California is getting so much power from solar that wholesale electricity prices are turning negative

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It will not happen in our lifetime, possibly not our children's lifetime. But I think eventually the prices will converge.

can show you documentation of newspapers predicting the end of oil that occurred in the early 1920s.  They were all ridiculously wrong almost a hundred years ago and are wrong now as production and reserves are larger than ever and continue to grow.

I have seen some articles that say we have not even scratched the surface for hydrocarbon production as a very small amount or just a couple of percent of what is found so far has even been produced, and Far larger amounts are yet to be found.

The only convergence can occur if the govt continues to intefer with the natural market for energy production, which makes energy more expensive for everyone.

Why even worry about these things so many generations from now?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

can show you documentation of newspapers predicting the end of oil that occurred in the early 1920s.  They were all ridiculously wrong almost a hundred years ago and are wrong now as production and reserves are larger than ever and continue to grow.

I have seen some articles that say we have not even scratched the surface for hydrocarbon production as a very small amount or just a couple of percent of what is found so far has even been produced, and Far larger amounts are yet to be found.

The only convergence can occur if the govt continues to intefer with the natural market for energy production, which makes energy more expensive for everyone.

Why even worry about these things so many generations from now?

I do not advocate government interference in the market, although I have no problem with tax breaks (as long as it's not subsidies) for some things like homeowner solar. I actually don't think we will run out of fossil fuels, just that extracting it will make it so expensive that other energy forms will become more attractive.

I don't think I will be alive to see it, however.

[Oceander]

I do not advocate government interference in the market, although I have no problem with tax breaks (as long as it's not subsidies) for some things like homeowner solar. I actually don't think we will run out of fossil fuels, just that extracting it will make it so expensive that other energy forms will become more attractive.

I don't think I will be alive to see it, however.

A "tax break" is a subsidy.  Money is fungible, so whether the government cuts you a separate check or just nets it against what you otherwise owe in tax is irrelevant; a smoke and mirrors game designed to blind the foolish. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

A "tax break" is a subsidy.  Money is fungible, so whether the government cuts you a separate check or just nets it against what you otherwise owe in tax is irrelevant; a smoke and mirrors game designed to blind the foolish.

That's a leftist talking point IMO. A subsidy is a positive allocation of money. A tax break is something designed to help you keep more of your own money.

[thackney]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar%E2%80%93hydrogen_energy_cycle

I found out about this by reading up on using electrolysis to clean off rust off of old metal. A byproduct is flammable hydrogen gas.

A good description of the process:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Electrolytic-Rust-Removal-aka-Magic/

This is a different process than the one above, but it does go to show you that storing energy from the sun in the form of hydrogen is possible.

Technically possible and economically feasible are drastically different points.

[thackney]

That's a leftist talking point IMO. A subsidy is a positive allocation of money. A tax break is something designed to help you keep more of your own money.

When the government treats one industry different that another, allowing one tax breaks in fewer dollars paid to the government and not another, that is a subsidy.

The government has no business picking winners and losers and using tax dollars to do so.  If one industry pays less tax dollars, the difference is made up by the rest of us.  It is either higher taxes or more debt for everyone else.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

When the government treats one industry different that another, allowing one tax breaks in fewer dollars paid to the government and not another, that is a subsidy.

The government has no business picking winners and losers and using tax dollars to do so.  If one industry pays less tax dollars, the difference is made up by the rest of us.  It is either higher taxes or more debt for everyone else.

I have no problem with any mechanism whatsoever to allow people to keep more of their own money, within reason of course. I would have no problem with extending any tax break to a greater population. Less taxation = more prosperity.

However, if we need "green" votes to get tax breaks for certain things, like solar, and because Democrats are often elected and have power, then I have no problem with solar tax breaks if that is what we can do. Yes, solar subsidies are market distorting, but we effectively live in a democracy and have to live with compromise sometimes. And not all market distortions are equally bad.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Technically possible and economically feasible are drastically different points.

Technology and economic feasibility are not constants. What wasn't economically feasible at one point may be economically feasible at another point.

[thackney]

I have no problem with any mechanism whatsoever to allow people to keep more of their own money, within reason of course. I would have no problem with extending any tax break to a greater population. Less taxation = more prosperity.

However, if we need "green" votes to get tax breaks for certain things, like solar, and because Democrats are often elected and have power, then I have no problem with solar tax breaks if that is what we can do. Yes, solar subsidies are market distorting, but we effectively live in a democracy and have to live with compromise sometimes. And not all market distortions are equally bad.

How do you feel about lowering your neighbor's taxes and raising yours to make up the difference?  And if it is spread to several of your neighbors and expects you and the rest to make up the difference?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How do you feel about lowering your neighbor's taxes and raising yours to make up the difference?  And if it is spread to several of your neighbors and expects you and the rest to make up the difference?

I do not support raising anyone's taxes, period.

[thackney]

I do not support raising anyone's taxes, period.

Unless the subsidy comes with a matching reduction in spending, others have to make up the difference.  Do you agree?  Or do you think more debt comes with no cost impacts?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Unless the subsidy comes with a matching reduction in spending, others have to make up the difference.  Do you agree?  Or do you think more debt comes with no cost impacts?

I'm all in favor of cutting spending. There are arguments that cutting taxes creates more revenues.

[Cyber Liberty]

Unless the subsidy comes with a matching reduction in spending, others have to make up the difference.  Do you agree?  Or do you think more debt comes with no cost impacts?

Depends on the tax. Concerning tax on income and corporate investments, it's not a zero-sum game.  The market distorting taxes are a problem, and for that reason I don't like special tax breaks for things like solar.

[Joe Wooten]

Look into it. Fossil fuels are here to stay for the time being, but eventually their prices will rise to where solar is viable, and I believe hydrogen will be the storage medium. You can make hydrogen gas at home from electricity through electrolysis at home.

Wrong. You will never get even close to the amount of power from cracked hydrogen than you put in it, no matter what the source of power you use. Hydrogen is also difficult to store in the bulk quantities needed to generate the power needed for modern civilization. When the fedgov finally comes to its senses and quits subsidizing solar/wind, the companies peddling it walk away and try to elave the taxpayers to clean up the mess.

[thackney]

Look into it. Fossil fuels are here to stay for the time being, but eventually their prices will rise to where solar is viable, and I believe hydrogen will be the storage medium. You can make hydrogen gas at home from electricity through electrolysis at home.

Something I should have mentioned earlier in the discussion.

Fossil fuels are an energy source.  Hydrogen is an energy storage medium.  Loss of the former doesn't create a demand for hydrogen to replace it.  Current technology of energy storage already exceeds the losses inherent with creating hydrogen by electrolysis.  Chemical Batteries are already far more economic and have begun use in the utility sized market.

[EC]

Something I should have mentioned earlier in the discussion.

Fossil fuels are an energy source.  Hydrogen is an energy storage medium.

Well .... technically fossil fuels are also an energy storage medium. They were just charged up millions of years ago from the sun.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Well .... technically fossil fuels are also an energy storage medium. They were just charged up millions of years ago from the sun.

Which is itself an energy storage medium charged from the big bang! :)

[thackney]

The extraordinary success of solar power in some pockets of the world that combine sunshine with high investment in the technology mean that governments and energy companies are having radically to rethink the way they manage—and charge for—electricity.

California is one such a place.

On March 11, it passed a milestone on the route to powering the whole state sustainably. For the first time, more than half the power needs of the entire state came from solar power for a few hours that day, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The power came from utility-scale solar photovoltaic farms, solar thermal plants, and the panels installed on private homes. Based on the data it collects, the EIA estimated that in total that capacity produced 4 million kWh of electricity during peak times on March 11.

It’s a massive and rapid change: Just 15 years ago, the state produced almost no power from solar at all.

More: https://qz.com/953614/california-produced-so-much-power-from-solar-energy-this-spring-that-wholesale-electricity-prices-turned-negative/

 :huh?:

Leaving this one to the people who actually know what the hell they're on about.

I found a chart which helps put this in perspective of the amount of energy generated and used for the day.

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/04/solar-energy-reaches-40-percent-of-total-power-in-most-of-california.html

[Frank Cannon]

That's a leftist talking point IMO. A subsidy is a positive allocation of money. A tax break is something designed to help you keep more of your own money.

Bullshit. Giving people money to put solar panels on their roof is the Govt' using my money to tell people how to live. Don't do what they want they don't let you keep your money.