Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

[KGW]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Did I read this correctly...are you saying that the same solar panel can be purchased for $18 in the Pacific Northwest, but costs $145 in California? Why wouldn't truckloads of solar panels be making their way south along Interstate 5 from Seattle to San Diego?

At Northern Arizona Wind and Sun (great place for such things), a 210 watt panel costs $580.90. (I was recently there to buy a 50 watt panel for a small boat system) As has been made clear?, the prices above are for the differing cost of electricity.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

Except "free trade" deals have nothing to do with "free trade" and those pushing "free trade" have no interest in "free trade" and never have.

It is kind of like "de-regulation" of financial markets, the goals is to change the rules in the favor of the oligarchs, that is all it is.

Think about what "free trade" would actually mean.

What about "free trade" in labor? Would you agree to that? Lawyers, Doctors, Plumbers, Real Estate Agents, Accountants, whatever your job is - no bars on labor comming in from all four corners of the earth?

Cause you cannot have "free trade" with "free labor".

I am in favour of unlimited free-trade as well as open borders with all free-trade partners. Let labour move and immigrate wherever they want to.

There is no compelling reason for governments to be erecting barriers and tarrifs on their borders. Such barriers make special interests rich, but they do not help working people at all.

[c1ue]

Re: Tariff on solar panels - Bush administration leaves present for big oil

The USA is a vast country [with enormous resources] compared to Japan or Germany...one of the key reasons neither Japan nor Germany was successful in WWII.

The comparison is apples and oranges...

Sure, the US is a larger nation, but at the same time it is disingenuous to say that the American use of the automobile is 3 to 5 times more necessary.

Russia has a larger area, lower population, and doesn't show anywhere near the same characteristics (16,800 km/year) despite relatively cheap gasoline. Note that these are per vehicle numbers.

Note that ultimately I don't care about sprawl per se; so long as the full societal costs are borne by those involved then it all works out.

But in the US the consequences of decades of subsidizing automobile use and gasoline consumption are going to hurt as devalued dollars force gasoline prices closer towards the double digit range.

Secondly sprawl does make economical public transport impossible. One reason buses and trains are so unpopular in America is that distances due to sprawl are so great that

1) numbers of stops are so large and distances between stops large enough that even short traverses become hour/hour and a half long treks.

As an example try riding the light rail from the Mountain View Caltrain stop to the Great Mall in Milpitas sometime. It takes FOREVER.

2) Even were the public transport usefullness issue solved - by light speed inertialess travel between stops - the next problem is that it is impossible to get anywhere significant once you arrive at your destination. As an example I once tried to walk around the block near my hotel in Sunnyvale. 45 minutes later I made it - without having passed a single retail outlet. Even in San Francisco the number of places you can buy food are curiously limited given the relative population/housing density - again because many people still drive. Contrast that with most any European or Asian city.

3) From a public utility perspective, the transmission of electricity across greater distances means more loss. An average sprawling suburb almost certainly has much greater losses due to the simple transmission step than a denser city area. Ditto greater costs for road and other infrastructure maintenance.

The point is that the subsidy of the automobile in place of any sort of urban/suburban/transportation planning has consequences when energy costs skyrocket.