Last Sunday was Earth Day and readers of the Sun-Gazette found two interesting articles, one on global warming and one on the local solar industry. Today, I awoke to snow on the ground, snow falling and a temperature not likely to reach the normal high of 60. It is 38 at 2 p.m.
The global warming article has the usual "man-made disaster" theme rising CO2 levels driving up temperature. The problem with this is that it is not true. A total of 400,000 years of Vostok ice core data show that a rise in temperature precedes a rise in CO2 levels by about 1,000 years on average. This relationship is a fact and it has been so for hundreds of thousands of years before humans became more than a convenient prey species.
In fact, the rate of temperature and CO2 increase is only half the rate seen at the end of warming cycles. Recent data shows average temperatures falling as CO2 continues to rise. The data shows the atmosphere to be at or beyond the top of a warming cycle. If you doubt, Google Vostok ice core data. In the '70s climate scientist warned of an imminent advance of glaciers. According to those predictions we should be seeing glaciers growing across the Northern Hemisphere.
The solar industry article shows that the solar industry is not profitable or viable without government incentives to the industry and its customers. Every solar system installed robs the public through tax dollars for incentives and raised generation rates because electricity generators must buy the surplus energy at above market rates.
If one wants a solar system, let him pay for it. It is poor investment. Mr. Clark pays approximately $9 per month for his electricity. Sounds good until you look behind the numbers. Assume that he paid $200 per month before solar and his system is the $40,000 system mentioned in the article. He saves $191 per month. His payback period works out to about 17.5 years, 17.5 years to break even. The solar company owner says that business is down because of a lack of state rebates. It will go down more if federal tax incentives go away after 2016 making solar prohibitively expensive.
The article also implies that electricity companies must be forced to generate by solar. Why? Because it is more expensive than current technology. PPL and others are in business to make money. Only government will throw good money after bad. After years of incentives for solar power we got Solyndra and lost over $535 million at one shot. The true cost of solar power is uncounted millions of dollars in incentives and higher generation costs.
William C. Dincher
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom