21 Comments - SWIL_Voter - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:03 am: I’ve helped Grow Solar projects install over a megawatt of solar down here in SW Illinois over the last several years. We struggle to find entry level employees with relevant solar credentials. The demand continues to be great. The company has grown immensely but it’s based in Missouri. Right now we have a growing wait list to install though because the state has no incentive money and folks don’t want to build. We also saw a lot of work for the bigger projects go to out of state companies - Soapbox Derby - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:35 am: *SWIL_Voter The fact that no company wants to build a solar farm without government incentive money tells you this energy source isn’t economically viable. - Rich Miller - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:37 am: === this energy source isn’t economically viable=== Now explain the US Navy’s presence in the Persian Gulf, the Iraq War (1 & 2). Etc. - Soapbox Derby - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:52 am: === US Navy === Well we can certainly have a discussion about our geopolitical entanglements, but I thought this thread was about solar energy. Briefly, we have an economy based on fossil fuels, so naturally we are going to protect those sources. At this time, solar power is similar to ethanol production. For over 40 years we’ve subsidized ethanol as an alternative, yet it’s never been viable on its own. Using food to create energy was always counter-intuitive to many folks. I just don’t see the need in building new subsidized energy sources, that may never be economically competitive, when we already have made a large investment in existing energy sources that are meeting our energy needs. - NorthsideNoMore - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 11:56 am: Sun only shines about 20% of the time so storage is a big and expensive issue for solar. Ok with some reasonable incentives to help build out system but also maintain a reliable backbone ( think nukes). Question is how much does the customer get soaked in making everyone happy ? - Candy Dogood - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:02 pm: ===when we already have made a large investment in existing energy sources that are meeting our energy needs. === I can’t tell if you’ve just missed the fact that Exelon is demanding literal billions in public bailouts, or if you think our continued reliance on fossil fuels is just fine. It seems like your analysis of the issue is lacking. ===as the funding that was promised has dried up=== Looks like the solar industry forgot to help kids get internships. - Excitable Boy - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:05 pm: - Briefly, we have an economy based on fossil fuels, so naturally we are going to protect those sources. - So you’re good with subsidizing the fossil fuel industry which requires money and armed conflict, but not the solar industry which only requires money? You’re a bonafide genius. - Anotheretiree - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:08 pm: ==Soapbox Derby & NorthsideNoMore== The WSJ last week had an article on how solar combined with new battery tech is making new Natural Gas plants less economically viable. Your talking points are 10 years out of date. https://www.wsj.com/articles/batteries-challenge-natural-gas-elecric-power-generation-11620236583 https://www.nuvationenergy.com/resources/article/solar-plus-storage-displacing-natural-gas-peaker-plants - JS Mill - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:10 pm: We have been subsidising fossil fuels and their producers for years. And we have been doping it with something far more valuable than money. We have subsidized fossil fuel with blood for more than 75 years. I would trade billions for just one of the lives that have been senselessly propping up foreign oil producers. =Well we can certainly have a discussion about our geopolitical entanglements, but I thought this thread was about solar energy.= Shhh…the adults are talking. - Publius - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:20 pm: But don’t forget when the sun is shining that is when you use a lot of electricity. Right now to the common homeowner/business owener the math doesn’t work. For everything else there is a subsidy that you don’t see working in the background. Solar doesn’t have that yet. Maybe if/when we move to a carbon trading scheme but not yet. - Captain Obvious - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:38 pm: I continue to be amazed that nukes are now ok with environmentalists. Carbon neutral? Yes. But the waste problem remains unsolved as it was 40 years ago during the height of the “No Nukes” movement. I even took a pretend college course on nuclear power back then, the theme of which was propaganda against the nuclear power industry. Glad the credit hours were real though. Jackson Browne, were he dead, would generate enough power spinning in his grave to power all of Illinois. - SWIL_Votet - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:56 pm: == this energy source isn’t economically viable.== Literally every energy source on earth is subsidized, and none more heavily so than fossil fuels. And obviously nuclear is a big topic in the article linked here. Would you rather do a thing at a $7,000 discount or no? - SWIL_Voter - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 12:59 pm: == But don’t forget when the sun is shining that is when you use a lot of electricity. == That’s why retail rate net metering is so important. ==Right now to the common homeowner/business owener the math doesn’t work. == It does with net metering and for sure with SRECs. 6-7 year paybacks with 25 year production warranties - Downstate Illinois - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 1:00 pm: The ads that run and promise how much solar cheaper are so full of it. Those studies are outright fraud. Green energy is more expensive and less reliable. If we don’t want to send out money to the Middle East to buy oil why would we want to send it to China to buy solar panels and the rate earth metals needed for batteries? - Blue Dog - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:16 pm: As the use of renewables increases, and it will, there will be larger subsidies for the fossil fuels and nuclear power. - illinoyed - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:33 pm: Lots of solar experts here all of a sudden. Could some of you explain why, even though solar doesn’t work, it is the fastest growing and lowest cost source of energy on the planet? And why so many fortune 500 companies are installing solar even though its not economic or reliable? - Soapbox Derby - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 2:58 pm: *illinoyed Solar isn’t the fastest growing and/or lowest cost source of energy on the planet. It’s not even the fastest growing renewable source, hydro and wind are ahead of it. Just look at the comment from SWIL_Voter which started this thread. Companies AREN’T rushing to build more solar UNLESS they can confirm their government subsidies. That says a lot more about what’s really happening than some WSJ article, or those of you making ad hominem attacks on this thread. - Rich Miller - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 3:03 pm: === Companies AREN’T rushing to build more solar UNLESS they can confirm their government subsidies=== And Exelon is rushing to close its nuke plants UNLESS it gets a gigantic subsidy - Soapbox Derby - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 3:14 pm: Rich I’m not defending Exelon seeking additional subsidies. Most folks on this page know the best way to get the GA’s attention is to yell fire and practice brinkmanship. My point is that nukes are a reliable source of energy already linked into our power infrastructure. Non-renewables are probably the future, but that day isn’t here yet. The only replacement generation capacity that will be available if they close Nukes down in the next few years is from burning more natural gas. - Soapbox Derby - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 3:16 pm: * I meant renewables are probably the future * - Candy Dogood - Friday, May 21, 21 @ 4:17 pm: ===Non-renewables are probably the future, but that day isn’t here yet.=== Kicking the can on this issue threatens the existence of our species. Solar is worth subsidizing even if it weren’t so cheap per kilowatt hour. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.