Your bias is even WORSE than 60 Minutes, Scott. Radicals like you cant speak one WORD without trashing the Koch brothers. Do you know a damned thing about them that you dont read from my IBEW journal or some nutjob blog site, or democraticunderground.com? No, you DONT.
What the hell is wrong with you? People like YOUR are the reason I cant convince people o go solar. You attach a ridiculous asinine hatred to people with opinions different than your own, and make all solar enthusiasts look like complete asshats. Thanks a LOT, you damned jerk.
@sfortuna ... why do you think these are paid for by tax dollars?
You can also pay Mexico for Texas, if you're that determined as a "taxpayer".
Great comments, you guys. And mixed thanks from "Anonymous" - many solar projects are from companies that can finance it themselves, but dont, either from risk or too many years on a possible return. Tax dollars "fixes" the books this way, but why should money come out of one pocket to magically balance the other? Ethanol shouldnt be subsidized at nearly $5 a gallon to lower the cost of gasoline by five cents. Thats where we are with solar now. If it doesnt make money or have someone else paying for it, it often doesnt get done. Banks wont finance something for a thirty-year return on an energy project with no guarantees. If it saves the installee 20%, is that enough to make payments on a 100% financed project? What bank would do it at these rates, anyways? And with the extra savings going to an interest payment, they might see ZERO or even NEGATIVE financial benefits of the install until the loan is paid off.
@SolarFred; you're probably one of the most literate people on this site, but you *do* have to realize, some "climate deniers" like myself would be more apt to believe it if;
1. There werent so many deniers in the scientific community
2. There werent so many deniers that were believers previously
3. The money trail always seems to follow the climate-change-is-happening groups (and partisan/biased/political groups as the origin of funding)
4. These results didnt always seem to end up as some tax or restriction that has little do do with anything ut the tax or restriction itself.
Nobody is "for" dirty air and water or running out of resources (except me, jokingly saying we should use up all the fossil fuels so we MUST go to green energy), but when you look at the whole picture, and what little is really being done here besides give a platform for a politician to run on, and the disastrous tax-money giveaways to failing green companies, will make a fiscally aware public begin to reject investing in green energy, no matter the consequences.
A good PR move would be to have the benefits and costs available per project, per state, country, etc., what the cost is, who pays for it, and the cost and amount of fossil fuels it replaces, and any savings that are passed along to the consumer/beneficiary. Some people simply dont care, and will never care about things they dont "see". This will help solidify support for green energy, REMOVING the "I dont care" factor.
The end result is the same; who cares if its supported or not for climate-change reasons, if supporters still deny climate change, like me? Right?
@dhhendren Citation needed on that 95% number, please. Also, could you find one thats broken down as to groups not paid by a specific interest (thus possible biased results)?
How anyone thinks public disapproval of the Solyndra scandal (yes, I call it a scandal when they get THAT much money, still fail, and the owners run off with the cash) is about SOLAR is beyond me, or from sightless extremists on the left trying to cover for a blunder (or scandal, whatever your belief) by the President.
Its NOT about solar; its about throwing money down the toilet.
Solar or not, if you need to subsidize a business forever, it cant survive on its own. Why should the taxpayers pay for a poor business model just because of the nature of the product? Why also should the government say "THIS solar company will get help, but not THAT one"?
I cant name ONE person that dislikes the Solyndra "incident" and also dislikes solar because of it.
This article is like saying people still like cars after GM was bailed out by the government. Its just a silly observation, with ridiculous comments about how it's somehow a "political tool against solar".
Logic: Would the people upset at the 500B wasted on Solyndra be any less upset if Solyndra was a fast-food chain? A dry-cleaning business? A furniture outlet? No. The solar connection is null.
I DID watch Mitt Romney, and heard him say he loves solar. So, either he's lying and you can read his mind, or you're equating not giving truckloads of government cash to solar as 'hating'? Not really sure what you're saying...
I hate solar in some regards; when installed in the north as much as I hate windfarms on the moon. That said, I live in the north and use solar myself (Solar-certified electrician, so I know the physics and realistic expectations of it). I just know its a minuscule amount of power compared to what I use, and not one DIME of tax money should be given to any homeowner wanting a $125k solar install on his house if he will be using electric heat on a poorly insulated house with single pane windows, incandescent bulbs and 30-year old appliances.
That said about the "good and honest non-scandalous renewable energy" companies...I highly doubt they do it for good and a low paycheck. Thats putting WAY too much "Captain Planet" into real life. It just isnt that way. My company makes solar panels as well as windmills, we have 2000 panels on the roof of our HQ (funny; NOT made by us, hahahaha!), and we're in a "4.4 hour" usable solar area. The output is NOT impressive even in the summer, and doesnt even put out enough to run HALF the new dual T-8 ballast lighting on the main floor.
Another way, if you REALLY disagree with me and think there is a huge conspiracy, fine. Lets use up all the oil and coal. Then we HAVE to go 100% renewable, dont we? :)
I'm in the middle. If I am involved in ANOTHER solar project with the homeowner still using a 20 year old water heater, electric stove and heat, no insulation in the house, single-pane glass, 100 watt bulbs in everything lighting up the house like christmas, I refuse to either explain to him where his savings are going, and also will refuse to accept solar as a "viable" and "cheap" resource, especially in Milwaukee with 4.4 usable solar hours per day.
Solar makes no sense if the APPLICATION doesnt, either. As long as people are stupid, solar will be stupid.
Bob, Larry...both of you need to get together and solve this issue of microgrids to MAKE it work, or make an alternative work so people dont waste time and resources on MGs.
I'm a hardcore Conservative, yet helped solve a problem by participating in a Health Hackathon in Milwaukee (buildhealth.org), being a very liberal event with all types of political bias and bashing. Once the introductory talk stopped, the WORK got done. Nobody gave a crap about anything else. It was Apollo 13-esque.
Is this your way of solving the problem? Silly political bullying and accusations that mean NOTHING?
"Anonymous" clearly stated the fact that a solar company had massive problems, was a huge donor to political campaigns (which he didnt mention) and got nearly literal access to a cash printing press funded by taxpayers...and you accuse him of being Dick Cheney?
Do you expect anyone to take your drivel seriously? If wou WERE to make a valid point, you'd have negated it.
ONLY PRODUCTS THAT MAKE A PROFIT will exist in non-communist countries. PERIOD. If you run a company poorly, it makes no difference how magical your technology is. So, stop being a silly, childish troll, ignoring the facts that solar is too expensive to manufacture at a large profit until the rate for manufacture goes down, coupled with an actual DEMAND by the consumer.
Mandates for putting a dozen 15-watt panels on the roof of a 20-student schoolhouse in Grantsburg Illinois with taxpayer dollars and Union installers at the cost of $350,000 isn't going to help get you what you want.
Tax subsidies, incentives and rebates (all 'funded' by tax dollars from the same people applying for it) are NOT enough to make solar grow. If anything, it has let solar companies rely on them INSTEAD of R&D and innovation (Just look at the German PV bankruptcy cases; no govt money = no profit).
When solar is cheap enough where the installation is cheaper than the materials, EVERYONE will want it. You cant force it, especially by ridiculous pseudo-puns asking people what "secret evil Republican identity" they are. GTFO, troll.