Solar Power in California

[usta in Portland]

Just read an article that gave 'the other side of the coin' story regarding the subsidizing of the solar industry through loan guarantees.
Apparently there are several solar power plants coming on line which should be solvent given that the state of California requires power utilities to get 1/3 of their energy from renewables (not just solar though) Well and good, I guess. The power plants will not likely need the loans backed up by the Feds because the energy is already sold on long term contract. That's the back story.
But here is my question-even if all this is works out just as planned, how much total impact does it actually have on our oil consumption profile and consequently on our 'foreign sources' issue given that 2/3 of all oil in the US goes to transportation (see link). That is to say, that renewables cannot reduce consumption of oil by much because oil isn't used greatly for power generation in the first place. Nor is there a big gain in carbon reduction, because, again so much of that is from transport use. I don't get the point of investing in solar in particular when equivalent investements in more efficient cars and trucks have so much more overall savings potential.
So, setting aside any poilitical bias on this point-is there a real case to be made for solar investment versus transport efficiency investment?:huh:

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...il_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_sector.htm

 

[spiggs]

The big driver for me supporting the idea of alternative energy is to diversify our energy sources. It seems to me if we stay reliant on a single source like oil, we will always be subject to the market and political fluctuations that impact that commodity. I think an investment today in making sure we have a variety of energy sources means a more stable economy in the future.

 

[budgetzagato]

Well...

One way to look at it is that if you invest in solar power now, set up the infrastructure, it can also later be used to power vehicles. Not just cars, but trains too. So it could help us make a jump to a cleaner transportation system as well.

Most of our oil is sold on the world market, this could eventually happen with renewable resources as well.

 

[mx5rush]

Coal is a huge profit maker for the railroads.... keeping my paycheck secure! Just saying!

Actually more solar on houses, schools and factories is a big deal in my opinion. The coal industry likes to beat it's chest with comments like 'We've got enough coal for at least 50 more years!'

LIKE THAT IS A GOOD THING!?

I find it flat terrifying! That means the country will be out of coal for electrical power when my boys are at retirement age?!?!?! HOLY CRAP!

We need to dial back on coal use BIG TIME... there is no reason, or at least very little (imho) for my house to be powered soley by 'coal' generated power. I'd love to have the whole south side of roof covered in solar panels creating watts. (luckily my north side sort of faces the street) I wish it was only something like $20k to be free of the grid, and no longer part of the problem digging a bigger hole up in Wyoming. When I've done the math, it's quite a bit more money to go truely solar.

Do you guys have any idea how many coal trains a day come out of the Powder River coal basin alone? It's around 90 unit coal trains a day... 90 trains a day, each with something like 100-135 carloads. Every single day.

That's a big hole!

 

[Matthew]

If the government is going to do something it should tax non-renewable energy instead of subsidizing renewable. The government is not very good at picking the right industry to subsidize and is really bad at ending subsidies that turn out to be a failure so we end up subsidizing things that are destined to fail just to keep them going. If oil, coal and natural gas were taxed at a rate that made a number of renewable sources competitive the best ones word rise to the top on their own. Of course this will never happen because it's easier for the government to hand out free money (buy votes) than it is to take money. I'm not even saying they should do this but if they are going to do something this is a better option.

Another thing the government could do is stop subsidizing the price of oil through the military. The government has spent billions to keep oil flowing in the ME and maybe if they didn't do that oil would be more expensive making other forms of energy more competitive. In any case, throwing money at renewable energy is at best a crap shoot.

 

[usta in Portland]

Well put and ....

if the space and purpose here were sufficient to make this case with numbers, it can be made pretty easily. But suffice it to say that in the absence of a carbon tax or some equivalent the dominant forms of energy will hold sway for a long time simply because they can concentrate capital to improve already online technology much faster than an infant industry can. Also they are not dependent on homeowners(who are already stretched) putting up capital to retrofit solar that cannot show paybacks within ten years with government subsidy and 20 years without. And those systems are supplementary to the grid not a replacement for it. And it would just be one more balance of payments problem with China who,inevitably, will be making the cheapest panels.
The tax, as you say has to come first and that by itself could do the trick. The issue of the militarization of the Persian Gulf being a major subsidy to the oil industry has been made twice in the last week in major publications- one fairly leftish and the other to the right of center. One called it the Fifth and Sixth Fleet subsidy.