Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks
 

NAACP Fights against Solar Energy Rebates in Florida

By Justin Hoysradt
February 25, 2010   |   7 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

7 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 7
February 28, 2010
You sorta miss the point of Nweze's article. She isn't saying that energy efficiency is more expensive than new power plants. She is saying expensive Solar PV is more expensive. Whether or not you agree with her, with the externalities of traditional power plants in pollution is immaterial. Solar PV is expensive.
Energy Efficiency, lighting, motors, insulation is certainly much cheaper than Solar PV, and even solar water heaters are 1/3 to 1/2 the price of solar PV in terms of $/kwh saved.
Solar PV esssentially is a toy for the rich and is heavily subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers (as are traditional power plants to varying degrees). As a society we need to do the most cost effective things first in the energy world, and believe it or not, it is not solar PV.
At a minimum if there are large subsidizes, incentives, tax credits or other public money for solar, than at the very least it should be mandatory to make sure everything for that business or house that is more cost effective is done first.
Otherwise it is just poor business practice and asides from getting a few solar installers rich, it does take away from other expenditures.
Having been in the efficiency business for 18 years with over 100,000,000 in kilowatt hour savings per year for our customers, I figure I can put in my two cents.

Peter Greenberg
Comment
2 of 7
March 2, 2010
This is pathetic. Bottom trolling verbiage designed to obscure the crisis of the earth that is sweeping poor and rich alike into rising seas of pollution eminating from our tail pipes (Cadillacs included). Solar panels are less expensive than Cadillacs or Suburbans. The difference is they produce income, energy and stop the slide towards extinction that we are all having no difficulty in ignoring. Rich nations acting irresponsibly provide the example for all of us to follow. Being poor and dispossessed has led us to ecological destruction since time immemorial. Slash and burn in the Amazon. After us the deluge in the northern forests. Loggers hating environmentalists right up until the last tree is gone. Good business practice, bottom line thinking, that is the problem we need to solve before it is too late.
Comment
3 of 7
March 2, 2010
Justin, you totally missed Ms. Nweze's point and purpose. Frankly I'm a little surprised that you could have interest in this genre (Renewable Energy) and somehow not be aware or interested in the social and economic dynamics in play in this country. I even find the words you used in your comment and how you used them curious. You almost sound like the "other side" (those not at all interested in renewable energy). Please read and open your heart and mind to understand what Ms. Nweze is saying. What she is addressing (and not very clearly, but still…) is that as we moved down this "new road", let's develop and execute for everyone. As we approach this new and somewhat pristine solution (renewable energy) let's not use the "old" tactics and approach based upon the have and have nots. That is, where "benefits" are disproportionally reserved for a small segment of well educated, wealthier and influential people. Leaving out of the equation our socially/economically disadvantaged customer/citizens…who in fact represent the largest customer base and by the way most are not members of the NAACP…
Comment
4 of 7
March 2, 2010
While I agree whole heartedly with renewable energy incentives, I think that Ms. Nweze does have a point. PV systems are expensive and I doubt any of the people she is defending could aford one, even after the incentives.

Maybe a percent surcharge based on your monthly energy usage would be more just than a flat surcharge that everyone has to pay.
Comment
5 of 7
March 2, 2010
By Decoupling Utility company earnings from electricity and natural gas sales, we can encourage both energy efficiency and distributed energy production. Decoupling earnings and enacting an Inclining Block rate per kilowatt hour system will encourage everyone to be more energy efficient by charging a lower rate for the first 1000 watts used, then a higher rate after that. The combination of the two can still equal a standard rate, but an Inclining Block rate system will reward small energy users and charge more for big energy users who are the ones driving the need for more energy production development.
Comment
6 of 7
March 3, 2010
I believe the proper response to Ms. Nweze's point is to ensure that the benefits of PV are democratized and shared with lower income households and neighborhoods. If state energy administrations are attentive to these details they will be able to address the core issue that Ms. Nweze is raising.

Let's invest in energy efficiency and renewables, but let's make sure that it's not just another scheme to make the rich richer. Let's make sure that we use both tools(efficiency + renewables) to benefit all constituencies including low income rental housing and low income rehabilitated housing stock.

California is moving down this path and other states will follow.
No image available
Comment
7 of 7
Anonymous
March 5, 2010
I think I agree with Ms Nweze, we the tax payer should not foot the bill, and allow utilities to raise rates for such rebate programs. On the other hand the tax payer should not be have to pay for $500,000,000 utility company grants that cost double in R&D, just to look green.
5,10,100 million dollars is a is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of oil imported each year for energy.
We have a new industry (again) in Renewable Energy, were the US can manufacture, install and service, a real product.
Take your pick. (1) Send money to Washington DC so they can distribute it back to the power company lobbiest in grants, after the law makes take thier cut...
OR. (2) Return the money to the States so they can provide incentives directly to the consumers. Better yet, send Washington less, and let the states manage there own energy programs.
Not eneryone can afford a $40,000 solar system, or a $40,000 kitchen remodel. Both provide jobs, but only one helps everyone in the long run, just like the model T.
It's a matter of supply and demand. This country needs to start producing a real product once again, instead of just trading worthless paper that makes a few rich, and cost rest of the working class, generations to pay off.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Justin Hoysradt

View Justin Hoysradt's Profile
About: I am the VP of Sales and Marketing for the Florida Integrator Abundant Energy Inc. You can find me speaking at local venues or at national conferences about the... more »

Advertise With Us

Solar FlexRack Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Upsolar Ambient Technologies, Inc. Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Black & Veatch Corporation Ingeteam
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters