29 replies to this topic

[eds]

Phil, on 12 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Oil subdidies are something like 2%, subsidies for renewables can approach 100%.

I agree.  SUBSIDIES usually have time limits on them that expire.  

Let's take the renewables SUBSIDIES and
. . . make them TAX DEDUCTIONS for the expenses they incur,
. . . like the Oil business, that have no time limit.
That way, both renewable and non-renewable energy businesses, have a level playing field.

[Phil]

Agreed eds, oil "subsidies" are really investment deductions not true subsidies.  Subsidies are temporary and meant to get something off the ground.  They are usually substantial because they are meant to be only temporary.

Investment tax credits are investments themselves and as such you look for a return on investment.  Oil is not unique, all businesses can take investment tax credits.  When big oil is encouraged to find and develop more sources, the government wins big time as gas taxes and oil corporate taxes are a cash cow.

Government doesn't make a dime on green energy to my knowledge.  The "return" is indirectly accrued via a cleaner environment.  While it would be wonderful to convert solars massive subsidies to tax deductions, I don't think it will happen.  The companies already get deductions for their investments as it is and, as usual, government just throwing money at a problem causes the old "waste, fraud, and abuse" monster to awaken.  The Solyndra debacle pretty much killed any idea of just throwing money around, particularly with $1 trillion deficits.

Unless I'm mistaken removing solar subsidies and grants altogether would level the playing field.  Solar companies can already take all the investment deductions oil companies can.

I'll say again, solar is cheap enough now that it doesn't need the current level of support.  What it needs is leadership.

I'll repeat my plan in case you missed it.  If I were president, I would:

Call the CEO of Wal-Mart and arm twist him into making major purchases of solar panels, inverters, and mounting racks and selling them at cost.  Wal-mart gets huge positive press and major foot traffic in return.  Government gets the cheapest solar components Wal-Mart buyers can negotiate.

On the next earth day announce a 100 million rooftop initiative.  Drop the 30% tax credit, which half the population can't take advantage of anyway, and replace it with a low/no interest solar conversion loan whose payments are based on a persons electric bill.  Since government is getting money from the fed for 0.25%, make that the loan interest and ask a big boy like Wells Fargo, etc. to do the "Solarize America" loans for free, (that's what I call my plan!).  They could even use volunteer retired loan officers.

Finally, as part of "Solarize America" mount a nationwide volunteer effort ala Habitat for Humanity, to do the installs.  This will cut the price at least in half.

Benefits: EVERYONE can take advantage of solar, even the poorest homeowner, since you pay no more than the utility bill you are now paying.  Even renters can get the benefit since it wouldn't cost the landlord anything extra to convert.  Everyone knows where we are going.  China subsidizes our green initiative big time, we get some of our money back for free.  Our carbon footprint takes a huge plunge.  It's barely costs government, and thus taxpayers, a dime.  In fact it actually saves government millions in reduced subsidies, perhaps billions if they can back off of nuclear subsidies as well.

Detriments:  Coal, nuclear, nat gas, etc. see their markets hit big time.  Utility companies will have to reconfigure their costing models.  Solar installers won't be happy.

So what is our primary goal?  Is it not to convert as much of our infrastructure to green energy as soon as possible?  If anyone has a better plan for achieving this faster OR cheaper, I'd love to hear it.  It would also be politically palatable for both sides, democrats can have all the green energy they want, republicans can cut spending.

If we did the Apple model and required that only American companies participate but allowed them to manufacture in China, we would also get enough taxes back that it would be a net plus for the government.  The current crop of installers could convert to becoming maintenance services, since the number of installs would skyrocket.

We are facing a fiscal cliff and an environmental one.  I think my plan adresses both, greening our energy without incurring even more governmtent debt, and perhaps actually saving taxpayer money.

[eds]

Phil, on 14 December 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

It would also be politically palatable for both sides, democrats can have all the green energy they want, republicans can cut spending.

Why is it that Germany, which has a much lower level of solar radiation than the United States,
. . . proportionally dwarfs the U.S. when it comes to solar installations?
Standardizing permitting and installation procedures to streamline these processes
. . . has helped make Germany a world leader in solar energy,
. . . at 40% less cost than in the USA.  
In Germany, it's not uncommon for a person to contact a solar company and
. . . have a system on their roof in less than a week- sometimes in a few days.

Meanwhile, in the United States, customers frequently find themselves
. . . forking over hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in fees,
. . . undergoing a series of unnecessary inspections.

A standard online application for solar permitting, will transform residential solar by:

• Bringing the cost of solar to grid parity for 50% of Americans by 2013
  
• Closing Germany’s 40% cost advantage
  
• Delivering the equivalent of a new $1 billion solar subsidy over five year

Like you say, maybe both political parties could get together on this one and
. . . maybe the oil companies could use their political clout to facilite this,
. . . while creating renewable energy businesses, that is tax deductible and profitable for them.
This makes sense if you think of them as "Energy" companies, instead of "Oil" companies.

Source:  PDF  follow-germanys-lead-streamlined-permitting

Attached Files

•  German.jpeg   9.39K   3 downloads

[adam_a]

Phil, on 14 December 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

The "return" is indirectly accrued via a cleaner environment.  

Phil,

But couldn’t a cleaner environment help us financially in the long run? There is a strong correlation between certain diseases and pollution (or other toxins like BPA and PVC). Couldn’t investing in “green things” help reduce medical spending, one of the big budget problems?

I’m asking what you think to see if we can come at this at a different angle.

[Phil]

eds,

I agree we have a terrible problem with ALL business having to jump through hoops, not just solar.  There was a report on a woman that wanted to build a cement factory in Illinois.  She had to spend tens of millions on permits, studies, etc. and interact with over two dozen different government agencies.  All that took four years.

I got the permit in an hour for about $90 but I then had to document my installation with the utility then register it with the state to get their production credit.  All this took months.

Seriously, wading through the paper work was by far the most difficult part of the process.  It took weeks of research just to figure out WHAT I needed, let alone putting it together.  I got so frustrated I almost gave up.  I started in May and didn't get the go ahead until October.  Compare THAT with Germany!

adam,

Yes a cleaner environment saves in the long run.  If we were like Saudi Arabia we could afford to think long run, but we are in a very precarious financial strait so the focus needs to be on the short term.  The solution is to get our fiscal house in order but that could be decades before the economy is truly healthy again.

[yoder]

eds, on 14 December 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Why is it that Germany, which has a much lower level of solar radiation than the United States,
. . . proportionally dwarfs the U.S. when it comes to solar installations?
Standardizing permitting and installation procedures to streamline these processes
. . . has helped make Germany a world leader in solar energy,
. . . at 40% less cost than in the USA.  
In Germany, it's not uncommon for a person to contact a solar company and
. . . have a system on their roof in less than a week- sometimes in a few days.

Meanwhile, in the United States, customers frequently find themselves
. . . forking over hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in fees,
. . . undergoing a series of unnecessary inspections.

A standard online application for solar permitting, will transform residential solar by:

• Bringing the cost of solar to grid parity for 50% of Americans by 2013
  
• Closing Germany’s 40% cost advantage
  
• Delivering the equivalent of a new $1 billion solar subsidy over five year

Like you say, maybe both political parties could get together on this one and
. . . maybe the oil companies could use their political clout to facilite this,
. . . while creating renewable energy businesses, that is tax deductible and profitable for them.
This makes sense if you think of them as "Energy" companies, instead of "Oil" companies.

Source:  PDF  follow-germanys-lead-streamlined-permitting

One reason that Germany can streamline their process is because inspections are not as necessary because their building and remodelling codes are (much) more stringent than the US.  The German government knows that any home built to their code will handle the load.  In the US that is not the case, and that creates the need to verify and to certify what in Germany is done on the front end.

[eds]

yoder, on 22 January 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

One reason that Germany can streamline their process is because inspections are not as necessary because their building and remodelling codes are (much) more stringent than the US.  The German government knows that any home built to their code will handle the load.  In the US that is not the case, and that creates the need to verify and to certify what in Germany is done on the front end.

Your right, I never thought about home's not being able to handle a load,
In NH, every building ether handles the load of snow and ice, or they collapse.

[yoder]

eds, on 22 January 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Your right, I never thought about home's not being able to handle a load,
In NH, every building ether handles the load of snow and ice, or they collapse.

Yup, New Hampshire has stricter building codes than Iowa, which has stricter building codes than Mississippi.  But Washington or Oregon might have stricter codes than New Hampshire.  And within each state, towns and cities have their own sets of codes.  So across the country no one can say, every house is built at least to "this" standard.

In Germany there is the one standard.  Makes things like solar panels relatively simple.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"If there is a load you have to bear
That you can't carry
I'm right up the road
I'll share your load
If you just call me
So just call on me brother, when you need a hand
We all need somebody to lean on
I just might have a problem that you'd understand
We all need somebody to lean on."
Bill Withers

[eds]

yoder, on 23 January 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

In Germany there is the one standard.  Makes things like solar panels relatively simple.

I would never put solar panels on my roof,
. . . because when the weather warms up,
. . . the weight of all that snow and ice, come crashing to the ground.
. . . would break everything and bring them down with it.  That's crazy.
Now hanging panels on the side of the building would work and
. . . they wouldn't be effected by the weather as much.