Recent Comment
Share
A really exciting new bill was introduced to Congress last week by Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The bill lays out a plan to install 10 million solar roofs and 200,000 solar water heaters over the next 10 years through tax rebates and incentives. The installations would equal 30 GW of clean energy or the equivalent of 30 nuclear power plants.
The "10 Million Solar Roofs and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act" would build on the success of state incentive programs like those in California and New Jersey and also the rising popularity of distributed solar projects. The bill would provide tax rebates of up to half the cost of new systems and would make sure the receivers of the incentives also know how to make their buildings as efficient as possible.
Sanders sees the bill costing between $2 and $3 billion a year, but with the outcome of 30 GW of new energy at the end of 10 years, it's actually a very cost effective plan. The plan would also create jobs and, as Sanders says, "the more photovoltaics we use, the more will be built; the more that are built, the cheaper it becomes."
All I can say is I love this bill. Oh Congress, please say you love it too.
via Treehugger
Hits: 12682
Comments (9)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Steve A., February 09, 2010
Brian, while it all comes down to scrounging up the capital needed to have a PV array built, keep in mind that WA state has a downright profitable production credit. If you buy WA state panels and inverters, they'll pay you $0.54 a kWh, on top of the 30% Federal tax credit. When those two are factored in, it's about a 6.5 year payback in the Seattle area for PV.
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WA27F&re=1&ee=1
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WA27F&re=1&ee=1
-
- +3
-
-
written by Fred, February 09, 2010
We do not need expensive subsidised power for the rich few - we need economical clean power for everybody.
Why should the wealthiest people get $30K tax breaks each to put ridiculously high-cost solar gear on their expensive homes, while everybody else's tax bills keep going up to pay for it?
Sanders envisions spending $30 BILLION dollars on these subsidies. - which history shows us means $60 - to $100 billion. That's really stupid, wasteful, and wrong.
A much smarter way to spend our tax money, if we must, would be to offer a flat $2 billion dollar prize to the first company that can reliably supply solar power at 10¢/kilowatt-hour - and let the private sector figure it all out. And for that huge a prize; *somebody* will do it - and soon! Then, we will ALL benefit from it.
And we won't have yet another wasteful expensive government bureaucracy clogging up the works with their rules and penalties and taxes and paperwork.
We do NOT NEED expensive subsidised power for the rich few - we need economical - cheap - clean power for *everybody*.
Why should the wealthiest people get $30K tax breaks each to put ridiculously high-cost solar gear on their expensive homes, while everybody else's tax bills keep going up to pay for it?
Sanders envisions spending $30 BILLION dollars on these subsidies. - which history shows us means $60 - to $100 billion. That's really stupid, wasteful, and wrong.
A much smarter way to spend our tax money, if we must, would be to offer a flat $2 billion dollar prize to the first company that can reliably supply solar power at 10¢/kilowatt-hour - and let the private sector figure it all out. And for that huge a prize; *somebody* will do it - and soon! Then, we will ALL benefit from it.
And we won't have yet another wasteful expensive government bureaucracy clogging up the works with their rules and penalties and taxes and paperwork.
We do NOT NEED expensive subsidised power for the rich few - we need economical - cheap - clean power for *everybody*.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Carl Hage, February 09, 2010
The bill is a good idea (in my opinion) but the rebate should be based on AC-kWh/year produced not the rated peak power of panels.
California changed it's rebate system from percentage of purchased price to an amount based on predicted total energy production. (The more energy it produces, the more money you get, not the more you spend the more you get.) This encourages efficient installations, and does not waste incentive money on panels mounted at a poor angle, in shaded or cloudy areas, etc. Using AC power as a measure includes the efficiency of the inverter as well.
Trackers are more expensive, but produce more kWh/day that an equivalent fixed-angle system. The rebate shouldn't be the same (it penalizes tracking systems). [Trackers also produce more energy later in the afternoon during peak summer demand.]
To see the actual bill text see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H4597:
California changed it's rebate system from percentage of purchased price to an amount based on predicted total energy production. (The more energy it produces, the more money you get, not the more you spend the more you get.) This encourages efficient installations, and does not waste incentive money on panels mounted at a poor angle, in shaded or cloudy areas, etc. Using AC power as a measure includes the efficiency of the inverter as well.
Trackers are more expensive, but produce more kWh/day that an equivalent fixed-angle system. The rebate shouldn't be the same (it penalizes tracking systems). [Trackers also produce more energy later in the afternoon during peak summer demand.]
To see the actual bill text see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H4597:
-
- +3
-
-
written by William Swigart, February 10, 2010
The problem with all of this is that we have no extra tax money...it's all borrowed money, to the tune of 1 plus trillion dollars most recently. Where does this come from...China and others. Government just raised the debt ceiling once again too. Seems like Congress is all about spending money but no so much in raising it. Grrrrrr!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Josh, February 10, 2010
...if the taxpayers (us) have to foot the bill. Let's do this as a lease to own, so there is no up front costs for the consumer to pay (the Fed handles that). Then, lease payments are locked in for a 15 year term, which means the Fed is payed right back, plus some small interest amount.
Win - win.
In CT, we already do this in a successful, but now out of money program, called CT Solar Lease.
My 2 more cents...I am IN FAVOR of solar, but NOT in favor of using tax payer dollars to do it - unless that cash is directly paid back.
Win - win.
In CT, we already do this in a successful, but now out of money program, called CT Solar Lease.
My 2 more cents...I am IN FAVOR of solar, but NOT in favor of using tax payer dollars to do it - unless that cash is directly paid back.
-
- -1
-
-
written by J. Welch, February 10, 2010
I guess it's a good thing that these 'treehugger' authors who openly advocate their agendas don't have kids. Right now, I think about the life my son will have with the staggering 300 thousand dollar debt that the government has placed on him. I won't be around to see him and the rest of America curse this generation for what we've done to them (and continue to do).
-
- -1
-
-
written by vern, February 14, 2010
Now-a-days, when it's almost too late, people want solar. 20 years ago when we needed to take action and start using alternative energy sources, people didn't want solar, people said solar didnt work, people said solar was too expensive, people said solar was a scam.
Enjoy your overheated, over-priced planet earth. You've earned it!
Enjoy your overheated, over-priced planet earth. You've earned it!
-
- -2
-
-
written by Robbie, May 19, 2010
Hi All,
We are buying a home in Queensland soon. Could somebody help advise whether installing solar panels for electricity &/or solar panels to heat water, as an individual householder, is more effecient (financialy and from using resources i.e. the manufacture of the panels) than simply buying 100% green electricty from a supplier. (taking into account we already keep our energy usage down).
Cheers
Robbie
We are buying a home in Queensland soon. Could somebody help advise whether installing solar panels for electricity &/or solar panels to heat water, as an individual householder, is more effecient (financialy and from using resources i.e. the manufacture of the panels) than simply buying 100% green electricty from a supplier. (taking into account we already keep our energy usage down).
Cheers
Robbie
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I'm up here in Seattle and I want to do this to my place. I know it always comes down to money, or the lack thereof, to do things like this, but it's something I want to do for self reliance purposes.