Aa
Attack on Solar Energy
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?
"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. 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. That might seem distant at the moment, when nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity is still generated by coal, and when less than 1 percent of power customers have solar arrays. (It is slightly higher in California and Hawaii.) But given new regulations on power-plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants, and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions, the future clearly lies with renewable energy. In 2013, 29 percent of newly installed generation capacity came from solar, compared with 10 percent in 2012.
Renewables are good for economic as well as environmental reasons, as most states know. (More than 143,000 now work in the solar industry.) Currently, 43 states require utilities to buy excess power generated by consumers with solar arrays. This practice, known as net metering, essentially runs electric meters backward when power flows from rooftop solar panels into the grid, giving consumers a credit for the power they generate but don’t use.
The utilities hate this requirement, for obvious reasons. A report by the Edison Electric Institute, the lobbying arm of the power industry, says this kind of law will put “a squeeze on profitability,” and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, “it may be too late to repair the utility business model.”
Since that’s an unsympathetic argument, the utilities have devised another: Solar expansion, they claim, will actually hurt consumers. The Arizona Public Service Company, the state’s largest utility, funneled large sums through a Koch operative to a nonprofit group that ran an ad claiming net metering would hurt older people on fixed incomes by raising electric rates. The ad tried to link the requirement to President Obama. Another Koch ad likens the renewable-energy requirement to health care reform, the ultimate insult in that world. “Like Obamacare, it’s another government mandate we can’t afford,” the narrator says.
That line might appeal to Tea Partiers, but it’s deliberately misleading. This campaign is really about the profits of Koch Carbon and the utilities, which to its organizers is much more important than clean air and the consequences of climate change."
"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. 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. That might seem distant at the moment, when nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electricity is still generated by coal, and when less than 1 percent of power customers have solar arrays. (It is slightly higher in California and Hawaii.) But given new regulations on power-plant emissions of mercury and other pollutants, and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions, the future clearly lies with renewable energy. In 2013, 29 percent of newly installed generation capacity came from solar, compared with 10 percent in 2012.
Renewables are good for economic as well as environmental reasons, as most states know. (More than 143,000 now work in the solar industry.) Currently, 43 states require utilities to buy excess power generated by consumers with solar arrays. This practice, known as net metering, essentially runs electric meters backward when power flows from rooftop solar panels into the grid, giving consumers a credit for the power they generate but don’t use.
The utilities hate this requirement, for obvious reasons. A report by the Edison Electric Institute, the lobbying arm of the power industry, says this kind of law will put “a squeeze on profitability,” and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, “it may be too late to repair the utility business model.”
Since that’s an unsympathetic argument, the utilities have devised another: Solar expansion, they claim, will actually hurt consumers. The Arizona Public Service Company, the state’s largest utility, funneled large sums through a Koch operative to a nonprofit group that ran an ad claiming net metering would hurt older people on fixed incomes by raising electric rates. The ad tried to link the requirement to President Obama. Another Koch ad likens the renewable-energy requirement to health care reform, the ultimate insult in that world. “Like Obamacare, it’s another government mandate we can’t afford,” the narrator says.
That line might appeal to Tea Partiers, but it’s deliberately misleading. This campaign is really about the profits of Koch Carbon and the utilities, which to its organizers is much more important than clean air and the consequences of climate change."
Gee - I wonder where that corporate and billionaire tax credit and loophole money comes from?
Taxpayers perhaps?
Typical republican response.
Attack that average homeowner for getting an incentive to harness clean energy and become more energy efficient and actually save money doing so.
And at the same time vigorously, though ineffectively, defend the right of corporations and billionaires to continue to enjoy unconscionably favorable tax treatment. And at the expense of who? Oh yeah, that would be the taxpayers!
You've got your priorities straight alright......
Taxpayers perhaps?
Typical republican response.
Attack that average homeowner for getting an incentive to harness clean energy and become more energy efficient and actually save money doing so.
And at the same time vigorously, though ineffectively, defend the right of corporations and billionaires to continue to enjoy unconscionably favorable tax treatment. And at the expense of who? Oh yeah, that would be the taxpayers!
You've got your priorities straight alright......
"Rebate offers"... gee, I wonder where THAT rebate $$$ comes from.
Taxpayers perhaps?
Typical Dem response.
"Let the gov't pay for it. Just print more $$$"
Taxpayers perhaps?
Typical Dem response.
"Let the gov't pay for it. Just print more $$$"
Solar savings: Residential demand grows
With state and federal tax credits, lower installation costs and rebate offers, it's a great time for homeowners in New York state to go solar.
[...Cost of a sample job
Every house is different, but solar consultant George Engelbrecht says that the typical suburban installation system is a 7280-watt system utilizing 26 solar panels (280 watts each.) At $4.00 per watt, the total cost would be $29,120.00.
Then the deductions begin: a state rebate of $5,096, a state tax credit of $5,000 and a federal tax credit of $8,736. That brings the net cost down to $10,288.00.
The savings the first year would be $2,347, Engelbrecht said. "With rates climbing on average 4 percent a year, this solar electric system will pay for itself in only 4 years, and generate free electricity for the next 25."
Just a few years ago, the payback period in New York was nearly 10 years.
"This represents a tremendous return on investment, well over 20 percent," Engelbrecht said. Also, he noted, the New York State Loan Program has just been extended. It allows people to go solar without any out-of-pocket costs.
The savings continue for many years and begin to compound. "One advantage of solar is that you save 3 to 5 percent more money every year it functions," Engelbrecht said, adding that homeowners should look at how much they'll save over 25 to 30 years. "It's a fantastic investment over time."
Staff writer Matt Coyne contributed to this report.
National solar study
A recent report from the Rocky Mountain Institute found the best bang for your buck when it comes to electricity in Westchester right now is regular Con Edison-provided electricity, plus solar power.
"Most of our results showed it makes sense to first install a solar panel to provide some of your load," said Bodhi Rader, who wrote the report, "The Economics of Load Defelection" with 11 other researchers for the Colorado-based sustainability research group. "As the cost declines for batteries, you can start installing some of those on your system and start offsetting even more of your grid-purchased electric."
The study, which examined five locales nationwide including Westchester, found that as solar panels and solar panel and battery systems — which can cost in the low- to mid-five figures but are currently heavily subsidized by governments at the state and federal levels — become cheaper, the economic incentive to adopt will grow. Prices, the study found, will hold steady around 20 cents per kilowatt hour, with grid-only prices to jump to 40 cents by 2040.
By 2024, the report found, the cheapest energy configuration for homeowners would change over to a grid, battery and solar system, with commercial real estate properties two years behind. By 2040, the cheapest way for homeowners to keep the lights on will be taking 80 percent of their electric needs from solar and 20 percent from the grid....]
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/2015/05/03/solar-energy-new-york/26842003/
With state and federal tax credits, lower installation costs and rebate offers, it's a great time for homeowners in New York state to go solar.
[...Cost of a sample job
Every house is different, but solar consultant George Engelbrecht says that the typical suburban installation system is a 7280-watt system utilizing 26 solar panels (280 watts each.) At $4.00 per watt, the total cost would be $29,120.00.
Then the deductions begin: a state rebate of $5,096, a state tax credit of $5,000 and a federal tax credit of $8,736. That brings the net cost down to $10,288.00.
The savings the first year would be $2,347, Engelbrecht said. "With rates climbing on average 4 percent a year, this solar electric system will pay for itself in only 4 years, and generate free electricity for the next 25."
Just a few years ago, the payback period in New York was nearly 10 years.
"This represents a tremendous return on investment, well over 20 percent," Engelbrecht said. Also, he noted, the New York State Loan Program has just been extended. It allows people to go solar without any out-of-pocket costs.
The savings continue for many years and begin to compound. "One advantage of solar is that you save 3 to 5 percent more money every year it functions," Engelbrecht said, adding that homeowners should look at how much they'll save over 25 to 30 years. "It's a fantastic investment over time."
Staff writer Matt Coyne contributed to this report.
National solar study
A recent report from the Rocky Mountain Institute found the best bang for your buck when it comes to electricity in Westchester right now is regular Con Edison-provided electricity, plus solar power.
"Most of our results showed it makes sense to first install a solar panel to provide some of your load," said Bodhi Rader, who wrote the report, "The Economics of Load Defelection" with 11 other researchers for the Colorado-based sustainability research group. "As the cost declines for batteries, you can start installing some of those on your system and start offsetting even more of your grid-purchased electric."
The study, which examined five locales nationwide including Westchester, found that as solar panels and solar panel and battery systems — which can cost in the low- to mid-five figures but are currently heavily subsidized by governments at the state and federal levels — become cheaper, the economic incentive to adopt will grow. Prices, the study found, will hold steady around 20 cents per kilowatt hour, with grid-only prices to jump to 40 cents by 2040.
By 2024, the report found, the cheapest energy configuration for homeowners would change over to a grid, battery and solar system, with commercial real estate properties two years behind. By 2040, the cheapest way for homeowners to keep the lights on will be taking 80 percent of their electric needs from solar and 20 percent from the grid....]
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/2015/05/03/solar-energy-new-york/26842003/
Solar is expensive and not viable for most of the country. Where I live there is a big push but when you look into it you save no $. If you buy the panels you lose $, if you lease the panels you still lose $.
But let's just call the Koch Bros satan and be done with it, ok?
But let's just call the Koch Bros satan and be done with it, ok?
Ooooof. had to stop reading after the first sentence or two. Calling the Koch brothers "big polluters'' then being upset that they want a tax on solar panels? solar panel manufacturing produces a lot of pollution.... I guess that doesn't matter though?
Again, interesting and weird.
Again, interesting and weird.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
