Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Solar Farmer

By Raphael Shay
October 10, 2007   |   19 Comments
Six Colorado farmers install solar panels on the unused corners of pivot irrigation systems; offset part of the energy need for pumps and motors.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
The project will save the farmers money for three main reasons. The first one is a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture managed by the local Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D). The second is a $4.50 buy down per watt from Xcel Energy, the local utility. The last part of the equation is a federal tax credit of up to 30% of the upfront costs for a business such as a farm.
19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
October 10, 2007
The Govt/public paid over 50% of the cost for this system.

No other commentary, just a neutral factual statement.
Comment
2 of 19
October 11, 2007
I agree with Jim, his statement was a neutral fact.

There are no views represented there, other than the amount of support that is rightly given that specific solar installation.
Comment
3 of 19
October 11, 2007
Jim,
Tell me wich energy sector havent recieved substential government/public helps in its youth? Coal energy generation? Nuclear(!!!)energy generation?!?

Your views of the Reneweables is way to static. We all know that the obstacles now are pure market ( demand is 35% bigger than the supply) and political (too big subsides for "traditional" energy generation, you can also read that as "too powerfull coal and nuclear lobbies" , oh and ofc - oil lobbies) - Not technological.

Take a new aproach much more dynamic on the matter. Try to predict what the Economies of scale will do with renewables. Afterall 30% growth is not easely overlooked. What will happen WHEN the supply becomes bigger or equal to the demand?

From now on the price of fossils will always go up, no matter what, and the price of renewables will always go down, no matter what. Think dynamic.
Comment
4 of 19
October 11, 2007
Jim,
Give it to the Farmer or the 'Terrist'. You decide.
Comment
5 of 19
October 12, 2007
Return to regulated electricity is necessary to install renewable wind/solar/biomas in Michigan, stabalize electrical rates and prevent volitale rate increases:
http://www.pscinc.com/Documents/MMEA/index.htm

TVA charges $5/mo extra for customers to purchase green energy in the seven state territory. TVA sold twice as much green energy as TVA is capable of generating. TVA is a government organization which paid a contractor to install a token wind generator last year. The TVA solar program consist of high school and college science projects. The output can be monitored on the web site. www.tva.gov
Comment
6 of 19
October 12, 2007
No other commentary, just a neutral factual statement - Why forbid farmers profit from Ali Gore's global warnings about global warming? Guess who feeds the globe. Farms never use food as tools of war or food staples as a chip for bargin. Solar and wind electric generating farms owned and operated by local food farmers sounds like win-wind to me. Out of sight. Out of hearing distance. No bull. Harbor welfared illegals will earn their keep there.
Comment
7 of 19
October 12, 2007
Farms feed people. TVA, AEP, EPA, DOE, APE agree to pour our tax money and our electric rate payer money into a hole in the ground.
Alberta, Canada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Canadian Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Total Project Cost: $135,586,059 DOE Tax payer Share: $67,000,000 Ratepayer Share: $68,586,059
Tuscaloosa Formation - Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and southeast Texas.
Total Project Cost: $93,689,242 DOE Tax payer Share: $64,949,079 Ratepayer Share: $28,740,163
Southwest Regional Partnership for Carbon Sequestration Jurassic-age Entrada Sandstone Formation-Wyoming New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Utah, and portions of Texas, Wyoming, and Arizona. Total Project Cost: $88,845,571 DOE Tax payer Share: $65,437,395 Ratepayer Share: $23,408,176
Comment
8 of 19
October 12, 2007
We are a society, we have social norms, we socialize, we collectively (socially) pay for things deemed necessary for the common good. Schools, roads, water, sewer, etc...

At this time in our country, is it not clear to enough people that stemming the tide of climate change and reducing the pollution in our air, water and land is for the common good. Public money just might be needed to promote this public good, temporarily.

Jim, you come out every week against solar with the same old tired arguments and 30+ people respond with intelligent responses that refute your arguments flattly. You obviously disagree with the assumption that solar and other renewables need subsidies to level the playing field until such technologies gain purchase in the market place. Knowing the fact that oil, coal and nuclear currently and historically receive huge subsidies, how can you maintain your argument?
Comment
9 of 19
October 12, 2007
This is to the institutional folks that live a life whereby the taxed dollar is a natural resource and merely a cost of keeping there job. You are in the way of progress.

Solar success will happen...

when net metering has no limitations and allow people that choose to buy systems to generate power on par with the utilities. What they charge they pay.

when special groups stop getting special treatment.

when the installation is not treated and taxed as an improvement to the real estate.

when solar installations are mandated to be pushed into existing mortgages if one chooses. No refinancing, no 2nds and no special complicated deals. Just allow the mortgagee to add this investment to their existing principle if they choose to.

That farmer should be proud of his ability to milk a system. Wait until everyone behaves like this.
Comment
10 of 19
October 12, 2007
The ultimate price for oil energy is paid voluntarily by our Brave young soldiers protecting freedom globally.
The ultimate price for coal energy is paid non-voluntarily by our brave local citizens annually overcome with environmental pollution from utility pollution. AEP continues to fire professional employees and PhD contractors that reduced utility profits by reducing AEP profits from marketing pollution credits. AEP settled monitarily with the EPA but paid nothing to cancer families, black lung families, mine disastor families, increased local insurance premiums, local hospitals and medical facilities that treat polluted airborne disease. The medical cost estimated in the AEP settlement with EPA is staggering. AEP annually produces 20-40 tons pollution per electrical customer or 60-120 tons per customer family per year.
Comment
11 of 19
October 12, 2007
I think the reason to mention the subsidy, is to notice (sadly) that PV still needs it to be viable. There is too much deceit in the industry about this. I've heard people say systems will pay for themselves in a few years. If you electric rates are $0.30/kWh or more, maybe, but most residential applications around here (mid-Atlantic) are still paying about $0.12 kWh. Of course, the big question is the energy escalation rate, how fast is it rising, which could make everything cost effective immediately. Or carbon credits/taxes.

I think we are better off admitting the need for subsidies than pretending we don't. And then pushing the real point, that we HAVE to make a transition to a sustainable economy. Hey, Gore just won the Nobel!
Comment
12 of 19
October 12, 2007
continue:
The fossil industries are addicted to subsidies which means that for any renewable industry to get off the ground it needs parity of current subsidy , as well as the usual startup R&D funding that the US likes to hand out (Nuclear and coal are still getting it after billions have been handed out over the last 30 years). If we could only remove all the subsidies and get a grip on real costs the world might look rather different.
Comment
13 of 19
October 12, 2007
Jim, you need some context for the 50% subsidy. The very mature coal, nuclear and oil industries are still receiving huge numbers of your tax dollars. According to "Winning the Oil Endgame" ( online PDF available) oil subsidies of over $30 per barrel were ( pre shooting war) being paid in 2004. The new US nuclear bill will subsidize "to cheap to meter" nuclear electricity at $1.8 cent per Kwh. The US govt ( your taxes) give nuclear plants exemption for liability after the first $10b...of the $600b anticipated liability for an accident. I could go on but you get the point.
Comment
14 of 19
October 12, 2007
He who robs Peter to pay Paul makes a friend of Paul.

Socialist states never have worked for very long.
Comment
15 of 19
October 12, 2007
Thank you David, for making your point. MANY of us would rather see our tax dollars going for actual progress in energy independence rather than just graft, corruption and endless war for oil.
No other commentary, just a neutral factual statement.
Comment
16 of 19
October 12, 2007
The Govt/public pays millions(billions?) every day for a host of services/projects,all of which have supporters and detractors.Not many of these reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

No other commentary, just a neutral factual statement.
Comment
17 of 19
October 16, 2007
I've been trying to get farmers here in Iowa to use more solar, but we don't have the incentives for solar that Colorado does. People don't realize sometimes how much energy it takes to run a farm.
Comment
18 of 19
October 24, 2007
Y'all's comments about subsidizing these "clean energies" with my tax dollars is really starting to chap my hide! Don't you ever consider how hard things is gettin' for the Amercan coal miner? My wife and I can barely afford to put gas in our trucks these days, and my 65 mile commute to the mine is killing my pocketbook! We're settin on the saudi arabia of coal here, which is the CHEEPEST form of the fossil fules, and you commies are trying to say we shouldnt use it?!

Quit fiddling around with these snake oil energies, and get back to true American energy independence – with COAL!
Comment
19 of 19
October 29, 2007
Thank you all for great comments.

I find it interesting that the comment about the coal miner didn't go anywhere. Environmentally, I don't think coal is an option. Even "clean coal" is fairly close to a joke.

Yes we need a transition to renewable energy but more important I think is the question of how we make this transition just?

The coal miners will need training if they are to find employment in the solar economy.

Now one way of doing this could be for the major energy companies to retrain their work force from one division to another but economically speaking, that probably won't be on the executive's agenda until every last penny is squeezed out of fossil fuels.

So how does the average coal miner play a part in the solar economy?
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

Advertise With Us

Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative Endurance Wind Power Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut) Renewable Energy World Africa Concepts NREC Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America AltEnergyStocks
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