[peeb]

Well, it seems that the mods didn't like that degree of humiliation that I subjected Eug to last week. Perhaps they have a point, once he started simply posting web clip art instead of any meaningful response I let my temper boil over and comment on his personal attributes, rather than simply demolishing his position again.

I unreservedly apologize for not giving Eug a graceful way to back away from his embarrassment. It was not a gentlemanly act.

In case anyone else wants to pick this one up where we left off:
1. We had agreed that carbon fuels receive more subsidy than solar.
2. Eug and potentially others believe that (on some unspecified measure) subsidy for solar is higher per unit.
3. No evidence was presented for contention 2.

Part of the issue here is that Eug was fixated on the installation cost of solar, which, by itself is not a useful measure. We need to know the price per watt over the lifetime of the system, and then figure out the projected cost of carbon (voodoo, I know, but we need something). When we've got that, we can make an estimate of the subsidies for both.

[Dakar the Fourth]

This should end well.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

This should end well.

!

[Uncle Skeleton]

That is so sad. Did you wait by the keyboard all weekend wringing your hands? Dude, he crushed you. Your position is equivalent to saying gas costs more in the US than in Canada because we price it by the gallon instead of the liter. Edit: also, it's cheaper to by a chevy blazer than to take the bus, because the life-time per-mile cost of the chevy is less than the $1.50 it costs to ride the bus for a mile.

[peeb]

Erm, no. Actually I set a calendar reminder to follow up on it.

Re your analogy, you don't appear to understand the issue. His claim is that on some unspecified unit measure, solar power get more subsidy than carbon. No evidence has been offered for this position, and no one advocating it seems to understand that to even make this claim they need to figure out the per watt costs of each fuel, and the subsidy on that basis. No figures even remotely connected to this have been offered.

Far from 'crushing', he has not made any coherent argument. Where he has made a stand (on the idea that carbon fuels get less subsidy than solar) he was demolished completely. Perhaps you would care to take a crack at presenting a cogent response to the evidence I have provided, and questions that have not been addressed?

re your edit. You are starting to get the idea that you need to look at the lifetime cost of the system. Now, take that one step further and provide some lifetime cost per watt figures for solar and for carbon fuels, and then apply the subsidy data to those, and you'll get to answering the question and providing some evidence for the position you seem to be defending. Without that, you're just repeating a mantra with no evidence.
You may well be right that the initial outlay of owning your own system (the Chevy, or the solar system) is cheaper in the long run than buying per use (the bus, or power company), but you need to present evidence.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

His claim is that on some unspecified unit measure

It doesn't matter what unit you use! The whole point of comparing per-unit is to derive a unit-less ratio. It doesn't matter if you use joules per dollar or hectares per hogs-head, as long as it's the same for both sides.

solar power get more subsidy than carbon. No evidence has been offered for this position

Are you kidding? Your own links argue that fossil is subsidized up to 12%. It says they get a 6% tax break, and gave roughly the same $ numbers in the same years for explicit government spending, so double that 6% gives 12%. But if you install solar in your house you can claim an up-front 25% credit. More than double the percentage of fossil's credits. He gave you an example of $20,000 off the cost of $72,000 (so I'm being generously low by rounding that down to 25% for you). I don't know, peeb, 25% sounds like more than 12% to me.

and no one advocating it seems to understand that to even make this claim they need to figure out the per watt costs of each fuel, and the subsidy on that basis.

Ok I'll do it. Solar panels pay-off period is estimated between 10-25 years, depending on the competition (10 is for scenarios where potential future carbon taxes increase the costs of the competition). If you take the above example as a sanity check, 72,000 saves about 300/mo in power bills, so after 20 years you've made back your investment (15 years counting the subsidy). Unfortunately the useful lifetime of solar panels is generally given at between 10-25 years also. So basically they cost the same as fossil fuels over their lifetime (and a lot more than what you and I pay in hydro), except for solar you have to pay your next 10+ years of electric bills up front (significant opportunity cost; you could more than double your money in that time).

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It doesn't matter what unit you use! The whole point of comparing per-unit is to derive a unit-less ratio. It doesn't matter if you use joules per dollar or hectares per hogs-head, as long as it's the same for both sides.

Well done. You've figured out what I've been asking for. The point is that the installation cost (which was the only figure Eug was giving) does not tell you this. When I said he did not specify the unit measure, I meant that he was unclear as to whether he was talking about per watt generation, installed capacity, or some other measure of capacity.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you kidding? Your own links argue that fossil is subsidized up to 12%. It says they get a 6% tax break, and gave roughly the same $ numbers in the same years for explicit government spending, so double that 6% gives 12%. But if you install solar in your house you can claim an up-front 25% credit. More than double the percentage of fossil's credits. He gave you an example of $20,000 off the cost of $72,000 (so I'm being generously low by rounding that down to 25% for you). I don't know, peeb, 25% sounds like more than 12% to me.

Go back to the first part of your post. What are your units here? I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say 12% (12% of what?) but that is a per year percentage, right? You then go on to look at the tax breaks on the installation cost of a solar system, which you don't spread over the useful life of the system. This is why you need to figure it out on per watt basis. Back to school for you, I'm afraid...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok I'll do it. Solar panels pay-off period is estimated between 10-25 years, depending on the competition (10 is for scenarios where potential future carbon taxes increase the costs of the competition). If you take the above example as a sanity check, 72,000 saves about 300/mo in power bills, so after 20 years you've made back your investment (15 years counting the subsidy). Unfortunately the useful lifetime of solar panels is generally given at between 10-25 years also. So basically they cost the same as fossil fuels over their lifetime (and a lot more than what you and I pay in hydro), except for solar you have to pay your next 10+ years of electric bills up front (significant opportunity cost; you could more than double your money in that time).

Well, I'm not sure about your figures, but you seem to be calculating the costs of the system, not the government subsidy of each. We're still back to square one, with no evidence to back up the claim that there is more subsidy per unit in solar than in carbon. You keep getting confused with your units, which seems to be the root of the problem.

I feel like we are having different conversations here. You keep coming up with numbers that are almost, but not quite, completely irrelevant to the question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well done. You've figured out what I've been asking for. The point is that the installation cost (which was the only figure Eug was giving) does not tell you this.

What other costs are there for solar besides installation and reinstallation when the panels break or fail? If the only costs are installation costs, then installation costs and life-time costs are the same number.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say 12% (12% of what?) but that is a per year percentage, right?

Solar is per-year too. In the years where you buy it, you get subsidized 25%. In the years you don't buy it, you can think of it as a 25% subsidy on $0.

Well, I'm not sure about your figures, but you seem to be calculating the costs of the system, not the government subsidy of each. We're still back to square one, with no evidence to back up the claim that there is more subsidy per unit in solar than in carbon.

No, you just responded to it! Remember 12 < 25? As long as you're still talking about consumer-installed solar panels, we've settled this.

You keep getting confused with your units, which seems to be the root of the problem.

You don't need units if you normalize to the same unit before you start comparing. I normalized to dollars (from the consumer). Since the subsidies already work in solar's favor, I'm giving you the advantage by doing so.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What other costs are there for solar besides installation and reinstallation when the panels break or fail? If the only costs are installation costs, then installation costs and life-time costs are the same number.

ok.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Solar is per-year too. In the years where you buy it, you get subsidized 25%. In the years you don't buy it, you can think of it as a 25% subsidy on $0.

Well, not really, you need to spread the installation cost over the life of the panels. Since you get the (notional, I don't think it is actually 12%, it's much more than that) 12% subsidy on carbon every year, you need to divide 25 in 15 (or whatever you think the lifespan is), which gives you about 1.5% per year. Much lower than the 12% per year carbon gets.

I think where you are getting confused here is the same place that Eug was. You're looking at the one year subsidy for solar, and comparing it to the one year subsidy for carbon. You're not factoring in that the solar subsidy is ONLY in the first year, so to compare the two you need to equalize the units (cost per watt over the lifespan of the solar system, in this case).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, not really, you need to spread the installation cost over the life of the panels. Since you get the (notional, I don't think it is actually 12%, it's much more than that) 12% subsidy on carbon every year, you need to divide 25 in 15 (or whatever you think the lifespan is), which gives you about 1.5% per year. Much lower than the 12% per year carbon gets.

No, that's absolutely not true. If you take 25% of 72,000 in the first year, or you take 25% of 4,800 for each of 15 years, it's still 25% of the total. If you divide the cost over 15 years, that's 4,800 per year. 72,000 * 0.75 = 54,000. Or 4,800 * 0.75 * 15 (years) = 54,000. It's the same $54,000 over the same 15 years with the same 25% subsidy either way. The difference with coal, of course, is that you don't have to pay 15 years in advance like you do for solar panels.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, that's absolutely not true. If you take 25% of 72,000 in the first year, or you take 25% of 4,800 for each of 15 years, it's still 25% of the total. 72,000 * 0.75 = 54,000. 4,800 * 0.75 * 15 (years) = 54,000. It's the same $54,000 over the same 15 years with the same 25% subsidy either way. The difference with coal, of course, is that you don't have to pay 15 years in advance like you do for solar panels.

Again, your units confusion is what's tripping you up. You really do need to figure it out on a per-watt basis. You are still trying to figure out the subsidy of the cost of installation - that is not the relevant measure, as I have pointed out several times.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't know the per-watt cost, but I do know the per-household cost. However many kWh the average house uses in a year, it costs them about $3600 to do it by coal. Without subsidies, according to your links, it would cost them $4090. By the example given, it would cost them about $72,000 up front to do it by solar panels, which over 15 years averages to $4800 per each year's worth of kWh used. Due to the larger subsidy for solar panels, the net cost is the same $3600 a year. Changing the units on both sides from Wh/year to W shouldn't change anything, but if you think that it will then finding the figures to back that claim is your problem.

Edit: I'll even show you. Each house uses about 10,000 kWh per year, for $3600. If you want to do this in $/W, that's $0.36/kWh, and if you run that amount of power evenly over the whole year, that's $3.15/W. Did you see that? I didn't say whether that $3600/year was buying solar power or dino power. Because it doesn't matter! If you're paying the same number of dollars for the same number of kWh, the cost per watt is going to be the same.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't know the per-watt cost, but I do know the per-household cost. However many kWh the average house uses in a year, it costs them about $3600 to do it by coal. Without subsidies, according to your links, it would cost them $4090.

Where did you get that figure for the subsidy?
The other big assumption here is that the price of carbon will stay constant. It likely won't.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

By the example given, it would cost them about $72,000 up front to do it by solar panels, which over 15 years

I don't think that the 15 years is a realistic estimate of the lifespan. Where did you get that figure? 25 years is more likely, giving a cost per year of 2800 (including the cost of the subsidy) for solar, and an unknown but likely to rise figure for carbon.

I guess this hinges on your assumption of the lifespan of the panels - the cost per watt / lifespan is important, because the subsidy per watt goes down every year the panels last, while the subsidy per watt for carbon is constant.
Of course, once you factor in the hidden public subsidies of environmental effects, health etc, the equations are not even close. Solar is MUCH cheaper and MUCH less subsidised.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Where did you get that figure for the subsidy?

Arithmetic. Ever used it? $3600 (after a 12% subsidy) divided by 0.88 gives you $4090 before the subsidy.

The other big assumption here is that the price of carbon will stay constant. It likely won't.

They would have to double in the next ~15 years in order to overcome the opportunity costs of the money needed to install a solar panel replacement. Do you think that's likely? It's a pretty big gamble.

I don't think that the 15 years is a realistic estimate of the lifespan. Where did you get that figure? 25 years is more likely, giving a cost per year of 2800 (including the cost of the subsidy) for solar, and an unknown but likely to rise figure for carbon.

I guess this hinges on your assumption of the lifespan of the panels - the cost per watt / lifespan is important, because the subsidy per watt goes down every year the panels last, while the subsidy per watt for carbon is constant.

Yes, the lifespan is important. It might be 25 years, or it might be 10. That's the range the manufacturers generally give. And that doesn't account for if there's a storm and a fallen tree limb wipes one out. 15 years is a fair weighted average.

But honestly, the difference between 15 years and 25 years might never matter at all, given that the average American moves every 7 years, and won't be taking those panels with them in the move.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Arithmetic. Ever used it? $3600 (after a 12% subsidy) divided by 0.88 gives you $4090 before the subsidy.

The 12% figure. Where did you get that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They would have to double in the next ~15 years in order to overcome the opportunity costs of the money needed to install a solar panel replacement. Do you think that's likely? It's a pretty big gamble.

No, they wouldn't. This contains a bunch of assumptions about the return on investment, and the subsidy on carbon that you really, really want to ignore.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, the lifespan is important. It might be 25 years, or it might be 10. That's the range the manufacturers generally give. And that doesn't account for if there's a storm and a fallen tree limb wipes one out.

Yes, if only there was some system where you could pay a small amount to a company to protect your home against accidents. Oh, wait. There is!

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

15 years is a fair weighted average.

Really, on what basis do you make that claim? Most companies guarantee their panels for at least 20 years, frequently more. 40-50 years is the upper range of estimates.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But honestly, the difference between 15 years and 25 years might never matter at all, given that the average American moves every 7 years, and won't be taking those panels with them in the move.

Hmmm.... If only there was some way to build capital investment costs into the price of a home. Right now, no one ever replaces a roof, resides their house, or does anything that has a payback time of more than 7 years. Oh, wait, they do that all the time - the investment gets rolled into the value of the house!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The 12% figure. Where did you get that.

From the links you gave. I already explained this. Today.

No, they wouldn't. This contains a bunch of assumptions about the return on investment, and the subsidy on carbon that you really, really want to ignore.

The return on investment is just another way of saying inflation. In 15 years inflation will halve the value of your money. So by paying 15 years' worth of energy costs today, you're paying double the real value.

Yes, if only there was some system where you could pay a small amount to a company to protect your home against accidents. Oh, wait. There is!

1 or 2 panels will probably barely meet the deductible, and filing that claim will raise your rates.

Really, on what basis do you make that claim? Most companies guarantee their panels for at least 20 years, frequently more. 40-50 years is the upper range of estimates.

Link? Or are those numbers coming from the same rose-colored glasses that brought us your $2/W claims?

Hmmm.... If only there was some way to build capital investment costs into the price of a home. Right now, no one ever replaces a roof, resides their house, or does anything that has a payback time of more than 7 years. Oh, wait, they do that all the time - the investment gets rolled into the value of the house!

This type of improvement will not get you close to your investment back. And if people could somehow rent a roof for exactly the same lifetime cost of building one, they'd be stupid not to.

I'm getting tired of indulging you here, and teaching you algebra, so I'm just going to let you have your last word and pretend you've won something. See you next time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say peeb is at least 20 times better than he started out.

Fixed.