5 ms·

Hmm. Except that 'huge expensive centralized energy production' produces electricity much more cheaply than the solar panels. If this wasn't the case, the Germ

Hmm. Except that 'huge expensive centralized energy production' produces electricity much more cheaply than the solar panels. If this wasn't the case, the German government wouldn't need the huge expensive system of subsidies for PV. By all means spend lots of money to encourage production of more expensive electricity, but don't pretend it's cheaper.

jksmith 16y ago
This is an issue that's taken care of by the advancement of technology in the end. Carr describes well the economic sense for centralized power production in his book "The Big Switch," but centralized power production using legacy technology doesn't lend itself nearly as well to cost/benefit ratios as for instance units of computing power which have gotten substantially cheaper over time, so mainframe computing fell by the wayside. PV technology is more akin to computer technology than legacy power technology, so local power production using PV will end up being cheaper, provided your local utility doesn't step in and squash PV for their own benefit. Means becomes ends.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  If PV technology is indeed akin to computer technology (how, exactly?) then perhaps subsidies aren't needed, just as they weren't needed in the arena of computing. I am just not convinced that the government funnelling huge amounts of money towards buying technology that isn't economical results in the technology becoming economical any faster.
  - lispm 16y ago
    No subsidies in the development of computing? That's a joke? Wait, who do you think has paid for the research. Ever heard of ARPA or DARPA? The whole computer technology came out of military applications paid by the tax payer. Ever heard of the origins of what we know as Internet, the ARPAnet? Google for 'secret history of silicon valley' and view the movie.
    - confuzatron 16y ago
      That is irrelevant to the issue, which is that of government subsidies on the purchase of computing technology, for end-users. No doubt NASA have done some solar panel research - that would be more analogous to what you mention. The only example I can vaguely remember was the funding in France for everyone to get some sort of modem-connected device. I don't believe this advanced computing hardware at all, and didn't place France in the lead of the computing technology race.
      - sedachv 16y ago
        You're talking about Minitel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel It's still in use and generating revenues 28 years after introduction.
roel_v 16y ago
Can someone post numbers on the amount of subsidies that are given by the German government? The Belgian system of paying out for each 1000 kW produced is gradually being phased out; For those installed in 2008 and 2009 you got 450 euros, this year 350 and over the next few years this will decrease to 150 I think. Plus you can deduct a mortgage used to buy solar panels from your income. I modeled this fairly extensively a few years ago and it turn out that yields of 7% on the investment are expected. My parents are making more than that because of lots of sunshine over the last few years and higher energy costs so more savings. It's an awesome investment, and unparalleled in its risk class.
- mtr 16y ago
  I've done some consulting in the area but don't have any hard numbers at hand right now. But basically, it's lots of money. If the subsidies are taken away then the market collapses. Germany isn't the sunniest country in the world yet was (is?) the largest market. Spain had a recent boom, which was followed by a bust when the subsidies were removed. France has been playing catchup in this area and they were proposing subsidies that would reduce each year to better match reductions the cost basis of PV. They were predicting ~20 years for solar to reach grid parity. A more interesting debate is whether governments should be interfering in free market forces to push some technologies over others.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Oh sorry what I meant was more how much an individual can make on these subsidies. I know the aggregate is significant and not in relation to the immediate effects. I think it's also, on a rational level, quite clear that the redistributive effects of the subsidies are of dubious nature and politically motivated; every tax payer contributing to elevated savings yields of those with 20k to spare or the creditworthiness to borrow as much ranges from silly when one is in a forgiving mood to outright immoral when one is not. Maybe I was diverting the conversation, I was just pointing out that those who installed PV panels in Belgium got a very nice yield on their investment. I haven't run the numbers with the latest payouts and panel costs (PV panel cost has come down significantly already over the last few years) so I don't know the state of the art. I was interested in comparing subsidy schemes with other countries. (as an extra data point, the Netherlands provides only a fixed subsidy for PV panels, and there's a fairly low ceiling to the total that can be paid out a year; based on a first come, first serve system. The period to recuperate the investment is about 20 years, which is quite long; in Belgium one can earn back the investment in about 6 years and everything after that is pure profit).
lispm 16y ago
The nuclear industry is best run without competition. See France. The whole energy industry there is like soviet-style centralized economy. This leads to higher costs and at the same time to low safety. France for example brings a lot of nuclear waste to siberia where it is stored just under the sun, outside. You would never get real costs out of the nuclear complex in France. It all cleverly hidden. Yet they can't even produce enough energy for their country and deliver it. Last winter the power lines in France we almost collapsing. Heating is done with electricity and the winter was long and cold. The whole structure of energy production is very centralized (and not mesh like). At the same time 20% nuclear reactors were off the grid and Electricity had to be imported. Even for a conventional energy production it is important to have competition. But the big energy producers are getting monopolies for their regions. In France it is even worse: there is EDF and not much else. Next, the nuclear reactors are not using their heat in any useful way in France or Germany. They are mostly used to heat up the rivers. Which at the same time limits how many reactors one can put at a river. They need lots of water for cooling.
- lispm 16y ago
  Let me add the hidden cost of mining. From the Areva wikipedia page: --- Areva has been criticised both in Niger and the west for a neocolonial relationship with the former French colony, having obtained monopoly rights to mine uranium for nearly forty years, while Niger remains (as of 2006) the least developed country in the world.[16] There has been specualtion that Areva was the primary vehicle (and motivation) for French government involvement in the Nigerien government's poor history of democracy and human rights since the late 1960s. Areva argues that it is a good steward of the environment and a partner in development with the Nigerien people. The company stresses that most workers it directly employs in Niger are locals, and that the revenue generated by these mines is the single largest foreign exchange source for Niger.[17] When the population of Niger was exposed to a serious famine in 2005, Areva donated 130,000 euros in June 2005 to the food crisis coordination group of Niger, and 120,000 euros in July in the form of two planes loaded with food and organized by Bernard Kouchner's Réussir NGO. Nigerien critics point out that this aid amounted to 0.05% of Areva's annual profits of 428 million euros.[18]. In January 2008, a Swiss human rights group awarded Areva's Niger operations their "2008 Public Eye Global Award" for the "worst company in the world", citing charges of radioactive pollution, poor working conditions, and the deaths of a number of workers.[19] The Tuareg based rebel group fighting in the Arlit area has echoed these charges. ---

jksmith 16y ago

This is an issue that's taken care of by the advancement of technology in the end. Carr describes well the economic sense for centralized power production in his book "The Big Switch," but centralized power production using legacy technology doesn't lend itself nearly as well to cost/benefit ratios as for instance units of computing power which have gotten substantially cheaper over time, so mainframe computing fell by the wayside. PV technology is more akin to computer technology than legacy power technology, so local power production using PV will end up being cheaper, provided your local utility doesn't step in and squash PV for their own benefit. Means becomes ends.

confuzatron 16y ago
If PV technology is indeed akin to computer technology (how, exactly?) then perhaps subsidies aren't needed, just as they weren't needed in the arena of computing. I am just not convinced that the government funnelling huge amounts of money towards buying technology that isn't economical results in the technology becoming economical any faster.
- lispm 16y ago
  No subsidies in the development of computing? That's a joke? Wait, who do you think has paid for the research. Ever heard of ARPA or DARPA? The whole computer technology came out of military applications paid by the tax payer. Ever heard of the origins of what we know as Internet, the ARPAnet? Google for 'secret history of silicon valley' and view the movie.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    That is irrelevant to the issue, which is that of government subsidies on the purchase of computing technology, for end-users. No doubt NASA have done some solar panel research - that would be more analogous to what you mention. The only example I can vaguely remember was the funding in France for everyone to get some sort of modem-connected device. I don't believe this advanced computing hardware at all, and didn't place France in the lead of the computing technology race.
    - sedachv 16y ago
      You're talking about Minitel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel It's still in use and generating revenues 28 years after introduction.

roel_v 16y ago

Can someone post numbers on the amount of subsidies that are given by the German government? The Belgian system of paying out for each 1000 kW produced is gradually being phased out; For those installed in 2008 and 2009 you got 450 euros, this year 350 and over the next few years this will decrease to 150 I think. Plus you can deduct a mortgage used to buy solar panels from your income. I modeled this fairly extensively a few years ago and it turn out that yields of 7% on the investment are expected. My parents are making more than that because of lots of sunshine over the last few years and higher energy costs so more savings. It's an awesome investment, and unparalleled in its risk class.

mtr 16y ago
I've done some consulting in the area but don't have any hard numbers at hand right now. But basically, it's lots of money. If the subsidies are taken away then the market collapses. Germany isn't the sunniest country in the world yet was (is?) the largest market. Spain had a recent boom, which was followed by a bust when the subsidies were removed. France has been playing catchup in this area and they were proposing subsidies that would reduce each year to better match reductions the cost basis of PV. They were predicting ~20 years for solar to reach grid parity. A more interesting debate is whether governments should be interfering in free market forces to push some technologies over others.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Oh sorry what I meant was more how much an individual can make on these subsidies. I know the aggregate is significant and not in relation to the immediate effects. I think it's also, on a rational level, quite clear that the redistributive effects of the subsidies are of dubious nature and politically motivated; every tax payer contributing to elevated savings yields of those with 20k to spare or the creditworthiness to borrow as much ranges from silly when one is in a forgiving mood to outright immoral when one is not. Maybe I was diverting the conversation, I was just pointing out that those who installed PV panels in Belgium got a very nice yield on their investment. I haven't run the numbers with the latest payouts and panel costs (PV panel cost has come down significantly already over the last few years) so I don't know the state of the art. I was interested in comparing subsidy schemes with other countries. (as an extra data point, the Netherlands provides only a fixed subsidy for PV panels, and there's a fairly low ceiling to the total that can be paid out a year; based on a first come, first serve system. The period to recuperate the investment is about 20 years, which is quite long; in Belgium one can earn back the investment in about 6 years and everything after that is pure profit).

lispm 16y ago

The nuclear industry is best run without competition. See France. The whole energy industry there is like soviet-style centralized economy. This leads to higher costs and at the same time to low safety. France for example brings a lot of nuclear waste to siberia where it is stored just under the sun, outside. You would never get real costs out of the nuclear complex in France. It all cleverly hidden. Yet they can't even produce enough energy for their country and deliver it. Last winter the power lines in France we almost collapsing. Heating is done with electricity and the winter was long and cold. The whole structure of energy production is very centralized (and not mesh like). At the same time 20% nuclear reactors were off the grid and Electricity had to be imported. Even for a conventional energy production it is important to have competition. But the big energy producers are getting monopolies for their regions. In France it is even worse: there is EDF and not much else. Next, the nuclear reactors are not using their heat in any useful way in France or Germany. They are mostly used to heat up the rivers. Which at the same time limits how many reactors one can put at a river. They need lots of water for cooling.

lispm 16y ago
Let me add the hidden cost of mining. From the Areva wikipedia page: --- Areva has been criticised both in Niger and the west for a neocolonial relationship with the former French colony, having obtained monopoly rights to mine uranium for nearly forty years, while Niger remains (as of 2006) the least developed country in the world.[16] There has been specualtion that Areva was the primary vehicle (and motivation) for French government involvement in the Nigerien government's poor history of democracy and human rights since the late 1960s. Areva argues that it is a good steward of the environment and a partner in development with the Nigerien people. The company stresses that most workers it directly employs in Niger are locals, and that the revenue generated by these mines is the single largest foreign exchange source for Niger.[17] When the population of Niger was exposed to a serious famine in 2005, Areva donated 130,000 euros in June 2005 to the food crisis coordination group of Niger, and 120,000 euros in July in the form of two planes loaded with food and organized by Bernard Kouchner's Réussir NGO. Nigerien critics point out that this aid amounted to 0.05% of Areva's annual profits of 428 million euros.[18]. In January 2008, a Swiss human rights group awarded Areva's Niger operations their "2008 Public Eye Global Award" for the "worst company in the world", citing charges of radioactive pollution, poor working conditions, and the deaths of a number of workers.[19] The Tuareg based rebel group fighting in the Arlit area has echoed these charges. ---