Green Tractor Talk banner

1 - 20 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,138 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A fairly large number of industrial scale solar operations are proposed in my area. It's a relatively new issue for this area and I'd be interested to hear comments on them.

Landowners are being offered significant rental rates if their land is close to a 3 phase or larger power line. In some cases, this is way more money than they could make farming or growing trees.

My concerns are:

  1. Most of the leases are being offered by a third party company, not the underlying utility.
  2. Industrial scale solar only makes sense economically for the utility company if the federal tax credits are in place.
  3. What happens at the end of 10 or 20 years when the project doesn't make sense? Can landowners afford to remove the equipment and clean the land up?
  4. Are we creating thousands of acres of future brown fields in rural areas?
I hope this generates some comments on both sides of the issue. I get that it's hard for landowners to turn down income. Most landowners are land poor and cash money is hard to come by.

Treefarmer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Honestly weather or not it's a good deal for the land owner is specific to the lease that is singed. On the face of it leasing your land so that someone else can manage a power generation facility on it could be a good deal.

There has been a lot of leases like that in the Northeast for both solar and wind power. The equipment is paid for, maintained, and operated by a separate company. The land owner collects a monthly payment for the leases use of the land. Some will even be offered a small percentage of the electricity that is generated.

For a lot of small farms it's proven to be a much more profitable use of the land.

Environmental impact of solar farms is minimal for the local land. The panels generate no waste. The biggest impact will be all the concrete footings and transformer pads.

If it was previously pasture or hay fields the grass will still grow under and in-between the rows of panels. Soil errosion is minimal and small animals have habitat.

The important terms will be in the lease. The best leases will leave put no burrden on the land owner at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
Regarding #3 on your list. If I were a landowner and offered one of these leases I wouldn’t consider signing unless the lease contains verbiage that the leasing company is responsible for completely removing all appurtenances installed as part of their system when the lease is terminated by or for either party or reason.

The standard cell tower leases around here include clauses like this and are the only way to assure no burden on the land owner upon termination of the lease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,138 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Removal clause

Regarding #3 on your list. If I were a landowner and offered one of these leases I wouldn’t consider signing unless the lease contains verbiage that the leasing company is responsible for completely removing all appurtenances installed as part of their system when the lease is terminated by or for either party or reason.

The standard cell tower leases around here include clauses like this and are the only way to assure no burden on the land owner upon termination of the lease.
I think most companies insert that language, however since they are third party companies formed specifically to sign up leases and then sell them, I suspect that most of the leasing companies won't be around very long. I also suspect but won't know that the utilities that buy the leases will leave the cleanup to the original company. My guess is the leasing company will declare bankruptcy, the utilities contracts exclude them from the liability and the landowner will be left to do what they can. That's just a guess but based on other industries, it's certainly a possible scenario.

Treefarmer
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,963 Posts
I sit on a local planning board and we had one of these "Large scale, ground based solar-voltaic systems" installed several years ago and just recently approved a 2nd which is being installed right now.

My concerns are:

1. Most of the leases are being offered by a third party company, not the underlying utility.
2. Industrial scale solar only makes sense economically for the utility company if the federal tax credits are in place.
3. What happens at the end of 10 or 20 years when the project doesn't make sense? Can landowners afford to remove the equipment and clean the land up?
4. Are we creating thousands of acres of future brown fields in rural areas?
Items #1 and 2 work together. The only way any of these projects work is if the 3rd party installer/manager can work the credits. In our case, there are both Federal and State programs offering credits. The Utility companies themselves aren't eligible for some of the credits, hence the 3rd parties.

As far as #3 goes, we require that the installer/manager post a bond to cover the cost of equipment removal and site restoration. We have a formula we use (initial equipment cost multiplied by 2 and then add on an annual inflation factor of 4% then round up to nearest $100,000 mark = total value of the bond) and plan on a 30 year life-cycle. The bond must be issued prior to the start of any construction. The bond is setup so that if the installer goes out of business, the bond is payable to the town and we can hire someone to remove it.

I'm not sure how you get a brownfield out of a solar install. Brownfield usually refers to a site that has contaminated through prior industrial use. There are very little at these sites that can contaminate anything. Holes are dug, concrete footings are poured, steel is erected and solar panels are mounted on the steel. Everything is wired into a small shack on site. That's the only place where there would be anything that could cause any contamination. The current system we have going in will have 2 Tesla batteries hanging on the interior wall of the shack. The solar panels themselves have special disposal requirements but they don't "leak" anything onto the ground of they break.

In our case, we welcomed both projects for one reason. We have a small rural community and everyone wants to keep it that way. But we have a lot of pressure from people in the greater Boston area wanting to buy lots and develop them into single family housing. The town is setting aside tax revenue to buy up as much land as possible and setting it aside as conservation land but there is only so much revenue that cam be raised in any given year. Both of the projects were brought to us by farmers who where having a hard time staying afloat and had a choice between this or selling their land to a developer. By allowing the solar project, the farmer gets steady income and can keep their land. It can't be developed in any other way while the solar farm is in place. And having it in place for 20-30 years gives teh town some breathing room to buy up other lots in the mean time. At the same time, that farmland was in the state's "current use" program so they had been getting significant property tax reductions. When you take property out of current use, the developer pays back property taxes for the last 5 years. Plus, while the solar system is installed they'll pay taxes at the "industrial use" rate. It's a huge tax windfall for the town.

Once those solar farms are decommissioned, then the town can think about trying to purchase those lots. But we'll know when that's happening instead of it coming as a surprise.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,963 Posts
I think most companies insert that language, however since they are third party companies formed specifically to sign up leases and then sell them, I suspect that most of the leasing companies won't be around very long. I also suspect but won't know that the utilities that buy the leases will leave the cleanup to the original company. My guess is the leasing company will declare bankruptcy, the utilities contracts exclude them from the liability and the landowner will be left to do what they can. That's just a guess but based on other industries, it's certainly a possible scenario.

Treefarmer

Bingo! That's exactly the issue you run into. Hence, our requirement for the bond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,687 Posts
Why would anyone try to do solar when, literally,, 132 feet up the road, you have a nuclear power plant !!?? :flag_of_truce:

Add new energy sources where there is a need,,, not where "you" want to build it,,,

The guy who tried to add wind generators somewhere like the middle of Texas,, found it would not work..
No customers,, no sales,,, he had too many losses trying to move the electricity to a customer,,

The same with solar, who wants $0.11 per kilowatt solar electricity,, when you can buy $0.10 nuclear electricity?? :dunno:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,440 Posts
I suspect the leases are structured in a similar manner to oil & gas leases here. That being said, the devil is in the details of the contract language. Having a surety bond in place is a good way to protect yourself should the leasing company go belly up or the lease has been bought and sold on the secondary market like mortgages a number of times where things fall through the cracks during ownership transfers.

As for the construction impact; an earlier poster pretty much said it best as for the relative simplicity of construction and the materials being used.

I think these things are great on industrial buildings with lots of flat rooftops just waiting to be put to good use. I have mixed feelings on using them on large ground based projects. I think they are a good way to profitably use odd shaped pieces of land that aren't suitable for other uses. However; whether they a smart use of land that could grow cash crops can be debated.

Lots of variables involved as each site and the terms of the lease are different that prevents a one size fits all approach to these PV farms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,138 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Thanks, great reply

I sit on a local planning board and we had one of these "Large scale, ground based solar-voltaic systems" installed several years ago and just recently approved a 2nd which is being installed right now.



Items #1 and 2 work together. The only way any of these projects work is if the 3rd party installer/manager can work the credits. In our case, there are both Federal and State programs offering credits. The Utility companies themselves aren't eligible for some of the credits, hence the 3rd parties.

As far as #3 goes, we require that the installer/manager post a bond to cover the cost of equipment removal and site restoration. We have a formula we use (initial equipment cost multiplied by 2 and then add on an annual inflation factor of 4% then round up to nearest $100,000 mark = total value of the bond) and plan on a 30 year life-cycle. The bond must be issued prior to the start of any construction. The bond is setup so that if the installer goes out of business, the bond is payable to the town and we can hire someone to remove it.

I'm not sure how you get a brownfield out of a solar install. Brownfield usually refers to a site that has contaminated through prior industrial use. There are very little at these sites that can contaminate anything. Holes are dug, concrete footings are poured, steel is erected and solar panels are mounted on the steel. Everything is wired into a small shack on site. That's the only place where there would be anything that could cause any contamination. The current system we have going in will have 2 Tesla batteries hanging on the interior wall of the shack. The solar panels themselves have special disposal requirements but they don't "leak" anything onto the ground of they break.

In our case, we welcomed both projects for one reason. We have a small rural community and everyone wants to keep it that way. But we have a lot of pressure from people in the greater Boston area wanting to buy lots and develop them into single family housing. The town is setting aside tax revenue to buy up as much land as possible and setting it aside as conservation land but there is only so much revenue that cam be raised in any given year. Both of the projects were brought to us by farmers who where having a hard time staying afloat and had a choice between this or selling their land to a developer. By allowing the solar project, the farmer gets steady income and can keep their land. It can't be developed in any other way while the solar farm is in place. And having it in place for 20-30 years gives teh town some breathing room to buy up other lots in the mean time. At the same time, that farmland was in the state's "current use" program so they had been getting significant property tax reductions. When you take property out of current use, the developer pays back property taxes for the last 5 years. Plus, while the solar system is installed they'll pay taxes at the "industrial use" rate. It's a huge tax windfall for the town.

Once those solar farms are decommissioned, then the town can think about trying to purchase those lots. But we'll know when that's happening instead of it coming as a surprise.
Thanks, that's a lot of great information. FYI, we may be talking a difference of scale. We have projects proposed or built from 100 acres to 6,000 acres. One of the projects already built required significant grading of the land and the developer failed to control silt which literally ran across a state road deep enough to block it. It then silted up a nearby creek. Fortunately, that's a worst case scenario.

As for the term brown fields, I probably expanded the definition to include any industrial land use that is no longer being used for either it's designed purpose or converted to another productive use. Again, worst case scenario would be hundreds of acres of slowly degrading solar panels with no one taking care of the ground so eventually brush and trees grow up. Trees can't be harvested because of the panels, concrete and steel in the way and the panels, concrete and steel are too expensive to remove because of the trees.

Does your bond require removal within a certain time frame of a plant going out of commission or if the site is no longer maintained?

Thanks again for the information, that's very helpful.

Treefarmer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,848 Posts
We refer to them as solar farms, here in MN. Being a very blue state, the legislature in their infinite stupidity passed A a law here a few years ago mandating that a minimum of 25% of all energy production has to originate from a renewable resource. That coupled with Obama's war on coal, sent electric rates skyrocketing. I'd be thankful for $0.11/KWH electricity. Our electric bill has a half page of surcharges and add-on charges. So what they say the rate is and what it actually is are two different things. I just simplify and divide the total by the KW consumed. We are $0.1405 a KWH for the general service and $0.0902 KWH for off-peak (only energized from 11:00PM to 7:00AM).

To meet this renewable mandate, they first invested in wind generators. They found the maintenance costs were pretty hefty. No surprise, considering the blades are nearly 70' long. Can you imagine the load they place upon the bearings in a short depth rotational shaft? Of course, 100' up makes them so convenient to service. I use to drive by a small wind farm of a dozen generators. At any given time, two were not operating. There went nearly 20% of the capacity.

So they moved to solar, which is not cost effective even with the tax credits, here in MN. We're just too far off the equator and the angle of the panels is steep, which is not optimum for generation. However, without that angle, the snow sticks to them--which it does anyway, but not all winter.

Another power provider is building a huge transmission line across the northern MN wilderness, "The Great Wilderness Transmission Line" so they can purchase/transmit hydro power being generated in Canada, which satisfies the renewable mandate. That was good for another 7% in the rate a year ago.

So with these type of energy prices and the crazy taxes, it is driving business out of the state and we as retirees have our home on the market and plan to leave the state. The only people that can afford to live here are government employees and entitlement recipients. I wonder what they're going to do when there is no one left to foot the bill?

In short, with the way things stand here, the mandates will protect the solar farms and don't see them going broke until the state government does. As for the rest of the country, as most of the Dem front runners all seem to jumping on the "New Green Deal" boondoggle, they will be safe in the est of the country until our currency collaspes after the IMF de-certifies the dollar as the global reserve currency and we can no longer print money to pay for our trade deficit and other things. At that point, the solar subsidies will be the least of your problems.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,963 Posts
Thanks, that's a lot of great information. FYI, we may be talking a difference of scale. We have projects proposed or built from 100 acres to 6,000 acres. One of the projects already built required significant grading of the land and the developer failed to control silt which literally ran across a state road deep enough to block it. It then silted up a nearby creek. Fortunately, that's a worst case scenario.
Our projects are certainly much smaller. The 1st project covered 75 acres and this 2nd project will cover 50. (Our entire town only covers 8,300 acres!)

In our case, the State Dept. of Environmental Protection and local Conservation Commission were both in on the review and permitting process and inserted language in the permit requiring a bunch of stuff. One that I know of was that they required a catchment pond at the low end of the site so that silt would collect there if there is any. The site is raised up 10"-12' off the ground and supposed to be seeded and mowed to prevent runoff once built. (There is a discussion on-going with that because the farmer has mentioned wanting to graze sheep under the panels.)

As for the term brown fields, I probably expanded the definition to include any industrial land use that is no longer being used for either it's designed purpose or converted to another productive use. Again, worst case scenario would be hundreds of acres of slowly degrading solar panels with no one taking care of the ground so eventually brush and trees grow up. Trees can't be harvested because of the panels, concrete and steel in the way and the panels, concrete and steel are too expensive to remove because of the trees.
Yeah, if the equipment isn't removed you end up with a bunch of problems. That's why we pushed the bond really hard. Another town in the state had one of these systems installed and the developer went bankrupt. They don't have a bind in place and it ended up costing the town several million $$ to remove everything themselves. The bond thing became a state-wide "best practice" thing as a result of that. It just seems to me that if other places aren't doing that, they are asking for trouble down the road. The cost of the bond to the developer is pretty low. The developer we currently have working said his $6.5 million bond cost him less than $4K. It's a bit of a no-brainer.

Does your bond require removal within a certain time frame of a plant going out of commission or if the site is no longer maintained?
We granted them a 20-year permit to operate. At the 20-year point they need to decide if they want to continue to operate (and extend the permit) or pull the plug. But no matter when they decide to pull the plug, they have to notify the town of the shutdown date 60 days in advance. Then they have 90 days after shutdown to remove everything and replant the site. If it isn't done within the 90 days, the bond kicks in and the town gets $6.5 million to hire someone to finish cleaning up whatever is left. The whole decommissioning part of the permit runs about 80 pages and we think we covered everything but, who knows? It's a bit of a crap shoot. We have no way of knowing what might happen 20 years down the road. We tried to cover as many bases as we could. Hopefully, it all works out well for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,848 Posts
Our projects are certainly much smaller. The 1st project covered 75 acres and this 2nd project will cover 50. (Our entire town only covers 8,300 acres!)

In our case, the State Dept. of Environmental Protection and local Conservation Commission were both in on the review and permitting process and inserted language in the permit requiring a bunch of stuff. One that I know of was that they required a catchment pond at the low end of the site so that silt would collect there if there is any. The site is raised up 10"-12' off the ground and supposed to be seeded and mowed to prevent runoff once built. (There is a discussion on-going with that because the farmer has mentioned wanting to graze sheep under the panels.)



Yeah, if the equipment isn't removed you end up with a bunch of problems. That's why we pushed the bond really hard. Another town in the state had one of these systems installed and the developer went bankrupt. They don't have a bind in place and it ended up costing the town several million $$ to remove everything themselves. The bond thing became a state-wide "best practice" thing as a result of that. It just seems to me that if other places aren't doing that, they are asking for trouble down the road. The cost of the bond to the developer is pretty low. The developer we currently have working said his $6.5 million bond cost him less than $4K. It's a bit of a no-brainer.



We granted them a 20-year permit to operate. At the 20-year point they need to decide if they want to continue to operate (and extend the permit) or pull the plug. But no matter when they decide to pull the plug, they have to notify the town of the shutdown date 60 days in advance. Then they have 90 days after shutdown to remove everything and replant the site. If it isn't done within the 90 days, the bond kicks in and the town gets $6.5 million to hire someone to finish cleaning up whatever is left. The whole decommissioning part of the permit runs about 80 pages and we think we covered everything but, who knows? It's a bit of a crap shoot. We have no way of knowing what might happen 20 years down the road. We tried to cover as many bases as we could. Hopefully, it all works out well for everyone.
Have you ever had to collect on a bond? It is, by no means, simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,957 Posts
My Father was recently approached about this. He has 160 acres in Southern MN that is currently leased out to a local farmer. The land is completely flat so no grading needed. There are power lines on the road but not sure if 3 phase. There are new transmission lines going in which will likely pass near the farm but the exact route isn't finalized yet. Granted you can't just toss a couple wires up to them and make that work, you need a sub station. Nearest one on the ground right now is about 1.5 miles away as the crow flies. Problem is there is a small town in the way. Worst case, following county roads it would be 2.8 miles. I want to say they wanted a 20 year lease agreement to do this with an option for another 20 years. Well since based on average life expectancy this will pass on to my sister and I he wanted our feedback.

We support it in general but also have some questions some of which you mentioned and some you have left out so I will add them as additional things to consider.

A repeating thing with all your questions and the ones below is that it will depend on your contract and how these points are negotiated may impact on the $$$ per Acre lease rate.

1. Cleanup was a concern. From what I have read they can build them where they just drive the supports into the ground. They will have to pour a few cement slabs for things like the inverters but we are not talking a lot of cement. Depending on the size, cleanup to convert back to tillable soil wouldn't be that hard. This can be built into a contract or another way of doing the contract is that after XX years they leave it as is. Keep in mind that most go with a 20 year cycle based on warranty of the equipment. Even 20-30 or 40 years down the road it may still make power. Not as much power as it makes year 1 but still power. If you negotiate in you own the equipment on property after XX years there is nothing saying you can't keep it running. Possibly making more money than when it was leased. Or if you do decide to tear it out, scrap prices on the equipment if left behind will likely out weigh the cost of cleanup. There would be a lot of metal (copper, aluminum and steel) to "harvest".

2. A big one I have is what about taxes? Today it is zoned Ag land since it is being farmed. Is a solar farm considered Ag land still or does it become commercial and then the taxes go through the roof? If so that may eat up much of the gains in income over a straight lease to a farmer to grow corn. I looked into this a little and with some contracts they will cover taxes. Look at it this way. The last thing they want is the land to go to the county on a tax forfeiture but I don't know this is always the case so something that needs to be considered.

3. Is a flat lease the best strategy? Utility rates always seem to go up. Are you better off saying I will take a flat $1000-1500 per acre per year or maybe consider something closer to what you are used to getting leasing the land to a farmer but then taking a % of the KW. So, maybe I will take $300/acre plus 5% of the KW revenue. You are locked in at that same rate you were getting as a minimum but now as the utility rates rise, so does your take home. The concern I had is sure $1000-1500 per acre might be nice the first 20 years but if they renew and you can't renegotiate the rate as you get closer to that 40 year mark you might be getting screwed over. More so depending on how those taxes are handled. That is a total guess at an example and may be unrealistically high or low. But that is the point, you have to do your homework as if you offer what is a terrible deal on your part because you don't know better, I am sure they will gladly lock you into those terms.

4. Many of these companies are building a lot of these projects. They need investors as even a project on the small side for them (they had a min size of 150 acres) will set them back several million to build out. So maybe consider taking part of the profits from land lease as shares in other projects. Maybe you can negotiate a better rate. Say for every $1000 you reinvest with them you get $1200 in shares. Try something like that it is all about the contract.

5. Who is responsible for what parts? If you are looking at a substation or wires to tie into the grid is that on you or them?

6. Plan on a project to take about 2 years to complete. A really aggressive built with a contractor that has not only built several farms already but also in this area as every state, county and township will have different rules to comply with. Does this mean you will be without income for 2 year or however long it takes to start producing power? Maybe for that first year of the 2 year plan you can still farm it because that year is eaten up by site planning and getting permits. Get it in the contract.

7. Who is responsible for maintenance of the land? Weed control, mowing and such.

There are lawyers that work in this specific area and it would be best to talk to them. There are a few of these farms that have popped up in the area where we live and we are working on trying to talk to some of the land owners. I have a buddy that is a PM for a company that builds the big utility scale wind turbines and of course he thumbs his nose at solar but he has been a good resource as they face many of the same challenges. They just have different requirements. I did ask about wind on this property. The nice thing about wind is you can still farm it. However the area is better suited for solar than wind because of wind maps also the 160 acres really wouldn't be big enough for them to mess with unless we got several neighbors to also jump on board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
There's a company that wants to put in a 900 acre solar farm in our town that has a lot of residents upset. Totally unnecessary due to the fact that in our area there's 4 power plants within a 2.5-3 hour radius 3 of which are shut down and the fourth (Niagara power project) is at 40%. The only thing we get out of in is low home value and brown fields, yes brown field according to AG and Markets it can't be turned back into farmland due to metal contamination. They are only good for 10 years then they lose efficiency that's when they sell or walk away to start another due to the government funding. As far as I'm concerned build the wall out of solar panels,it'll serve two purposes that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
There's a company that wants to put in a 900 acre solar farm in our town that has a lot of residents upset. Totally unnecessary due to the fact that in our area there's 4 power plants within a 2.5-3 hour radius 3 of which are shut down and the fourth (Niagara power project) is at 40%. The only thing we get out of in is low home value and brown fields, yes brown field according to AG and Markets it can't be turned back into farmland due to metal contamination. They are only good for 10 years then they lose efficiency that's when they sell or walk away to start another due to the government funding. As far as I'm concerned build the wall out of solar panels,it'll serve two purposes that way.
Having worked in the power generation industry for going on 2 decades now I fail to see how having power plants nearby negate the positive impacts that solar energy provides. The power plants that shut down did so because they were likely old and no longer profitable because of the fuel they burned. Environmental regulations likely played a part as well.

The Niagra station adjusts it's output based on a number of factors some of which include controlling the flow over the falls. You can't equate their output as an indicator of what the national grid needs.

Can you site anything specific as to how a solar farm leaches heavy metals into the ground?

Even at reduced efficiency solar farms still remain profitable due to the fuel required to run them being free.

As a power hungry country we need to embrace power technology that does not burn fossil fuels. It's for the betterment of us all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,848 Posts
Even at reduced efficiency solar farms still remain profitable due to the fuel required to run them being free.
To the contrary, solar is not profitable. In today's market (price per KWH) they cannot generate enough revenue to offset the capital expenditure and the interest thereof. The only way it is viable is through tax credits and grants (our tax dollars). So we pay regardless and this high cost of energy, whether directly or by tax, just sends more jobs out of the country.

When Obama was in office and these credits/grants came to be, there was a big spike in solar sales in states close to the equator, such as Arizona. A lot of small systems were sold to those who wanted to disconnect from the grid or sell the excess back. Solar panels produce DC. This has to be changed to AC. This process is very inefficient and does not produce "clean" AC, which creates issues with a number of devices. Solar only works when the sun is shining. So for overcast days and night time, you have to rely on battery storage. Charging batteries produces heat. Converting DC to AC creates heat. Addressing the heat consumes more energy, further reducing the efficiency. Batteries have a finite life span and are expensive to replace.

Many of the solar sales & installation companies that saw a boon in the Obama years are now bankrupt.

I'm all for alternative energies...along as they can stand on their own feet without subsidies. We've been sold more than one "dead horse" when it comes to alternative energies, such as ethanol, which consumes 30% more fossil fuel producing it than it saves.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
253 Posts
I agree with you regarding the ridiculous subsidies: solar without subsidies wouldn't sell at all. You're sadly mistaken about good inverters. They run 92-93% efficient and they provide very clean power that can run computers and other sensitive equipment. In fact, they provide more reliable clean power than most utility companies. Get the facts before you damn all inverters.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
624 Posts
boon·dog·gle
/ˈbo͞onˌdäɡəl/
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
noun: boondoggle; plural noun: boondoggles
- work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.
- a public project of questionable merit that typically involves political patronage and graft.




IMO, if something only works because of tax credits, then it's a fallacy. It's just redistributing money from one pocket to another. Not actually solving anything. There are no renewable energy sources that can replace all the other evils. The activists like to pretend it can of course. They like chant about some town or business going 100% renewable, but it's a total farce. They're not. They're paying the generation bill for a renewable source, but if all the other sources turned off tomorrow, their cute little 100% renewable energy town or business would be in the dark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
You are correct tax breaks for solar make it attractive to install. In order for it to compete with cheaper more polluting fuels we have to do something.

You are missing the point behind the tax breaks on clean energy. We are actively paying to install power generation that is less harmful to the environment we all live in. Yes it costs more than fossil fuel power.

Also as was mentioned by another person the power generated by solar panels is the cleanest power you can get electrically speaking.

No time soon will we be able to shut down all the traditional power plants but that doesn't mean we should give up and not try to pollute less. The goal is to make the air we breath healthier not for you to pay less to turn your lights on and keep your beer cold.
 
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Top