| The Senate May Kill 42 GW of Planned Renewable Energy |
| Written by Hank Green | ||
| Wednesday, 05 March 2008 | ||
|
The largest planned solar power project in history, a 280-megawatt solar thermal plant in Arizona, will not be built if the tax credits are not extended. But that's not where the story ends. Over 42,000 MW -- that's as much as 75 coal-fired power plants -- are hinging on this bill. Those projects, representing the largest yearly growth in U.S. solar EVER, will go online in 42 states only if the subsidies stay in place. The renewable energy credits will expire at the end of 2008 and already planned projects are putting in a provision saying that they will cancel if the credits are not passed. The problem seems to be that every version of the renewable energy credit bill that has hit the Senate takes subsidies away from oil and gas companies and gives them to the renewables energy. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the head Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said that he will block any such legislation, calling the repeal of their subsidies a "tax" on oil and gas. Many Senators claim that ending oil and gas subsidies will only serve to increase gas prices but, call me crazy, giving taxpayers' money to the oil companies so they can lower prices doesn't really make that much sense. We could just give the money straight to the taxpayers instead of helping to increase the already-record profits of the oil industry. Subsidies exist to help bolster new economies when they need the capital, not to prop up dying systems. If our country can put together the funding to create 42 gigawatts of renewable energy, that will be something that we can all be proud of. That, in fact, will stop the demand for new coal power plants while putting us in a position to compete with the rest of the world in this new energy economy. Senate Democrats are scrambling to put together a stand-alone version of the bill. The last two have failed by just one vote (notably, John McCain did not vote on either bill) and Democrats are confident that they can pull that extra vote from somewhere before their effectual deadline at the end of the first quarter of '08. Let's hope they get this done...NOW. Via NYTimes and Solve Climate
Comments
(7)
Need more info!
written by A Voter , March 05, 2008
So Hank, when I write my Senator, what is the name or number of this piece of legislation?
...
written by Magnulus , March 06, 2008
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not lolspeak!! Hank! Shame on you! I know it's a joke, but you're making a mockery of... of... The entire world! *cries* First the Taking The Hobbits song and now this? That having been said, I hope they can resolve this issue. Seems like a pretty big deal.
Signed the bill
written by Enrique , March 06, 2008
Hank:
remember, Bush needs to sign the bill. Democrats don't have 60 votes to override the president's vetoe. to A. voter:Go to www.solar-nation.org, they are tracking the bill.
...
written by Anonymous , March 06, 2008
Subsidies don't work in practice. A theoretical case can be made for them, but in the real world they are always based on political clout instead of science, and they are almost impossible to repeal.
20 years from now we'll be fighting against corn ethanol subsidies.. If we give them to solar, that might make another even better technology (another kind of solar, or another thing completely (deep rock geothermal? wave?) relatively less competitive and slow down its development. Best is to have no subsidies all around and stop taking people's hard-earned money to give it to certain groups.
...
written by Enrique , March 06, 2008
to give subsidies don't work our anynomyos writer said.
Why give subsidies to record breaking profits to the oil companies?
Repealing Subsidies
written by nicster , March 06, 2008
If subsidies are almost impossible to repeal and, therefore, outlast their usefulness, perhaps a better practice is to only allow them for a given period of time. Thus, sunsetting a solar subsidy after, say, fifty solar rotations would jumpstart the industry for a limited time and then allow other promising technologies to take the stage.
subsidies
written by Anonymous , March 07, 2008
>>If subsidies are almost impossible to repeal and, therefore, outlast their usefulness, perhaps a better practice is to only allow them for a given period of time.
Doesn't work much better. They are still very influenced by political matters, they still distort the market (law of unintended consequences -- what looks good now might not look good very soon. ie. corn ethanol). And special interest groups who become dependent on them will do everything in their power so don't sunset (we've seen it happen again and again). No subsidies is the best way to do thing. | ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
While the U.S. House has happily passed the renewable energy credits that have, for the last few years, kept the U.S. competitive with other countries in this burgeoning new economy, the Senate has failed to pass the legislation three times.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
