Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?

[PeterMP]

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/17/electricity-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/

 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the 10 states in which wind power accounts for the highest percentage of the state’s electricity generation are:

Iowa – 27%

South Dakota – 26

Kansas – 19

Idaho – 16

Minnesota – 16

North Dakota – 16

Oklahoma – 15

Colorado – 14

Oregon – 12

Wyoming – 8

The wind power industry claims switching from conventional power to wind power will save consumers money and spur the economy. However, data from the top 10 wind power states show just the opposite. From 2008-2013electricity prices rose an average of 20.7 percent in the top 10 wind power states, which is seven-fold higher than the national electricity price increase of merely 2.8 percent.

 

 

Correlation != causation.

 

And that isn't even a correlation, but some sort of general association.

 

That's especially an issue when you are looking at a bunch of states that share a a lot of other similarities.

 

I mean if they were scattered across the US, I might buy it.

 

If you took CO and OK off the list and added NJ and Al or something like that, then you might start to say there might be something there.

 

Are we sure that demand for electricity in those states hasn't just gone up more too?

[twa]

Another US government loan gone bad. U.S. taxpayers lost $139 million of the $192 million Fisker received.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-22/fisker-to-sell-assets-in-bankruptcy-at-139-million-loss.html

 

Chicken feed, buncha small timers compared to the Ivanpah group who despite being guaranteed the purchase of all the electricity they can generate want you to pony up more.

 

World's largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/world-largest-solar-plant-applying-for-federal-grant-to-pay-off-its-federal/

After already receiving a controversial $1.6 billion construction loan from U.S. taxpayers, the wealthy investors of a California solar power plant now want a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan.

"This is an attempt by very large cash generating companies that have billions on their balance sheet to get a federal bailout, i.e. a bailout from us - the taxpayer for their pet project," said Reason Foundation VP of Research Julian Morris. "It's actually rather obscene."

The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the U.S. Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30 percent of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.

"They're already paying less than the market rate," said Morris, author of a lengthy report detailing alleged cronyism and corruption in the Obama administration's green energy programs. "Now demanding or asking for a subsidy in the form of a grant directly paying off the loan is an egregious abuse."

NRG doesn't see it that way, telling Fox News the money is there for the taking."NRG believes in a clean and sustainable energy future and therefore participates in available government programs to develop and expand the use of clean energy to accelerate America’s energy independence." In 2013, the Obama administration handed out $18.5 billion in renewable energy grants, with $4.4 billion going to solar projects.

[twa]

Moonbat Elitists Fly 1,700 Private Jets to Davos to Discuss Global Warming

news at 10

 

http://moonbattery.com/?p=54483

[twa]

and the rich get richer....as usual

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/abstracts/abstract_wp262.html

 

 

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other "clean energy" investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

 

Get yer Telsa on the govt dime Mr Trump   

[Hersh]

and the rich get richer....as usual

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/abstracts/abstract_wp262.html

 

 

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other "clean energy" investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

 

Get yer Telsa on the govt dime Mr Trump   

 

Did anyone think that poor people were going to be able to afford to take advantage of these tax credits?

[Larry]

You mean, when new technology first becomes available, it's expensive, and the early adopters tend to be people who can afford it?

[twa]

with subsidies....wouldn't want to crimp their style.

 

meanwhile the normal folks light bill goes up.

[mcsluggo]

and the rich get richer....as usual

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/abstracts/abstract_wp262.html

 

 

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other "clean energy" investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

 

Get yer Telsa on the govt dime Mr Trump   

 

so... you have basically described the income distribution of EVERY SINGLE TAX CREDIT EVER.

 

I assume that this means that you are against tax credits, right?

and the rich get richer....as usual

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/research/abstracts/abstract_wp262.html

 

 

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other "clean energy" investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

 

Get yer Telsa on the govt dime Mr Trump   

 

so... you have basically described the income distribution of EVERY SINGLE TAX CREDIT EVER.

 

I assume that this means that you are against tax credits, right?

[twa]

are they good tax credits?

 

I oppose helping rich folk buy a Telsa ect so they can claim to be concerned about the environment.

[tshile]

are they good tax credits?

 

I oppose helping rich folk buy a Telsa ect so they can claim to be concerned about the environment.

 

the problem with your argument is that it completely ignores the long, and strong, history of the US Gov't helping kick off important technology by being the early investor.

 

If you want to argue that 'Going Green' is a worthless/stupid/pointless/etc movement, then that's one thing.

 

But don't ignore the importance of the US government funding early technology and early adoption of that technology.

 

Microwaves, plastic, computers, silicon, gps, radio waves/cellular frequencies, the list goes on and on and on.

 

And I think any objective person can say the return on investment in those things is huge.

 

Our capitalist economy means private businesses are driven by profits. With the way the stock market has evolved to this point it's not even long term profits, but shot term profits. Hell, we're seeing businesses buy other businesses for the sole purpose of increasing revenue to make share holders happy at the next quarterly earnings report. What motivates big business these days is short term profits.

 

Which means the government has a role that's more important than ever in trying to push for technology that is better for us; better for us being very loosely defined, i definitely concede that.

[Hersh]

are they good tax credits?

 

I oppose helping rich folk buy a Telsa ect so they can claim to be concerned about the environment.

 

Because buying a Telsa is the only thing stupid rich people do out of concern for the environment. Ya know, since they aren't purest.

[twa]

the problem with your argument is that it completely ignores the long, and strong, history of the US Gov't helping kick off important technology by being the early investor.

 

 

what important tech is advanced thru those tax credits?

[tshile]

what important tech is advanced thru those tax credits?

 

i'm not aware of any

 

but we're also in an unprecedented time of our government outsourcing the actual research and development. i don't think it's for the better, but it is what's going on.

 

they're funding companies both directly (grants) and indirectly (tax credits to the consumers) and it serves the same purpose.

[China]

U.S. Energy Secretary: Solar and wind energy now cost-competitive without subsidies

 

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who trained as a nuclear physicist, believes that the price of solar and wind power have fallen so dramatically that the market for them can now grow without subsidies. Moniz told reporters that the Obama administration supports Congress' extension of renewable energy tax credits, but "I certainly see solar growing" even "without subsidy" and the cost reductions have "been incredible" for the solar industry, making for an improved "value proposition ... in many contexts."

He said the cost of electricity from rooftop solar panels could fall to as low as 6 cents per kilowatt hour very soon, which makes it "extremely competitive" with natural gas and other fossil and non-fossil power plants.

The cost of wind also has fallen dramatically in the last year, making the electricity produced by wind farms cost competitive with fossil fuels such as natural-gas-fired power plants, according to a report issued earlier this month by the Energy Department. (

source

)

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

Moniz is full of ****.....in many contexts.

 

but try it w/o subsidies and mandates and prove me wrong.

 

and that is w/o the added cost of the needed backup for wind and solar

[Popeman38]

Dumb guy math skills corrected later in thread...

[Larry]

In Virginia, to install solar panels to produce 20% of the electricity for my house would cost $17k to own the system. In order to recoup that cost in energy savings, i need to generate 20% of my energy needs (at today's energy costs) for 654 months, with no maintenance/replacement costs. 54 years. That, of course, does not factor in the $5,610 federal tax credit I will receive (it will save me a couple dollars in taxes only in the year of purchase).

 

That, in my book, is not cost competitive unless you factor in the homeowner paying for the extension of lines from the propert border to the home. And that still won't come close to the cost.

 

So, your point is that the federal tax credit will pay for 1/3 of the system? 

 

I'd also ask:  Are you calculating based on your marginal electric cost, or average?  (And, I'll point out that at least the places I lived in Virginia, I'm pretty sure that the marginal electric costs changed, seasonally.) 

[PeterMP]

In Virginia, to install solar panels to produce 20% of the electricity for my house would cost $17k to own the system. In order to recoup that cost in energy savings, i need to generate 20% of my energy needs (at today's energy costs) for 654 months, with no maintenance/replacement costs. 54 years. That, of course, does not factor in the $5,610 federal tax credit I will receive (it will save me a couple dollars in taxes only in the year of purchase).

 

That, in my book, is not cost competitive unless you factor in the homeowner paying for the extension of lines from the propert border to the home. And that still won't come close to the cost.

 

Are you counting the ability to sell the electricity?

 

"Solar energy in Virginia remains a niche business for companies tapped by homeowners and businesses committed to reducing their carbon footprint and supplying a portion of their own power while minimizing the risks of electricity price increases. Even with the currently available 30% Federal Investment Tax Credit, net metering for any excess generation and the ability to sell renewable energy credits in Pennsylvania, the ‘math’ for a typical home solar system puts the payback out about 12 years."

 

http://www.theenergycollective.com/jimpierobon/471926/who-says-solar-energy-doesnt-make-sense-virginia

 

The other thing is that you don't need to buy it.  I don't know what selling the energy credit to PA is worth, but I doubt it is 42 years.

 

The other thing is generally, solar is getting cheaper, and while you may have to replace your panels, you won't have to replace the rest of the infrastructure.

 

That's why companies are renting things instead of making you buy it.  As compared to fossil fuels, which have/are generally going up in prices.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/the-way-humans-get-electricity-is-about-to-change-forever

 

(The net metering thing is something that probably needs to be adjusted (some), but I think Bloomberg, long term, has it right, for much of the country.)

[Popeman38]

So, your point is that the federal tax credit will pay for 1/3 of the system? 

 

I'd also ask:  Are you calculating based on your marginal electric cost, or average?  (And, I'll point out that at least the places I lived in Virginia, I'm pretty sure that the marginal electric costs changed, seasonally.) 

A tax credit is something Popeman38 read as tax deduction, and like an assumption...

 

I used my average electricity cost over the course of the year to do the quick calculations. I'll admit that my calculations are not exact and state the margin of error is +/- 50 months. Happy?

[tshile]

I've done the pricing for a home in VA and that's not at all the break even point I came up with...

[Popeman38]

I've done the pricing for a home in VA and that's not at all the break even point I came up with...

And your analysis was.....

[Larry]

A tax credit of 1/3 does not equate to 1/3 the cost. Otherwise, the mortgage interest tax credit would pay for 100% of your mortgage interest each year. But you knew that.

Might want to go read up on the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction, before making untrue claims like that.

[Predicto]

A tax credit of 1/3 does not equate to 1/3 the cost. Otherwise, the mortgage interest tax credit would pay for 100% of your mortgage interest each year. But you knew that. 

 

I used my average electricity cost over the course of the year to do the quick calculations. I'll admit that my calculations are not exact and state the margin of error is +/- 50 months. Happy?

 

 

Tax credits and tax deductions work very differently.  

 

I sure wish the mortgage interest deduction was actually a tax credit.   I'd make out like a bandit (but it would be terrible for the Federal Deficit)

[tshile]

And your analysis was.....

 

7 year payoff, somewhere around in there.

 

I have no idea how you're getting 54 years but every time I enter into one of these conversations it seems like people are fudging numbers (intentionally or unintentionally.)

 

I have no desire to go through it again, and the place I put it last time is no longer accessible so I can't copy paste.

 

My boss, also in VA, did the same research and figured 10-13 years. Because his house  is mostly in shade.

 

I don't know where you get 54 years from, but I know it's wrong. No one makes an investment with a 54 year break even point. For most people capable of making that investment that would mean the break even point is after they'll die. There's something wrong with your math.

 

Also my boss and I did our research like 2 years ago, prices have gone down and efficiency has gone up since then. Which makes your numbers even more absurd.

[Popeman38]

Might want to go read up on the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction, before making untrue claims like that.

My bad, trying to post while occupied is bad for your brain...