Solar energy

On a radio show last night, they were talking about a guy that put in solar panels. He paid 13,000.$, the state and federal gov. paid 29,000. The payback is 600 dollars a year and the panels have to be replaced in something like 12 years. So solar energy is not a very good investment for us taxpayers, is it??!!  

WHL wrote:On a radio show last night, they were talking about a guy that put in solar panels.  He paid 13,000.$, the state and federal gov. paid 29,000.  The payback is 600 dollars a year and the panels have to be replaced in something like 12 years.  So solar energy is not a very good investment for us taxpayers, is it??!!  

You're not even close. I know someone who is saving almost $2,000 a year on panels which will last 30 years. His cost was $12,000, so the system will be paid off in 6 years and he'll have free electricity after that for 24 years. Most of his rebate came from the local utility, and every house that goes solar lightens up the load on our electric grid. I've seen residents of 55 and over communities in New Jersey loading up on solar panels because their homes are all electric, with heat costing $500 a month in the winter. Solar panels are the way to go!! (if you're not surrounded by trees!)

Do you think they lied on the radio last night then?

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:On a radio show last night, they were talking about a guy that put in solar panels.  He paid 13,000.$, the state and federal gov. paid 29,000.  The payback is 600 dollars a year and the panels have to be replaced in something like 12 years.  So solar energy is not a very good investment for us taxpayers, is it??!!  

You're not even close. I know someone who is saving almost $2,000 a year on panels which will last 30 years. His cost was $12,000, so the system will be paid off in 6 years and he'll have free electricity after that for 24 years. Most of his rebate came from the local utility, and every house that goes solar lightens up the load on our electric grid. I've seen residents of 55 and over communities in New Jersey loading up on solar panels because their homes are all electric, with heat costing $500 a month in the winter. Solar panels are the way to go!! (if you're not surrounded by trees!)

Do I remain the only person in Wolfeboro who has used solar power at his residence?

 

(Thanks, Jimmy Carter!)

WHL wrote:Do you think they lied on the radio last night then?

I'll just say they were misinformed. You should think about partnering up with a solar energy company at your business.

The 20 solar panels Jeffrey Punton installed in the backyard of his Weldon Street home won’t ever generate enough electricity to cover their cost. Which is the whole point.

He means them as a cautionary tale, one that Punton said cost him $13,000 and received another $29,500 in state and federal subsidies and tax credits.

He installed the panels in 2009, and they work: he has generated about 15,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in four years, saving several hundred dollars a year on his energy bill.

That’s a lot of savings, but barely enough to recoup his initial investment over several decades, and not enough to cover the public money involved. It’s that public money that chafes him, evidence of governmental intrusion in the marketplace.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/comments/article/20130813/NEWS01/308130053/solar-panels-cost-of-government

It looks like the gentleman in the video started off with a negative attitude about solar power and did everything he could to make it not work.
Having to lift the panels by standing on some logs and then putting a pail of sand on the other end is stupid. Houses and trees around the panels that block some of the sunlight isn't helping the panels to take advantage of the sun.

Look at the junk this guy has around his house. He was tripping over some of it during the video.

He should never have got any assistance money for that mess. Someone should have inspected it before to make sure it was working and built properly.

THank you for finding that story fsh.   Of course NB and Don will twist the story to fit their wishes.

I agree with what Donzel says about the installation short comings but my guess is that this is the perfect example of a typical home installation. Punton does have quite a bit of "earth cred" though.

WHL wrote:THank you for finding that story fsh.   Of course NB and Don will twist the story to fit their wishes.

I see you are still your typical nasty self, and I'm not surprised. In the attached piece the author estimates that 285 square feet of solar panels are necessary to generate 14,400 watts per day, or 14.4KWH on your bill. That would equate to 19 panels that are 3' by 5'. Therefore, 38 panels would generate approximately 29KWH per day, which is what I'm now using with my air conditioners running.

http://1howmany.com/how-many-solar-panels-do-i-need

I couldn't pull up the video in fshnski's post, but the comments underneath tell the story of a poorly installed system. (as did Donzel's post)

The comments also reflect on the amount of money we are spending to subsidize the oil companies every year, as compared with solar system rebates, but you'll never hear WHL complaining about billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. I wonder why?

The next time you hear President Obama beating up on oil companies and crusading to wipe out what he calls the industry’s “tax breaks,” don’t be fooled: He’s telling a lie.

Recently at the White House, Obama unleashed some of his most aggressive rhetoric yet on the subject, telling Congress that it can “stand with big oil companies or . . . the American people.”

“I think it’s time [oil companies] got by without more help from taxpayers,” the president added.

Only days before that, Senate Democrats had introduced a measure to raise the tax burden on oil companies dramatically, while creating credits for so-called renewables. The legislation narrowly missed the 60 votes needed to advance. But it’s crystal clear that the Democratic Party, from the top down, is committed to turning anti-oil rhetoric into policy.

But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.

A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.

Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.

Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.

But even these deductions aren’t unique to energy companies. Many provisions in the tax code seek to encourage certain kinds of behavior. Mortgage deductions reward home ownership. Special tax benefits promote savings in individual retirement accounts or 401(k)s.

Overall, the oil and natural-gas industries claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions. Yet that’s a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits the sector generates for the economy.

Over the last five years, through the thick of the recession, the oil and natural-gas industries have added 160,000 jobs. These firms now employ more than 9 million people. And 2011 saw higher domestic oil production for the third year in a row.

Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.

Initially, this vast government support was justified on the grounds that “clean tech” was an infant industry that needed help to start competing with traditional energy sources. But we’re now years into shelling out tens of billions in taxpayer dollars — in return for little in innovation or self-sustaining jobs.

Today, each solar-energy megawatt is produced with a stunning $776 in investment- and production-tax credits. For wind power, it’s $56 a megawatt. That’s a huge public expenditure for not much energy production. The tax incentives for fossil fuels amount to a mere 64 cents per megawatt.

Worse, despite the public largess, some clean-tech companies have such flawed business models that they’ve already gone under. Solyndra, the solar-panel manufacturer that went belly up last year, left US taxpayers on the hook for half a billion dollars in unpaid loans. Among other costly bankruptcies was Beacon Power, an electricity-grid utility company that folded in October.

Bottom line: Oil and natural gas companies aren’t subsidized — they’re merely benefiting from the same, reasonable cost-of-operation deductions afforded to all kinds of industries.

The real subsidies — and the real scandal — are to be found in “renewable” energy, which has taken in tens of billions in direct government payments over the last few years but has little to show for it.

Bernard L. Weinstein

Lisa Jackson, Obama's former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, told a green-energy lobbyist in 2009 to email her personal account, an apparent violation of open-government rules, not to mention Obama's good-government rhetoric.

Siemens lobbyist Alison Taylor, vice president for sustainability at the energy and technology giant, wrote Jackson in November at an alias email address, Richard.Windsor@epa.gov. "Just a note to say I'm continuing to cheer for you from afar (not so far)," Taylor wrote in an email recently made public via the Freedom of Information Act following a request by Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "EPA's pulling into the lead on climate!"

For Siemens, which had made a decision after Obama's election to go big on green energy and carbon-dioxide capture, this decision spelled profit.

In December 2009, lobbyist Taylor emailed Jackson again, requesting a meeting with "Siemens' global sustainability officer" Barbara Kux, Taylor's boss. "She'd like to meet you and to express her support for your good work on climate," Taylor wrote. "She's a big fan."

Jackson offered Kux and Taylor half an hour of her time on Dec. 14, and then wrote in a follow-up email to Taylor: "P.S. Can you use my home email rather than this one when you need to contact me directly? Tx, Lisa."

Taylor wrote back to set the tone of the meeting: "We have no request; we think you're a rock star." Then Taylor added, "I won't use this email, but I'm not sure I've got your personal email. I hope I didn't offend!"

Jackson's response: "Allision [sic] - no offense at all. My home email is above. Lj."

All epa.gov email addresses are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Lisa Jackson's home e-mail is not. For that reason, appointees are barred from doing official business on personal email. It appears Jackson was trying to do exactly this.

But this wasn't just any official business. Jackson was trying to go offline with a registered corporate lobbyist whose company stood to profit from the policies Jackson's agency was advancing.

These emails undermine all of President Obama's good-government promises.

"I will also hold myself as president to a new standard of openness," President Obama said in his first days in office. "Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

So much for that. In fact, a federal judge wrote in a ruling last week: "The possibility that unsearched personal email accounts may have been used for official business raises the possibility that leaders in the EPA may have purposefully attempted to skirt disclosure under the FOIA."

"We're going to have to change the culture in Washington," candidate Obama said in 2008, "so that lobbyists and special interests aren't driving the process."

But Jackson's emails were with a revolving-door lobbyist. Taylor was formerly Siemens' director of government affairs and at the time of the emails was still a registered federal lobbyist. Before that, her Siemens online bio states, Taylor was "Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for five years, and counsel to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce for six years."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-lisa-jackson-skirted-obamas-good-government-pledge/article/2534375

fshnski wrote:I agree with what Donzel says about the installation short comings but my guess is that this is the perfect example of a typical home installation. Punton does have quite a bit of "earth cred" though.

My system was installed nicely by professionals; however, the system failed immediately after the warrantee ran out. Being (sorta) handy, I fixed it (sorta), so it limped along for another ten years. (Then it was removed by the next owner—and not replaced).

'Course, NY is a heck of place to produce solar power at home—while Florida excels. NY politicians support these things (with other peoples money) because it makes them feel good... AND "it seemed like a good idea at the time".

 

I don't see much of a difference between tax credits and tax deductions. In the meantime, the big 5 oil companies made a profit of $118 billion in 2012 and $137 billion in 2011 while the price at the pump has been hovering at over $3.50 for some time now:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/12/1707261/meet-the-new-oil-tax-breaks-same-as-the-old-oil-tax-breaks/

The price of solar panel installations is coming down as time goes on:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/12/1707261/meet-the-new-oil-tax-breaks-same-as-the-old-oil-tax-breaks/

Overall, the oil and natural-gas industries claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions. Yet that’s a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits the sector generates for the economy.

Over the last five years, through the thick of the recession, the oil and natural-gas industries have added 160,000 jobs. These firms now employ more than 9 million people. And 2011 saw higher domestic oil production for the third year in a row.

Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.

What does that have to do with the present? When was your president elected? That was before he was elected. He was supposed to fix the things that were wrong. That's why you elected him right?

It's ok by NB if the taxpayers are forced to pay trillions for inefficient energy as long as it is "green". But don't offer a cent in tax breaks to oil companies. I am just such a nasty person.

We need to use common sense!

WHL wrote:It's ok by NB if the taxpayers are forced to pay trillions for inefficient energy as long as it is "green".  But don't offer a cent in tax breaks to oil companies.    I am just such a nasty person.

The oil companies do receive tax deductions. But they do not receive subsidies.

Since fossil fuels are a finite resource, ( a couple of hundred years, maybe?) I happen to agree that we should do our best to encourage renewable energy. (forever) It would also be so much better for our environment. That makes common sense to me!

Despite the never ending bitching I hear on this forum about our president, I have yet to see anyone state that they're moving out of the country. I guess the never ending drone of whining will continue throughout Hillary's presidency!  

fshnski wrote:

WHL wrote:It's ok by NB if the taxpayers are forced to pay trillions for inefficient energy as long as it is "green".  But don't offer a cent in tax breaks to oil companies.    I am just such a nasty person.

The oil companies  do receive tax deductions. But they do not receive subsidies.

And why shouldn't they get some breaks? GE, whose CEO is a great buddy of Obama, doesn't pay any taxes at all.

News Buzzard wrote:Since fossil fuels are a finite resource, ( a couple of hundred years, maybe?) I happen to agree that we should do our best to encourage renewable energy. (forever) It would also be so much better for our environment. That makes common sense to me!

Despite the never ending bitching I hear on this forum about our president, I have yet to see anyone state that they're moving out of the country. I guess the never ending drone of whining will continue throughout Hillary's presidency!  

He's not my president.