Energy companies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are required to buy some solar power each year. They

PHYSICAL SCIENCES PHYSICS SPACE CHEMISTRY APPLIED PHYSICS AEROSPACE OPTICS EARTH SCIENCES ENVIRONMENT ENERGY ATMOSPHERIC PALEONTOLOGY GEOLOGY OCEANOGRAPHY LIFE SCIENCES GENETICS MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EVOLUTION MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY ZOOLOGY IMMUNOLOGY NEUROSCIENCE MEDICINE CANCER RESEARCH PUBLIC HEALTH PHARMACOLOGY CLINICAL RESEARCH AGING VISION SOCIAL SCIENCES ANTHROPOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY SCIENCE EDUCATION POLICY SCIENCE HISTORY PHILOSOPHY ETHICS CULTURE TECHNOLOGY MATHEMATICS SCIENCE SOCIETY SPORTS SCIENCE RANDOM THOUGHTS HUMOR VIDEO
Energy companies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are required to buy some solar power each year. They are required to overpay for that solar power. In return accounting clerk requires travel to london for overpaying, they get Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (SRECs) which let them pass the extra cost onto local families and taxpayers. An analysis accounting clerk requires travel to london by a consortium of solar companies and advocacy groups has determined that somewhere in there it means "ratepayers in the region are getting more than a two-to-one return on their investment in solar energy," according to Dennis accounting clerk requires travel to london Wilson, President of the Mid-Atlantic Solar Energy Industries Association accounting clerk requires travel to london (MSEIA), "Although the current SREC prices are unsustainably low, our analysis indicates that SRECs can increase in price, deliver net benefits and still support strong solar growth. Solar power has proven accounting clerk requires travel to london it can deliver value that exceeds its cost by 50% to over 100%. This net positive benefit will only increase as solar technology continues to drop in cost." That's some government math right there. accounting clerk requires travel to london The lower costs will expire but costs will stay low due to magic rocks . So what if Japanese and American and Chinese businesses have not been able to make current solar power technology viable for the last 50 years? We're Americans, dammit, we will throw another $72 billion at it and it will work or we will keep throwing money at the problem until it does. Global warming is too important to waste time doing basic research to come up with something that will work. Since they are an advocacy group, all taxpayer subsidies are called "investments". We see these claims once a month - every taxpayer dollar spent on X invariably results in a net return of 1.3X or so. It's amazing we have a deficit at all with so many taxpayer-subsidized projects that are somehow profitable. accounting clerk requires travel to london We should give all our money to these groups accounting clerk requires travel to london and we would have a budget surplus. What numbers are they so excited about? Their examination of the market claims that solar power is sold for $256 to $318 per MWh (25.6 cents to 31.8 cents per kWh). The 'premium value' - remember that is the rate all those unemployed people have to pay - is 15-20 cents per kW, above the value of the solar electricity generated. The SRECs in New Jersey currently cost about 6 cents per KWh and in Pennsylvania they cost about 2 cents per KWH. So taxpayers are getting that 2:1 'return' on their tax investment though they are paying for it when they buy the energy . If you smiled at 'jobs saved or gained' numbers and chuckled that "cash for clunkers" was called a success when it cost taxpayers $25,000 per car you will go into an apoplectic fit of laughter at the idea that, because taxpayers only spent 2-6 cents per KWh on the front end and then pay 15-20 cents per KWh at their homes, they are getting double their investment back because they pay one of the energy companies paying the solar companies that happen to be in the MSEIA. If you are a resident in those states, do you buy electricity from a group called Vote Solar? Hint: You don't. But they are among the ones selling this statistical wobble. Now, I am a Californian, we have no business at all making fun of anyone else's economics. We just passed a new law to constitutionally mandate money for education accounting clerk requires travel to london so we could use the old constitutionally accounting clerk requires travel to london mandated education money to pay for government accounting clerk requires travel to london union pensions - and we have plenty of poor people in East Compton who subsidized solar installations that went to rich people in places like Malibu . But Pennsylvania is supposed to be smart. Okay, maybe they are. They haven't bought this hype about increasing their solar 'investment' in the past, they have stuck to overpaying only exactly as much as the law forces them to overpay. The MSEIA wants to change that and their study is the evidence - unless anyone has a calculator. "For the first time the solar industry can show the quantitative benefits of implementing solar energy technologies specifically in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. For more than three years we have been unsuccessful with enhancing our solar share requirement in Pennsylvania, largely because accounting clerk requires travel to london solar was perceived as only a cost to rate payers. But this study concludes that the value of solar far exceeds the costs to both the rate payer and taxpayer," said Ron Celentano, President of PASEIA and Pennsylvania VP of MSEIA. New Jersey is America's second-largest solar market with 900 MW of capacity. They generate accounting clerk requires travel to london 1% of their annual electricity from solar power. 52% of their energy comes from nuclear power. The tiniest nuclear reactor in America, at Ft. Calhoun, Nebraska, generates 478 MW, half as much as the entire state of New Jersey's solar industry and with no 'premiums' paid by working people to subsidize the latest feel-good fallacy. Pennsylvania is much farther behind than Jersey in solar because, since the 1950s, they discovered this thing called science and science shows that natural gas is cheap and clean and therefore we can use more of it without forcing poor people in Newark to overpay. accounting clerk requires travel to london In a recession, how important is 'merit order effect', where a report 'values' solar higher because, well, solar is awesome. And part of their value metric is claiming that building solar generation plants is cheaper than building natural gas ones, without ever considering the ridiculously better energy density of natural gas. Naturally they also factor in the reduced emissions from solar and 'quantify' that in dollar terms too. But it is all to make the numbers look better and increase their subsidies - sorry, 'solar accounting clerk requires travel to london share requirement'. Solar power jobs are union too, so they get paid more and therefore pay more in taxes so it is even better investment-wise, wink-wink. I agree solar's potential is awesome. I can't wait for it to get good. But I know that making companies dependent on subsidies does not lower costs, accounting clerk requires travel to london it just sends them out of business when the subsidies run out, like what will happen with wind power in January accounting clerk requires travel to london of 2013, unless accounting clerk requires travel to london their lobbyists get both parties to honor the commitments accounting clerk requires travel to london politicians made when they were lobbying for Iowa votes last month - you can bet Republicans changed their mind about Iowa wind farms once the state voted for President Obama a few days ago. Solar power is only marginally better than it was 30 years ago. That money they want for more subsidies would be better accounting clerk requires travel to london spent on basic research to find a real breakthrough in cost and efficiency for panels. So don't be fooled, Pennsylvania. And go Steelers! Jersey, you're on your own.
Related Articles on Science 2.0 Green Energy - Back To A 13th Century Future The 1% Love Solar Subsidies Paid By The Other 99% Unions Urge Government To Keep Subsidizing Wind Energy Fight The Snobbery - Maybe Solar Efficiency Is Good Enough Fusion In A Coffee Mug
Really? You went to 'Shill for Big X' on the very first comment? Let me explain this thing called data - this study and its subjective metrics were created by shills for 'Big Solar'. 100% of them got paid to collate the findings and write the report and their goal is more mandated subsidies for...themselves. On the other hand, I have ever been paid a penny by any energy company of any kind. So if money means spin, you should be criticizing all those people promoting solar to make themselves rich, not me. I am spin-free. You are basically accusing me of being a Flak For Poor People Who Should Not Have To Subsidize Feel-Good Fallacies to make you rich. That you are anti-nuclear also starts the crackpot alarm tingling.
Interesting accounting clerk requires travel to london points accounting clerk requires travel to london up to the one about the nuke plant in Nebraska and how their are no premiums that poor people pay for it. Their is lots of federal money that has gone to nuke plants over the decades. Take them away and you take away the industry.
Sure solar is expensive, accounting clerk requires travel to london it has come down in price due to less expensive modules, more competition, less expensive balance of system components, and yes efficiency is a lot less expensive than both solar and nukes.
Good point. I don't get into it here but I regard energy as a strategic resource, just like food, so while I wish we would undo some of our kookier agricultural subsidies I am not a free market zealot who thinks we should make people reliant on international competitors accounting clerk requires travel to london to eat. We can't outsource our food or energy or science, we can only augment and that means not everything will be profitable. Taxpayers will lose a lot of money on farming this year but it is better than losing farmers. All energy companies are subsidized - the problem is we have wasted as much money on alternative subsidies in the last 3 years as we spent on nuclear and fossil fuels subsidies and credits combined for the last 50. I am optimistic solar is part of the future but the bankruptcies we have seen show that we are doing a very dumb thing by taking a $400 million industry segment and artificially inflating it to $40 billion. accounting clerk requires travel to london If solar were only as 'bad' as nuclear or fossil fuels, energy companies would not be forced to buy it at a premium and then forced to charge customers more for it. And solar companies would not be trying to force higher mandates and subsidies using junk statistics.
I understand the frustrations...I installed solar panels on my roof myself...a large installation by residential standards, so I can tell you what the EXACT costs are and EXACTLY how much energy is produced and you decide if solar is a good deal.
Thirty months ago, I paid per watt...$1.95 for pan