Subsidizing The Sun
- Letter to the Editor
Northeast Sun
- Letter to the Editor
Northeast Sun
 |
 |
 |
Letter to the Editor
Northeast Sun
Dear Readers:
Tree O’Brien
Editor
Dear Editor:
You’ve asked me what I think the picture will be for
the solar industry if the tax credits disappear. The
picture will look bleak. Let’s ask another question:
what effect will the end of the solar tax credits have on
the benefits we gain from the sun? Ending the tax
credits won’t hurt a bit.
Hardly anyone speaks of himself as being in the solar
industry unless he feels he is entitled to some special
subsidy. The huge majority of economical uses of
sunlight are never referred to as parts of a solar
industry. The window and skylight manufacturers don’t
refer to themselves as being in the solar industry, nor
do farmers, cattlemen, loggers, and many other
occupations. What’s going on here? Today’s “solar
industry” is politics first and energy second. Those who
have shaped the modern solar movement thought they
had found a new minority to crusade for. So, on the
heels of blacks, women, and homosexuals, the political
activists introduced the sun. If you stop and think about
it, it is absurd, but then so is the idea that women are an
exploited minority. After the tax credits are gone, you
won’t see houses with a $5,000 “solar system” on the
roof that saves the owner $100 a year in natural gas.
But that won’t mean that we have stopped using the sun.
The taxpayers will no longer be coerced into paying for
these devices, and will find that almost any other use of
the money—from drinking it up in solar beer and wine
to taking a trip—makes more efficient use of the sun.
Ending the tax credits will not eliminate all solar water
heaters— they will still appear wherever there is sun
and no inexpensive alternative fuel such as natural gas.
Are the alternative fuels inexpensive only because they
are subsidized? This is the song the solar crowd sings,
but how do the subsidies divide out per Btu? If the
nuclear and fossil fuel industries receive a subsidy of
$3.5 billion (a figure recently mentioned by Scott Sklar
of SEIA), how much is this per million Btus? We used
about 70 quads of nuclear and fossil fuels last year.
This is 3.5 billion dollars then divides out to be $0.05
per million Btus.
Dennis Hayes of the Solar Lobby says the tax breaks
are larger— about $20 billion, or $0.29 per million
Btus for the nuclear and fossil fuels industry. At Sklar’
s rates, a solar water heater with a 20-year life that
collects 10 million Btus a year would receive a subsidy
of $10, while at Hayes’ rates, the subsidy would be
$57. The present subsidies for such a solar water
heater are close to $1,500.
The “solar industry” has confused the public about
equality. Evidently, equality doesn’t mean getting
$0.29 per million Btus; they don’t want the 29 cents,
they want the $20 billion.
Later we can expect the oil industry to demand equality
of subsidies per unit of energy with solar water heater
manufacturers, which would mean paying $1/gallon for
gasoline before you ever get to the pump.
Notice that the only uses of the sun that have been
eligible for subsidies are those that impersonate fossil
fuels. The sun has to flow through wires as electricity
or through ducts or pipes as a hot fluid to be
considered solar energy. It can’t just naturally light a
room or grow a plant. This is how the political activists
have defined it. It resembles the women’s movement,
which has been aimed at rewarding and subsidizing
women who wish to impersonate men (such as being
firemen), not the average woman.
The solar industry imagines itself the champion of a
cause favored by Mother Nature. It presents itself as
the one group struggling against a powerful machine
burning subsidized oil. Poor Mother Nature—first she
watched man slight her own solar powered ways when
he began subsidizing his new oil-powered inventions,
and now, when he promised to right this wrong and
come to the aid of the sun, what has it been? Subsidies
for the sun, but only where it impersonates men’s
machines.
Steve Baer
Northeast Sun
Dear Readers:
Tree O’Brien
Editor
Dear Editor:
You’ve asked me what I think the picture will be for
the solar industry if the tax credits disappear. The
picture will look bleak. Let’s ask another question:
what effect will the end of the solar tax credits have on
the benefits we gain from the sun? Ending the tax
credits won’t hurt a bit.
Hardly anyone speaks of himself as being in the solar
industry unless he feels he is entitled to some special
subsidy. The huge majority of economical uses of
sunlight are never referred to as parts of a solar
industry. The window and skylight manufacturers don’t
refer to themselves as being in the solar industry, nor
do farmers, cattlemen, loggers, and many other
occupations. What’s going on here? Today’s “solar
industry” is politics first and energy second. Those who
have shaped the modern solar movement thought they
had found a new minority to crusade for. So, on the
heels of blacks, women, and homosexuals, the political
activists introduced the sun. If you stop and think about
it, it is absurd, but then so is the idea that women are an
exploited minority. After the tax credits are gone, you
won’t see houses with a $5,000 “solar system” on the
roof that saves the owner $100 a year in natural gas.
But that won’t mean that we have stopped using the sun.
The taxpayers will no longer be coerced into paying for
these devices, and will find that almost any other use of
the money—from drinking it up in solar beer and wine
to taking a trip—makes more efficient use of the sun.
Ending the tax credits will not eliminate all solar water
heaters— they will still appear wherever there is sun
and no inexpensive alternative fuel such as natural gas.
Are the alternative fuels inexpensive only because they
are subsidized? This is the song the solar crowd sings,
but how do the subsidies divide out per Btu? If the
nuclear and fossil fuel industries receive a subsidy of
$3.5 billion (a figure recently mentioned by Scott Sklar
of SEIA), how much is this per million Btus? We used
about 70 quads of nuclear and fossil fuels last year.
This is 3.5 billion dollars then divides out to be $0.05
per million Btus.
Dennis Hayes of the Solar Lobby says the tax breaks
are larger— about $20 billion, or $0.29 per million
Btus for the nuclear and fossil fuels industry. At Sklar’
s rates, a solar water heater with a 20-year life that
collects 10 million Btus a year would receive a subsidy
of $10, while at Hayes’ rates, the subsidy would be
$57. The present subsidies for such a solar water
heater are close to $1,500.
The “solar industry” has confused the public about
equality. Evidently, equality doesn’t mean getting
$0.29 per million Btus; they don’t want the 29 cents,
they want the $20 billion.
Later we can expect the oil industry to demand equality
of subsidies per unit of energy with solar water heater
manufacturers, which would mean paying $1/gallon for
gasoline before you ever get to the pump.
Notice that the only uses of the sun that have been
eligible for subsidies are those that impersonate fossil
fuels. The sun has to flow through wires as electricity
or through ducts or pipes as a hot fluid to be
considered solar energy. It can’t just naturally light a
room or grow a plant. This is how the political activists
have defined it. It resembles the women’s movement,
which has been aimed at rewarding and subsidizing
women who wish to impersonate men (such as being
firemen), not the average woman.
The solar industry imagines itself the champion of a
cause favored by Mother Nature. It presents itself as
the one group struggling against a powerful machine
burning subsidized oil. Poor Mother Nature—first she
watched man slight her own solar powered ways when
he began subsidizing his new oil-powered inventions,
and now, when he promised to right this wrong and
come to the aid of the sun, what has it been? Subsidies
for the sun, but only where it impersonates men’s
machines.
Steve Baer