Should we subsidize solar panels?

Question

When you consider that solar panels will not produce enough electricity in their service life to cover their cost should we subsidize them anyway?

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_8322400

Consider that much of the cost of a solar panel is the energy to manufacture, install, transport and maintain them. Shouldn't the market determine whether they are worth installing?

Is subsidizing them taking money away from research that could be spent on more viable alternatives?

Should we be taxed to pay for others solar panels when they don't work?

Answer 1

sure have a subsidy if there is more interest in the product there will be more people /companies out there to make theres a better product and more people wanting that product

Answer 2

Yes, they should.

The problem with the professor's argument is that it's a purely economic one.  It neglects the need for alternative energy technology due to both global warming and declining oil production.

Another key is in this line:

"We are throwing away money by installing the current solar PV technology," he said.

Current solar technology perhaps, but as Rivergirl points out, solar technology is advancing rapidly, and thin film solar will probably soon replace photovoltaics.

"Prices for solar electric power have fallen 90% in the last decade and further steep drops in price are highly likely.  By 2016 solar electric power could be cost-competitive with coal and natural gas fired power plants.  (Some solar industry spokesmen say it may happen within five years)."

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/org...

Bottom line is that government subsidies encourage people to buy solar panels, and make it possible for many who could otherwise not afford it.  The more solar panels are purchased, the more the price will go down, and the more quickly the technology will be able to advance.

Answer 3

it would be just so nice for a change to use our own initiative and do what we want for  our own reasons instead of the government ruling every bleedin move we make,

Answer 4

Recent investments into solar panels have brought about a couple of interesting realizations and developments.

One, as you state, is that traditional solar panels (silicon crystalline panels) are not currently cost effective, even will full-scale manufacturing production.  It's possible that improved manufacturing techniques will bring the retail price down somewhat, but it needs to be brought down a lot to make economic sense without incentives.

The other, though, is that a new method of producing solar panels - thin film technologies - has been developed.  These are currently quite expensive, but because there are no crystals to grow, they are expected to drop significantly in price as production increases.    I believe that this technological development has been made as a direct result of government support for solar energy.

It is not taking money away from research - rather it is providing the incentive for research.  

I could be wrong.  I've been wrong before.  But I think that these new solar technologies, which are already hitting the market, will dramatically change the economics of solar energy.

Answer 5

I know for my friends that live out in the country in an off-the-grid house, it would cost a lot more to run power lines and buy into the coal-powered electrical grid than it does for them to own a few panels and batteries and use the passive solar design of their house. They also have a propane-powered stove and refrigerator and use a wood stove for heat when it gets below 10 degrees. In that sense, the panels and batteries are definitely worth the expense.

I think we should definitely subsidize solar hot water, passive solar and parbolic troughs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_t... geothermal, wind and small-scale hydroelectric (small turbines in creeks) in addition to photovoltaic cells. But between new manufacturing techniques, different technologies and more effective batteries, I think they will be more worthwhile and affordable for the general public in the future.