Subsidizing The Sun -
True Purpose of the
Solar Subsidies
True Purpose of the
Solar Subsidies
 |
 |
 |
| True Purpose of the Solar Subsidies by William Shurcliff What is the true purpose of the US Government’s and state governments’ subsidies of solar heating equipment? A simple question? Seems so. But when I consider the question carefully I get into trouble! What is the true purpose of the subsidies? Is it to save oil? Presumably not. The subsidy I receive when I buy a $6000 solar hot water system is based only on what I pay: $6000. No one asks: “Could you have obtained equally good performance from a cheaper system?” No one asks how well I maintain the system, how much I actually use it, whether I take longer showers and thus save no oil at all. No one points out that I could have saved just as much oil by stopping the steady drip in my kitchen hot- water faucet and closing the window in my guestroom. No one inquires about my gas- guzzling cars, my frequent trips to Atlantic City, my vacation trips to Florida. No one asks why I keep my thermostat at 75°F or why I have not adjusted my oil burner since 1979. No one asks about my 40-ft. motor launch that uses one gallon of gasoline per mile. Think of it: I receive $4000 in subsidy—but no one bothers to inquire whether I am actually saving any oil! Of course, many solar-equipment users do save oil. Some don’t. Nobody inquires. The subsidy is not contingent on saving oil. Is it to avoid having to buy so much oil from the Arabs? No. Purchase of Arabian oil could be halted tomorrow by the Congress—if it wanted to stop such purchase. Anyway, we don’t really want to cut our use of Arabian oil—because such a cut would cripple our industry, speed up the use of domestic oil, and exhaust our supplies even faster. Is it because solar energy is, in some sense, holy? Holiness should be encouraged? No. Fields and clean ponds are equally holy; yet little attention is paid to acid rain. Good diet and healthy living are holy; yet no effort is made to halt the production of whiskey and cigarettes, which kill 300,000 people a year and fill our hospitals with alcoholics and cancer victims. Anyway, the Government should not try to define and promote holiness. Is it to help an infant industry? No. The industry is about ten years old. No longer an infant. The diapers are just for show. Is it to counteract existing subsidies on oil, nuclear power, etc.? Some people think so, but I think not. To try to counteract two big harmful misconceived subsidies with another misconceived subsidy makes little sense. Like trying to counteract excessive drinking with excessive smoking. There is no true counteraction. Merely further disruption. Is it to focus the homeowner’s attention on the various improvements that could be made at negligible cost? On the contrary! The publicity given to multi-thousand- dollar systems actually distracts him from the simpler, more cost-effective steps. Is it to promote passive solar heating—the cheapest kind of solar heating? No. Several especially low cost passive systems do not qualify for subsidies. Is it to help the very poorest people? No. Subsidies that consist of tax deductions have no appeal to such persons because they pay little or no taxes. Is it to encourage invention of new kinds of collectors etc.? No. New kinds do not meet the standards that are prerequisite to subsidy. The standards are written to suit the old equipments. They discourage innovation. Is it to encourage do—it—yourself oil—saving activities? No. Emphasis is on purchases: cost of purchase. No purchase— no subsidy. Is it to help the country as a whole financially? Far from it! Suppose all 50,000,000 families in USA were to buy $4000 solar equipments. Suppose the individual family puts up $1500 and the Government subsidy amounts to $2500. Then the total amount of subsidy would be 50,000,000 x $2500 = $125 billion. Could the taxpayers stand this on top of the present annual deficit-increase of $200 billion? And for what purpose? Merely to make a 50% cut in the use of oil, etc. to heat domestic hot water! What a poor way to spend $125 billion! And if the project is ill-advised when applied to all families, is it not ill-advised when applied to a few families? What is the actual main function of the subsidy? To help manufacturers sell their fairly expensive, active-type, solar heating equipment to fairly well-to-do persons who, if given no subsidy, would turn their backs on the equipment as being too cost—ineffective. Should solar lobby groups cease pushing for subsidies? Would they be more helpful if they pushed, instead, for new inventions, new demonstrations, bigger and better educational programs, more use of passive and do-it-yourself solar equipments? Should they, by any chance, abandon their narrow focus—solar— and work for a broader goal: energy efficiency? Should they campaign not only for use of solar energy but also for better house-insulation, better maintenance of oil burners, smaller and more energy-efficient cars, curtailment of purposeless driving, steep taxes on gas- guzzling motorboats? William Shurcliff Acknowledgment: Some of the better ideas presented here have been taken from recent papers by S.C. Baer. |