Solar Energy on the Rise?
One of the most visited bills on WashingtonWatch.com this week is H.R. 2774, The Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007. It has been reported from committee, which means that it is ready for the full House of Representatives to debate. The bill would establish a group of programs and subsidies to advance solar energy and its commercialization, at a cost of about $2.50 per U.S. family.
As always, there are at least two sides to the story. On the one hand, technological progress is a good thing, and solar power is a wonderfully renewable resource - that’s for sure. Using more of it would lower energy prices, reduce pollution, and perhaps lessen our reliance on unstable foreign sources of energy.
On the other hand, economists will tell you that it’s a mistake to try to make any product “viable” through subsidies - and that’s what we’re talking about here: subsidies. There is a point in the future when solar will be viable simply because it’s a more efficient way of producing energy than others. And we will get there without any government spending because private capital can be drawn to the problem by the profit motive. Let the sun rise on its own, and let taxpayers keep their dollars.
Where do you come down on all this? Can a bill like this bring sunshine to our energy portfolio? Or is it another government program feeling along in the dark?
Here’s the current vote on H.R. 2774, The Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article about the bill.
Jerry Trudell
What is ommitted from your analysis of subsidies is the historic fact that conventional sources of energy,ie: oil nuclear, have already been massively subsidied. This is why the price of these energy sources has actually remained artificially low, in keeping with a short term “cheap energy” policy.
Therefore, subsidizing solar simply helps it to “catch up” to these other already heavily subsidized industries. In other words, if Congress had not provided the oil depletion allowance, as well as other massive subsidies to nuclear. the price differential would have favored solar much sooner than your so called “market analysis” which leaves out a significant part of the story regarding the history of energy subsidies to fossil fuels. Thank you.
Jim Harper
That’s helpful information. It creates an argument for withdrawing the subsidies from these other fuel sources, doesn’t it? Not an argument for subsidizing solar . . .