Let's not make this political, but isn't this direction we should be headed?

Comment

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on July 27, 2015 at 11:37am

Today, is the day when I take out sketches for a cellar cooled( 55 degrees year round) air conditioner. 

There are two types of radiation at work here, thanks for the link.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on July 27, 2015 at 11:28am

Some info on Hybrid Solar Panels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_thermal_hybrid_solar_col...

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on July 27, 2015 at 11:01am

It is possible to do both in the same roof surface area. I have not researched this but..... 

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/hybrid-sol...

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on July 27, 2015 at 10:45am

'removing all subsidies' vs. Hillary's billion solar panels.....hmmmm.

Arguing extremes usually leads to middle ground; but there's another fly in the solar movement, which is by covering a roof with PV panels you generate some electricity, but you will also reduced the ability to make hot water. 

 In New England, making hot water and storing it for use to pre-heat the house or potable water may be more valuable and less complicated than a PV/ grid tie. and it really does reduce fuel oil/gas/electricity consumption. 

Comment by Brad Blake on July 24, 2015 at 10:52pm

As a tax-despising person, I particularly hate seeing the taxpayers being fleeced by subsidies, tax credits, and other financial flim flam for special interests.  But worse, with wind and solar is the ability to sell the same subsidized kilowatt hours as Enron-inspired RECs and ratepayers being forced to pay for for wind and solar, which cannot compete with conventional generation, due to heinous arbitrary mandates known as Renewable Portfolio Standards.

I have steadfastly said get the government out of the energy markets and let free market competition rule.  Two things would happen:  first, energy dense sources would continue, while energy pretenders such as wind and solar simply go away because they can't compete.  Second, the nature of free markets is competition drives innovation and pricing to capture more market share, which just might lead us to the next source of electricity that will be kinder to the environment, yet meet our needs for a modern economy and our preferred way of life in a cost competitive way.

Comment by Brad Blake on July 24, 2015 at 10:43pm

Consider new data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In 2013, wind received almost $6 billion in federal electricity-related subsidies (including the PTC). That’s almost twice as much as coal, natural gas, and nuclear received combined. The only difference: while those three sources supply 86 percent of the electricity Americans use, wind produces just 4.5 percent despite receiving twice as much largesse.  

And while all energy subsidies distort markets and harm consumers, wind subsidies have come at an especially high cost. Over the last six decades, subsidies for wind and solar alone have cost taxpayers $13.77 per million British thermal units of energy produced, compared to just 39 cents for oil, 34 cents for nuclear, 12 cents for natural gas, and 10 cents for coal. 

To make matters worse, Americans actually pay for subsidized wind twice: first in their taxes, then on their utility bills. Subsidies divert resources away from projects that make the most economic sense and toward those who have the best political connections. These market distortions lead to higher energy prices for all of us. 

Just look at Spain and Germany. Both countries impose subsidies and mandates for wind and solar. Electric rates are three times higher in those countries than in the U.S. and carbon dioxide emissions are actually rising—defeating the supposed purpose of mandating renewables. 

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on July 24, 2015 at 5:20pm

Subsidies from the Government, are only warranted when it involves life sustaining immediate actions on behalf of the people that have created the government. Once the task has become sustainable on its own or is no longer needed the need for subsidies have expired. Once a determination that objective of purpose has been met they should terminate, immediately even if not due to expire. Railroads, The War Effort of WWII, Farm subsidies, Energy Subsidies on fossil fuels all had their day of need, but should have ended long ago.

These Sectors have been propped up, brought to a level of knowledgeable sciences to sustain them, pending their squandering of profitable returns. WWII lead to the Military Industrial Sector of today, Farming subsidies promoted the expansion in the midwest, while other areas were forced out of farming.

Farmers in the Corporate farm system are subsidised for equipment to be more productive, and again subsidized when Nature makes them fail. Farming locally if left alone would not be under this constant Great to Break cycle. Farm subsidies so a midwest farmer can purchase a new 2 story tractor with GPS guidance because it is demanded he produce more with less is nothing more than subsidizing a corporation that builds it.

Oil is subsidized when more production is needed, while they hold Trillions in assets shifting from account to account, here and abroad hidden from the governments grasp to recover it's (the people's) subsidy investment. When the technology to Do it Better has been developed, and they have become profitable, subsidies should end.

With Wind, we are subsidizing jobs for China (and nations other than ourself) and the few along the way to place these in Maine, while they pollute at 5 - 10 times the amount than our factories were ever allowed to do, causing them to be non-compliant and driven out of business.

Government's job is not to handle money, but to maintain the ability of the people to live peacefully their lives. The only funds Government should handle is their operational expenses, for only that which is prescribed by its authority to exist. In our case the people, not the entities that the people require of them to control in order to live their lives peacefully and safely. Corporations are NOT people, nor is their religion $ a voice. Their actions through greed or ignorance needs monitoring and regulation when improper, such as the undeveloped mind of a child. They when irresponsible act as a Cancer, destroying its host until there is nothing to feed upon but themselves.

There are better ways in Maine, to produce energy however it requires a lot of conservation. Using energy wisely, gathering it from sources that Nature provides without destroying it, and admitting to ourselves that we do not need to have all the things the rest of the world has, or has created as temptations beyond our basic needs of survival. We should not allow our resources to be exploited or stolen at a lower cost than is exacted upon us for their lack of vision to preserve that which their environment provides. Taking in Excess can be a slow or fast depletion of resources, and that speed elevates the associated risks proportionately at each level of obtaining various forms of energy. 

Maine already produces more energy than it uses. Along with the end of subsidies, we should also pull the plug and end the practice of lower prices for exported energy. A price our "Natural Services" is paying when it can no longer sustain us in Maine, to provide clean safe water, air and lands to live within. The "Better Place" we left Europe for, to become free of the corporate controls of those days.