Solar panel sleight of hand

[rshayes]

The energy payback time for silicon solar cells seems to be about 8 years. If you take 20 years to install enough capacity to replace the current energy usage, you will need to increase energy consumption by 40 percent for 20 years.<p>Presemt oil consumption is being met with about 45 percent domestic production and 55 percent imported oil. Increasing oil consumption by 40 percent would require increasing imported oil by 72 percent. An increase in demand of this magnitude would force the price of imported oil up substantially, depending on whether there is excess production capacity, and the price necessary to stimulate higher production.<p>The increased oil prices would also increase solar cell prices, since their production is very energy intensive.<p>Increasing oil imports by 72 percent at substantially higher prices would obviously have a very negative impact on trade balances. The subsidies necessary to enable the purchase of solar cells at the increased prices would substantially increase the national debt.<p>Ian is essentially correct. The main myth in this thread is that solar cells are free, from either an economic or energy standpoint.<p>If they don't return the energy needed to make them, they are a disaster, and the more cells installed, the bigger the disaster.<p>If they don't return the money that they cost, they are an economic drain, and again, the more cells installed, the worse the drain.<p>In Japan, the economic payback is much shorter due to higher energy prices. The energy payback is avoided by purchasing the silicon from outside refiners. I can't seriously postulate that we would be able to similarly transfer the energy consequences to other countries.

[wolfcreek]

Still has nothing to do with national debt--perhaps with the trade deficit but not national debt.

[rshayes]

The impact on the national debt comes from the massive subsidies that would be needed to finance the trade imbalance.<p>People don't buy solar cells now because of the cost and long economic payback period. This will get worse if the cost of solar cells increases due to higher energy costs caused by the increased demand for oil. The obvious way to solve this is a massive subsidy for solar cell purchases. This would have to be covered by increasing taxes, or by deficit financing at the government level. If you increase taxes, you reduce the money available for purchasing the solar cells, which is counterproductive. So the deficit financing solution is the more likely one.

[ian]

Hmmmmm, I see some weird responses here. <p>"Nothing to do with the national debt."<p>Where would 20 trillion dollars come from if America already owes 20 trillion dollars?
Would the manufacturing plants make the panels for free? Would the contractors install the panels for free?

[ian]

I think I'm beginning to see the problems certain people have in understanding the problem with solar panels. It seems certain people here understand the technology but have no understanding of economics.
To suggest when you put trillions of dollars into a project that it won't affect the national debt is a real telltale sign. I'm not sure who these fools think is going to pay that money are, but it's clear they think its free if its done in the US.
I know I've covered a lot of ground here but I'm not going to go into basic economics.

[wolfcreek]

Yes there is little understanding of economics here. The trade deficit is not financed by the govenment. A trade deficit is when net exports are less than net imports. A budget deficit is when govenment spending exeeds tax revenues. National debt occurs when deficit spending is practiced--it has nothing to do with trade deficits. Our govenment has been deficit spending since the great depression. Even when our net exports were far greater than our net imports.<p>Someone here commented that solar power would help reduce he national debt. I would like them to respond how that would work.<p>[ May 05, 2005: Message edited by: wolfcreek ]</p>

[rshayes]

My point was that the trade deficit would likely be paid for by subsidies which would in turn be financed by an increase in the national budget deficit, rather than by tax increases. The money has to come from somewhere, even if it is a printing press in Washington.

[peter-f]

Whaaat??
Trade deficit paid by subsidies??? No.. it's paid by a devalued dollar (Nixon did that in 1970... Dollar went from DM4.00 to DM3.00... later sank to DM1.60... then the Euro was started at $1.18= e1.00... now $1.28= e1.00)<p>Increase in the budget is paid either by debt (and resulting interest) or TAXES. Over 30 years, you can raise taxes $1 to pay for each dollar of deficit, or raise them $2 to pay for $1 debt plus interest.<p>NO WONDER the current administration can Borrow and Spend so easily...
First they elect a bankrupt businessman... then they trust him with with a budget and NOW they look to him to map out their retirement.<p>[Ian... you must be getting Quite a thrill at all this balderdash!]

[Chris Smith]

The national debt is everything we owe and pay for including interest on anything, like the dollar or inflation.<p>That includes what we pay abroad for oil. <p>A debt must be paid, today or tomorrow, but it must be paid. <p>Even if it is credits to the arabs. <p>Solar and every watt that it produces, reduces the need for foreign oil. <p>Thus, the debt to others is less, and less again, as we build the infrastructure.

[ian]

Chris, you're not worth debating anymore. It's been clearly established you're either just screwing with us(which you've admitted to), or you don't do any research at all into your peurile opinions and facts, resulting in an abundance of mistakes and misinformation. Stick to electronics, in politics you're a backwoodsman.

[Chris Smith]

Is that a Canadian opinion? Devalued at by 40%?<p>You still proceed with the myths. <p>Solar cant be done, because its too big a hill to climb?<p>It costs too much,.... blah blah blah.<p>What utter nonsense. <p>If this country took these approaches to anything, we would have never done the things we have accomplished. <p>The excuses are nothing more than spineless attempts to say, were dead, so let just roll over and buy more oil?<p>You might be dead, and you can roll over again and again like you do here, but solar is not dead, and it will,.... and is already doing a job for energy independence. <p>And the semantics, aren’t winning a single argument either. <p>The myths continue, solar is no good, it’s a disaster, it cant pay back for a full eight years... and the list appears to be endless.<p>All myths, all the time, all day long.

[wolfcreek]

Sorry but payments for oil are not part of the national debt. Perhaps you should buy an econ book

[Chris Smith]

Yeah right, payments are payments, money due is money due, debit is debit, owed is owed, in the red is still owed, and semantics DC style writes your fiction. <p>And you wonder why were in deep shit? <p>A debt is a debt, no matter how you cook the books, Mr. Enron.

[wolfcreek]

So according to your logic when you shop at the store you are contributing to the national debt. The national debt is caused only by on thing --government spending more money than it takes in in taxes. Imports and exports have no bearing on the national debt. <p>I also dont see how solar will help this in your view limited world. Most oil is consumed by autos and other tranportation, not electricity production. Over 65%(and growing) of US electricity production is from coal mined in the US. Very little is produced by fuel oil. Natural gas produced electricity rose in the last few years but those plants are sitting mostly idle due to the current high natural gas prices. <p>I am not trying to say solar produced electricity is bad, but it is not the one stop solution. Wind is a far more efficent and viable alternative now and in the foreseable future. Solar has its place in limited situations.

[Chris Smith]

National debt, is the total spending record,...just like when your wife takes your CC to the shopping mall. <p>You can bitch, you can moan, but at the end of the day, YOU have to pay the bill. <p>And all of the DC semantics of spending come to nada, excuses also come to nada. <p>And it doesn’t really matter about the semantics of I didn’t do it, I didn’t spend the money, she did it for this or that reason, because at the end of the day the bill is still due. <p>And the pseudo red or black ink comes to nothing. The bill is still due. <p>And what she bought, also doesn’t matter, and the interest rate still applies despite all the “ Mr Enron semantics” and statements that are designed to soften the blow of the spending bill. <p>And leave the B.S. to Washington, where fools reside and flourish, and fool others. <p>Our national debt is 7,754,279,280,243.71 as of this day and hour, because of the "Enron type” of accounting morons at hard work, ...and the myths of how to save our ass are ,.... well they number ten to one for each dollar of our debt. <p>The enron school of accounting should now be accountable for it self.<p> If any American ran their CC or check book like DC, they would put you in jail for fraud. <p>So please, spare us the enron semantics or schooling of accountability.