Quote:Did you even READ your link?
Yep, that sure sounds like the solar industry can survive without subsidies. 
From the article:
“This is very disappointing for the solar industry,” said Leonie Greene, a spokeswoman for the Solar Trade Association, an industry group.
Ms. Greene said that with costs of installations falling fast, solar farms were close to being competitive with new power plants fired by natural gas. But she said that a couple more years of government support was warranted to give the developers time to close the gap further.
Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good Energy, a renewable energy business that owns six solar farms in Britain, said: “From our point of view, any change of policy means investors are concerned about investing.”
“It makes business strategy very difficult,” she added.
Deepa Venkateswaran, an analyst at Bernstein Research in London, said that electric power generation was the best bet for further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, rather than other industrial sectors like transport. She said the government might be sacrificing big climate change gains for budgetary savings that amount to “small change.”
“Investors in the power sector are ready to make the investments in renewables,” she said. “If the government takes away the incentives or gives low clarity, clearly those investments won’t happen.”
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Quote:From the article:
“This is very disappointing for the solar industry,” said Leonie Greene, a spokeswoman for the Solar Trade Association, an industry group.
Ms. Greene said that with costs of installations falling fast, solar farms were close to being competitive with new power plants fired by natural gas. But she said that a couple more years of government support was warranted to give the developers time to close the gap further.
Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good Energy, a renewable energy business that owns six solar farms in Britain, said: “From our point of view, any change of policy means investors are concerned about investing.”
“It makes business strategy very difficult,” she added.
Deepa Venkateswaran, an analyst at Bernstein Research in London, said that electric power generation was the best bet for further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, rather than other industrial sectors like transport. She said the government might be sacrificing big climate change gains for budgetary savings that amount to “small change.”
“Investors in the power sector are ready to make the investments in renewables,” she said. “If the government takes away the incentives or gives low clarity, clearly those investments won’t happen.”
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
As someone that has worked in the "industry" of renewable energy sources, I can tell you that solar isn't really the way to go. Full disclaimer, I didn't work for a "green energy" company, rather a company that focuses on alternative power for entities to use as either temporary or a supplement to traditional power sources. I can tell you that solar can not generate enough power, even in ideal conditions to be an alternative. Wind is probably the worst in most cases.
Our government already sank billions (with a "B") of dollars into "clean energy" that never panned out. You want to know why? It's because the sun isn't guaranteed to shine and the wind isn't guaranteed to blow. The other problem is that the energy created by those methods needs to be stored. Guess what? You can't store a significant amount of energy in just a few batteries, and the technology of batteries isn't exactly "clean".
So any "investors" ready to put cash on the table are making a losing bet. Government should also not put cash out in regards to this fantasy.
Quote:From the article:
“This is very disappointing for the solar industry,” said Leonie Greene, a spokeswoman for the Solar Trade Association, an industry group.
Ms. Greene said that with costs of installations falling fast, solar farms were close to being competitive with new power plants fired by natural gas. But she said that a couple more years of government support was warranted to give the developers time to close the gap further.
Juliet Davenport, chief executive of Good Energy, a renewable energy business that owns six solar farms in Britain, said: “From our point of view, any change of policy means investors are concerned about investing.”
“It makes business strategy very difficult,” she added.
Deepa Venkateswaran, an analyst at Bernstein Research in London, said that electric power generation was the best bet for further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, rather than other industrial sectors like transport. She said the government might be sacrificing big climate change gains for budgetary savings that amount to “small change.”
“Investors in the power sector are ready to make the investments in renewables,” she said. “If the government takes away the incentives or gives low clarity, clearly those investments won’t happen.”
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Right, if the government doesn't subsidize it then the market doesn't think it's worth an investment. Very straightforward indeed.
It was hot today. I'm in Florida in late July. It certainly must be due to global warming climate change. Perhaps I should lobby my representatives in Congress to waste spend more money on the successful green energy sector.
Quote:From the article:
i.e. the so-called subsidies to coal are just fairytale numbers. The Australian government is not actually handing out cash to 'big coal,' like it did to the windmill subsidy farmers.
...I don't even know how you think you read that. But ok then.
Quote:It was hot today. I'm in Florida in late July. It certainly must be due to global warming climate change. Perhaps I should lobby my representatives in Congress to waste spend more money on the successful green energy sector.
Or you could just vote in people to throw snowballs in congress.
Quote:One of the few times that an interrogative headline answer is actually "yes."
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm'>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm</a>
![[Image: CCBJ-Climate-Consulting-Graphic.jpg-580x258.jpg]](http://www.insurancejournal.com/app/uploads/2015/07/CCBJ-Climate-Consulting-Graphic.jpg-580x258.jpg)
There's GOLD in them thar' hills!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nice article. Thanks for posting.
Here's foxnews' hot take, still fighting the good fight.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/08/10/climate-change-hoax-costs-us-4-billion-day'>http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/08/10/climate-change-hoax-costs-us-4-billion-day</a>
What a stalwart institution of misinformation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment..._hansen_a/
^^The MAIN MAN is answering questions today on Reddit. Take a gander at what Jim Hansen is saying today if you care.
The top question has to do with the economy and job creation and MONEY. Repubs take a look--it's right up your alley.
Quote:They'll have to keep adjusting the data to increase current temperatures compared to the past. I'm sure they will keep adjusting the data upwards. How long will it take before even you become suspicious when all the adjustments go in the direction of more warming?
Meanwhile, the satellite measurements that actually cover the entire planet show no such thing.
You're right. They adjust the temperatures beacause #yolo then post the graphs on their website to show where they cheated because that's not THE STUPIDEST THING ANYONE HAS EVER HEARD.