Solar is a libertarian dream. The utility companies that states like Oklahoma are scrambling to protect are cozy government-protected monopolies (though eventually they too will survive by switching to solar). Rooftop solar offers a chance for independent homeowners to free themselves from reliance on a collectivist system. And solar is a triumph of human ingenuity, the kind of advance that Julian Simon believed would always save us from “limits to growth” – in the long run, oil and coal and gas will run out, but cheap solar will sustain capitalism.
Pointer from Mark Thoma. I agree that as innovations continue to bring about reductions in the relative cost of solar power, many benefits will ensue. Still, I believe that the Department of Energy’s loan guarantees to solar companies (and others) were not good policy, and certainly not libertarian in spirit. I am interested in engaging with those who would criticize such a belief. I am not interested in engaging the theory that conservatives, because of their evil nature, are opponents of solar power.
By the way, as I read the table in Timothy Taylor’s post, solar power does not come across as particularly inexpensive in the near future. And you should also read this earlier Timothy Taylor post:
When a technological standard is required, then firms which could have reduced pollution more cheaply are not allowed to gain a competitive advantage from doing so–because all must follow the prescribed standard.
Read the whole post, which describes the tendency for environmental regulation to become less about reducing pollution and more about restricting competition.
I propose that we try to eliminate from discussions of public policy related to solar and nuclear energy any arguments that are based on sentiment, wishful thinking, or rent-seeking. Everybody police their own side.
Pure “net metering,” where someone who produces the same kWh as he consumes on cloudy days has a zero overall electric bill, is unsustainable. The grid has to be paid for.
It’s possible to pay for the grid with a fixed charge on bills, and the marginal billing being pure net metering, but that’s pretty regressive for progressives to favor, I would think.
I suppose Noah and his compatriots would favor net metering as a transitional subsidy designed to help solar get started. However, as the European experience shows, it would have to be scaled back in some sense eventually.
Regressive?
We dont have to do their job for them. If that is what it is then that is what it is. A business could make the bill correlate to square footage. Interesting businesses don’t often charge progressively.
Solar needs technology. And maybe scaling back neighborhood associations.
Do we have a popular woman who can make chicks dig the long ball AND solar panels on the roof?
That Timothy Taylor post was interesting.
If I am interpreting the table right, it makes Solar look expensive even *without* considering that solar is “non-dispatchable.” I’m no expert, but isn’t that “non-dispatchable” factor really really important, such that the true costs of moving to Solar would be even much higher than shown, since you’d also need to construct dispatchable capacity to fill the gaps?
Those are costs at the point of production. If you include delivery costs, solar probably ends up significantly lower. At some point it may make sense to eliminate the grid.
Storage costs for electricity during a week of rainy weather would have to drop a lot before it is cheaper than the grid.
The regulation is so onerous that companies installing solar collector panels have hired personnel whose exclusive function is permitting, that is, filling the numerous forms and receiving the permits. In Israel, where I live, electricity production is a State monopoly and the regulation to connect to the general electric network takes up several volumes. Solar panels are (theoretically) subsidized, but extracting the benefits from the State is very expensive in time and manpower. I for one definitely agree that (apparently beneficial and necessary) regulation – objectively – operates as a protector of mono or oligopoly. I see it everywhere: for example, the extreme prohibitions of wastewater discharge into the municipal sewage system work have the effect that it is very expensive or impossible to open new restaurants in Tel Aviv. The same must be in California, I hear. On the other hand, I doubt this is a planned conspiracy by the oligopolists or oligarchs. Regulations are made up by mostly by bureaucrats without the potential beneficiaries being aware. Moreover, things are so complicated that no one can predict the ultimate effect of new regulations.
I love solar. People are way overly optimistic for simple technology. There is no solar “cure”. I like solar thermal molten salt storage with striking cycle, but everyone has their preferred solar tech and that’s mine. It is not political, at least from me.
Are conservatives the reason there isn’t a perfect commuter coffee mug too? One that doesn’t leak, break, can be microwaved, is well insulated, large capacity, but fits your in car cup holders, etc. How are the kochs responsivle for keeping humanity from the travel mug we deserve?
Stirling cycle, that is.
There are a lot of reasons to like a more decentralized system of power production. Solar fits well into such a system because the days with the most intense sun tend to be the days when demand on the grid is the heaviest.
With current technology there is no good way to store excess solar production so net metering is essential for the continued development of this technology.
I am not a libertarian but you don’t have to be a libertarian to understand why government subsidies are problematic. A carbon tax would be a much more efficient way to encourage reliance on solar and other alternative methods of energy production. It makes these alternatives more competitive while letting the market sort out the ways that people react to that. I understand that libertarians don’t like taxes, but if you believe that we should have a government that raises some money through taxes then a carbon tax mass a lot of sense compared to other taxes.
I’ve been hearing the Nonrenewable resource tax thing for nearly 20 years only because before that no one talked to me.
The centralized infrastructure cost issue will always create barriers. And so, for example, because large cities concentrate too much water use and waste in a small area to be habitable without water and sewer systems, and those systems are expensive, everybody is forced to pay. YOU may be able to get by without them, and indeed, one can imagine that you could get by without them AND not impose any costs on your neighbors. But your neigbhors CANNOT get by without them and they FORCE YOU to help pay for them. It’s not so very different from the draft or taxes that fund education being imposed on the childless. It’s not about you or what you do, it’s about what everybody else has to have and will go to great lengths to get.
Thus, we have “utility bills” such that if they somehow could be evaporated, would be turned into “poll taxes” – basically each and every one of us is to going to be required to help pay for these things weather we want to consume them or not.
In Seattle metro, this “must pay fixed cost” issue has reached the perverse point where the sewer bill is bigger than the water bill (but at least you can safely swim in the lakes) AND the base charge so high and incremental use costs so low, that almost no conservation scheme can ever pay for itself. So they are imposed by building codes – which are easily defeated. So fixed costs go up. Rinse and repeat.
It’s not clear to me that libertarianism, or any other political scheme, can overcome this “large group forcing all available people to help meet needs” behavoir. (Nor whether a better scheme is really possible.)
This does suggest that over the long term and over wide areas, for decentralized provisioning schemes to succeed, they need to lower or at least not raise the “fixed infrastructure required by society” costs/needs. So lots of solar cells that require huge backup storage and backup distribution networks are almost pessimal. It might make more sense to give everybody a natural gas powered generator…
(not to say that solar might not be a good thing….)
I read your entire comment. Are you saying the problem with libertarianism is there aren’t enough libertarians? I agree!
The situation described by Brian in Seattle is perfectly reasonable because it is an area rich in fresh water, so water supply is unexpensive, but sewage treatment to tertiary level is expensive. Of course sewage treatment costs are imposed on everybody as everybody enjoys living in an hygienic environment just like living in a well policed neighborhood or in a society with well educated children. That is the reason why decentralized systems, like “green buildings” that are not connected to the municipal water and sewage systems, and try to disconnect themselves also from the electric grid, are absurd and wrong.
Since I’m already obnoxious I’ll respond.
I understand his point. Policing and sewage are a little different. OTOH, they are the same in that it would be nice if we could make criminals pay for costs associated with crime.
Andrew, think it again.
(1) Municipal infrastructure: Police – it patrols all the streets and is paid by everybody. Sewage: Every house connected by law to the municipal collection and treatment infrastructure, and is paid by everybody ie. each home (generally calculated according to water use).
(2) Decentralized “green” infrastructure: Police – You erect a wall around your property and hire private watchmen. You enjoy the benefits of the city being policed indirectly and dirfectly when taking your son to the school. Sewage: you recycle you sewage in your garden, maintaining (or not) the municipal connection for emergencies. You enjoy the absence of cholera epidemies and the sight of rats on the strets thanks to the maintenance of hygiene in the city. In both cases you should be forced to pay for municipal services, use it or not. Green buildings should pay like everybody else, and in my humble opinion, double for endangering public health.
It’s right as far as it goes. However, it stops too short: if solar is a libertarian dream, the gasoline generators must be even moreso. Gasoline generators produce as much power as you want, because you can always install a second or third or fourth generator. You can’t install a second or third sun. Generators also have built-in storage, something that solar really struggles with.
At the same time, the article goes too far: home solar doesn’t work even in optimal conditions. Home solar is more of an homage to Gaia than a technology that is useful. It’s something rich people can show friends and titter about, and it’s something that technophiles can tinker around with.
From a little Internet sleuthing, I see that a really thorough set of solar panels gets 14-15 kWh per day of output. That’s optimal conditions: whole-roof coverage, a one-family residence, regular cleaning to keep the dust off, regular replacement of degraded cells, a clear and sunny day, and a moderate or equatorial lattitude. Meanwhile, the average daily usage for Americans, according to eai.gov, is 30kWh. Based on this, under optimal conditions, solar can cover half of the daily usage.
With those numbers, home solar is a non-starter. Shared solar, where you have a big solar array connected to the power grid, might be feasible, but even then it implies dedicating more space to the solar array than you do to actual domiciles. That’s at the very least odd. One also has to wonder what the environmental effect would be.
Looking ahead, one might posit that solar will get more productive and that people will use less energy, thus bridging the gap. Remember, though, that this was a best-case scenario. Real world engineering needs much higher tolerances if we want an energy supply that leads to a good lifestyle. Unless you want the power to go out at night, you need some form of storage, and any conversion to storage is going to be imperfect. Not every day is sunny. Many people live at lattitudes where there is much less sunlight. As well, some people live in multi-floor appartments, thus increasing the number of people without increasing the surface area available for solar cells.
As well, I would question the assumption that per capita energy usage is going to go down. While there is a maximal amount of food we want to consume, I see no bound to the amount of energy a person can use while still making their life better. We’re only going to lower per-capita energy usage if we also lower our standard of living.