector. Yes, it is the solar advocates and solar installers these days who are most of the time pushing for the solar subsidies. It’s just lobbying the old-fashioned way, which most of us in the “normal world” don’t do or even think about.
The most essential problem with how the current solar subsidies work is that there’s not even a requirement that the demand for conventional energy be lessened. For example, the peak demand periods on the electric grid where I live, in most of eastern KY and SE Ohio, is during the winter, related to electric heating in areas not served by cheap low-CO2 ngas. PVs do nothing to reduce that since the peak electric loads occur prior to sunrise on cold winter days. What would reduce the peaks? Lots of airtightening and insulation. But that’s not solar so the more powerful lobbies aren’t interested. Solar stuff is also sexier than insulation and caulk you can’t see. Even the home-loaning banks don’t add value to a home in this region if it’s better insulated or sealed. A wall is a wall is a wall, even if it has no insulation or airtightness. Double its R-value and you get the same appraisal.
Told an energy advocate in Cincinnati last month that we should measure our success by how many households participate. That seemed strange to my listener until I explained how few households are currently participating to reduce their use of conventional energy. Yes, a few are heavily participating, even me. My home’s conventional energy use is no more than half similar houses, and this is my 2nd house abt which I can make that claim. But I hear almost daily from folks paying wild amounts of dollars for conventional energy! It’s just normal still that most homeowners are energy guzzlers living in energy-inefficient homes. These are not good candidates for solar anything. Become more efficient first because that’s lower “real cost” than going first for solar. Same applies to businesses.
Good to see your home, not overly expensive and super-efficient. In my area the housing market, new or used, is just about dried up in the recession. Would be great if when it returns, there’s a new focus on producing the least energy-using new homes. But with the majority of homes already built, we need some way to motivate folks to improve their homes’ efficiency. Met with clients recently who got new replacement windows, but stuf-framed walls were still uninsulated, and I could feel the cold air leaking in around the new windows which were apparently not even caulked to the wall or its trims. We need more homeowners to recognize that this makes no sense. Caulk is so cheap! Insulation is far cheaper and energy-productive than new windows or PVs. But again, there is almost no encouragement or incentivation for homeowners to do the inexpensive stuff. Most of the encouragement and incentivation is for the most expensive stuff, like geothermal and solar.
Good luck to your hope that more Americans will get onboard with what we’re talking about. I have worked for many JoeSixPacks but not many. In KY, if the average Joe doesn’t like utility bills, he buys a wood-burning stove (or another wood-burning stove) and cuts more firewood each fall. One Ohio rural guy told me he was “off the grid” and didn’t even have any insulation! In further chatting with him, he burned almost 10 cords per year. He didn’t even consider firewood to be energy! When I asked about his electricity use, he said he didn’t buy much, didn’t even have a computer. Then I looked at his transportation, an old pickup truck. All this shows how we need to educate folks about energy. While you and I understand it, most folks simply do not.
John,
Excellent comments! Bear this in mind: 1’s and 0’s make up the basic operating system of computers. Pleasure and pain comprise the basic operating system of humans. Seek pleasure, avoid pain.
“Joe” will burn wood rather than buy caulk because it’s cheaper (in his mind, at least) to do so. Tax his wood (add $1 or $2 tax per gallon of gas, diesel, etc.) and he’ll avoid that pain and go on to something better. Pleasure him (subsidies to lessen his cost of burning wood, or buying Solar PV) and he’ll do the opposite.
Government alters mass behavior (cigarrette taxes, etc.) via pleasure and pain inputs.
Solar PV subsidies are no different. They INFLATE prices and encourage waste. But guys like the owner of this site are currently winning the day on that argument, so let’s at least try and induce a smarter way to subsidize, via the Back End subsidies that I propose. You’ve sort of touched on this. Get the array up on your dime and only if you net-produce/feed “X” amount of KWH into the common grid will you get a subsidy (hence, an add-on for the reverse-meter rate the utility will pay you for each KWH you feed it). That avoids wasteful Solar PV installations and encourages conservation at the same time (my array produces up to 60KWH a day, and my home’s typical monthly bill is 50KWH a month, so it’s a net money maker for me, and the higher the reverse-meter rate the more $$$ I make, which induces even greater conservation on my part).
And, Solar PV vendors can kick some money in for that, and thus stream their private incentives through the local utility’s reverse-meter rate program to further incentivize the effort. They get free advertising in the process, a double-win.
I suspect it’s too ambitious, though, to take it a step further and insist that there be shown a corresponding brown-power use reduction. That will naturally follow when 100 million arrays go up (my “100 Million Suns” proposal). Deeper down in my book you’ll find more on this, including how the $8 Billion Obama just signed away for a Georgia Nuclear Plant instead could go (via the Back-End Subsidies as I propose) to 1 million, 10KW Solar PV arrays to produce 13GW of power.
Finally, a lot of folks are, let’s face it, just plain lazy and ignorant. Price energy high enough (via taxation, if necessary), and you’ll see caulk and insulation sales take off. Keep it cheap (or recklessly sow entitlement dollars), and people will waste it. Jawboning’s a waste of time; I’d rather tax bad behavior and reward good. The greenies have a pretty compelling argument to tax brown power and subsidize green — based on the same core dynamic. That looks good on paper but, as we’re finding, breaks down in practice.
Hence, my modified (back-end) approach, in addition to my free-market approach (focus on eliminating regulatory barriers and fostering greater efficiencies, thus lower prices so that “Joe” doesn’t have to be bribed to go solar).
I’ve yet to see anyone engage the issue in this way, so I commend you, because I believe this is a better idea, and one should never underestimate the power of a good idea, much less a better one. We can and must change the national conversation on this, as subsidies (at least as presently dispensed) hurt more than they help, and we sure don’t need a $14 trillion indebted government giving away MORE money it doesn’t have for a product no one wants (at least, not at its current, unsubsidized price).
— Chris
Chris,
If it were upto me, I’d mandate equating the value of reduced kWs and kWhs with new kW and kWh supply. Add progressive pricing (higher rates for higher use or supply per day or month) for either positive or negative volumes of kWs or kWhs. In other words, you’d pay marginally higher and higher prices for greater daily or monthly electric use and demand. And a utility would pay marginally higher and higher prices for greater amounts of kWs and kWhs supplied to their grids.
Where you and live, it’s common for utilities to discount the price of electricity as usage goes up. For example, Duke in SW Ohio offers a 33% discount on retail residential electricity sales abv 1000 kWh per month. Last time I checked a couple years ago, AEP in Columbus OH offered a 50% similar discount for residential higher monthly use. I worked a job in Nebraska a few years ago where the residential electricity price when down even more for higher monthly use! But if you live in San Francisco, homeowners pay sharply progressive rates, abt a 1:4 ratio of lowest to highest marginal rates, applied in tiers just like progressive income taxes. Energy guzzlers are paying a marginal price 4x higher than lowest users! Doesn’t matter how that is achieved, and that’s the way it should be, ideally.
Progressive rates applied to both positive and negative flows in electricity use or supply could accomplish all the subsidies we need AND reverse the built-in guzzling incentives we have in many utility pricing schedules right now. I tell politically savvy environmental audiences in my region, like Sierra Club, that eliminating “rate regressivity for higher use” is the #1 most important political thing they should focus on. It should be illegal to discount utility rates for higher energy use or waste collection or water use.
Anyway, in my region many of the same utilities offering guzzler discounts are also giving subsidies for RE, energy efficiency (EE) upgrades and demand-side management (DSM). Pretty hyocritical on its face. But then again, these rate-based guzzler discounts have been in the Cincinnati local rates since I was a kid. Didn’t happen yesterday. It was probably assumed some way-back time ago that using more is a good thing. American way, right! Now we know better. And there are examples to follow, like SF.
BTW, the CA progressive rates revolution happened because CALPUC ordered it so. Nowdays, most major US West Coast electric utilities have rate progressivity, all the way north to Seattle.
I also think we need uniformly applied rates on how much power access or demand there is. Almost all commerrcial electric rates are not only per kWh but also per kW. Utilities meter how many peak kWs during their “peak demand periods”. Those in summer-peaking territories occur in summer afternoons, coincident with ACs fighting afternoon high temps and sun. In winter peaking territories like mine, they occur before sunrise of very cold winter mornings. Duke charges its SW Ohio commercial customers over $16 per kW PLUS another charge per kWh. In Riverside CA, even residential customers pay $5 per 100 amps available at their mains. Just as I’d have progressive usage (kWh) rates, I also want progressive demand (kW) rates.
These 2 uniformly applied (country-wide) electric rate reforms would do a huge service to ‘re-informing’ people that more use or demand is neither desirable nor tolerable. People using the most power would have the most incentive to lower usage. On the RE side, larger new arrays would return more the more they output. Most important, a kW and kWh avoided or reduced would be 100% equal to new kWs and kWhs of supply, whether solar or nuclear. I want 100% parity between “megawatts and negawatts”. Eliminate all subsidies which elevate any one technology or strategy over any other.
I’m not a politician or regulator, so know these are likely unacceptable because they’re too fair, creating a too-level playing field. Special interests and benefits are so deeply rooted in so much of our thinking and politics nowdeays…
JohnR
Somebody somewhere asked a question abt a precise accounting of the subsidies… I once had a slide in one of my lectures showing a 1970s tally, something around $70 billion per year for conventional energy companies. I haven’t kept up with this, but suffice it to say there are MANY subsidies and loopholes in American business tax m.o.! We shouldn’t be surprised. But imagine the built-in subsidies for guzzling businesses and consumers, as I describe abv. I’ve never seen an assessment of this. All the ‘lost revenues’ from offering subsidies to larger users must be ‘offset’ by higher prices on lower users.
If we implement progressive pricing reform, we’d reverse this. Higher users would subsidize the lower rates paid by lower use. I believe this rate reform can be implemented in a “revenue-neutral” way, such that utilities would collect the same moneys as now, just redistributed.
Eventually, the hope of progressive rates would be that there’d be dropping demand for higher amounts of electicity. Utilities woudn’t like it, but heck, I’d even state outright that our goal is to shutdown or run less xx% less coal-fired powerplants per year, with an ultimate goal of YY% less by ZZZZ date. I’m often amazed at never seeing any clearly stated goals like this. I don’t know of any RE, EE or DSM program in my region which had as its mission statement the shutdown or avoidance of any major amount of coal-fired powerplant run-time.
Good on ya for making the effort! If you don’t combat the sloths, defeatists, purists and crazies on the airways, they take over and the next thing you know is that their views are being touted as the norm. We have all become too lethargic in defending and arguing for what’s right. It might be painful, but if you changed just one mindset, or stopped one person from being convinced that we should do nothing then you won.
Don’t we elect our government’s to lead, not to be led by the nose by those whose motives are purely of self interest. We all know the oil companies aren’t going to vouch for reductions in oil subsidies…or at least not until they have maximised their oil gains and have become fully retrenched in renewables…which is a while away.