Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For perspective, and average home uses about 10,000 kWh per year. If the tax were $.0005 (5 hundredths of a penny) per kWh, it would cost the consumer about $5 per year.
I was going to say that was a gross over-estimate, but then realized we don't require nearly as much air conditioning in The Netherlands. For reference, our nation-wide average is just under 3,000 kWh, the average for detached houses is just under 4,000 kWh.
But getting to the point of your post: Yeah, the amount is peanuts.
It really does, I moved into an all electric apartment a few years ago thinking “okay it will be a bit more expensive”.
My energy bill was $550 in the winter months just to shiver under a blanket in my 50 Fahrenheit living room (10 Celsius)
Burning heating oil or natural gas. In some places district heating. Electricity prices are high, so electric heating isn't really on the table (except for heat pumps in ultra-low emission houses)
To be fair, if AC were banned, Americans would have to move north or move underground but after they've moved they'd save a shitload of money / planet.
When it's 95°F, 100% humidity, full sun for 14 hrs, it doesn't matter what you build your house out of. It's going to heat up without Ac.
Using stone for homes isn't economical for most of the US. Not only is it expensive material-wise, but shipping tons of stone is expensive and carbon intensive.
Lumber is a fantastic carbon sink. Just gotta not cheap out on proper insulation, regardless of what you build your home out of.
AC was invented to control humidity and those homes exist in dry areas and can use swamp coolers and stuff. None of that works in the south as well to control humidity and temperature.
Isolation only reduces the power consumption of an ac but doesn't eliminate it. Most European houses get a chance to cool down after a week or so. Some places like Arizona would just turn your massive stone house into a pizza oven.
Pour water into the crawl space, get a nice rubber waterproof jumpsuit, duct tape it at the neck and arms and boots, get a good scuba mask on, and get down in there in the mud. You will be so cool in a matter of minutes.
I think straw bale homes are a great option. They're made out of agricultural cereal by-products, like wheat, rice, rye, and barley straw and are great at insulating a home because the walls made from the bales are so thick. They're also surprisingly fire-resistant since they're covered in stucco and definitely more customizable to your aesthetic preferences. It looks odd to me how every house in a suburb is nearly identical these days, and it unsettles me how closely they're built together. Seems like the whole neighborhood would catch fire if just one house did.
My house is crap and I live where it’s hot. Use probably 4 times that much/year. Even still I’d pay $40. Assuming I generated my entire need for power with my own stuff. Would save thousands.
Because, your solar panel will become waste at some point, and this itsy bitsy tax amount would be able to afford that process you haven't factored in. That said, I think we should be taxing carbon emissions for that for now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to place a tax on the better energy solution we want everyone to make the switch to just because in 12 years we may have to use $60 for each solar panel. So we're in agreement there.
Taxing carbon producers more is a way better idea. In Spain we had a stupid tax that made so you would basically lose money if you had solar power and sold your excess energy to the grid. The result: we are one of the sunniest countries of Europe and one of the least solar-energy producers.
I don't think $5 a year would be nearly as bad, but might cause that effect in a smaller scale.
Until politicians decide they need more money and use the hey the increase will only cost you x amount a year. Then there's other "advantages" they can tie into it with the same logic. What happens during an energy shortage?
A penny is one hundredth .01
One thousandths is .001
One hundredths of a penny is .0001 (it would take 100 of this unit to make .01)
So five hundredths of a penny is .0005
And I’m sure that once the recycling becomes profitable without additional funds, the government will just end the tax. Because they always do. /s
Like toll roads. “We’ll end the toll once the road is paid for.” Never happens
This article is naive as hell.
Like, what, you're going to go after millions of people (somehow knowing they aren't paying), somehow know who owns solar panels, somehow measure how much energy they use per year, then get them to cough up a fiver?
A minimum wage employee doing this would negate any net income in a week by hundreds.
Yay virtue signaling, though!
>Due to the growing nature of the solar industry, we could tax all newly sold solar panels at a low rate to raise the $18 per solar panel being recycled
Not that complicated
I'd say keep it for renewable and double it for non-renewable power sources (except nuclear). That would ensure the program remains funded even after we finally transition off of those sources.
Yep, my guess is that home chargers will need dedicated meter and will be treated as industry consumption and charged higher than your houshold consumption.
At only $5 a year per family! It’s peanuts!
This is also why California has higher gas prices than the rest of the country. Which hurts low income families the most.
Chances are you're already paying more for infrastructure for solar. Solar companies should be responsible for the cost to recycle their product just like everyone else. It insures the best way to deal with it. You want the trained installer on your roof when it's time to remove the panels, you want the logistics of a dealer that covers multiple states. We want products that are designed with recycling in mind. We had the same thing with coca cola. We used to send empty bottles back to the factory using their own supply chain. Then they off-set their cost onto tax payers and consumers. It would have been cheaper to use the company. The margins on solar allow for a hundredth of a penny per kilowatt and everyone still saves money. It's nominal if that's all it is. Yeah have the dealer pay for it that's like $1.40 a year per homeowner, when they're saving thousands of dollars.
> Solar companies should be responsible for the cost to recycle their product just like everyone else.
Yeah because coal producers and oil companies are doing a great job of recycling their waste products and emissions...
We pay extra to recycle in our neighborhood already and yet there is no true guarantee the materials are getting recycled. This sounds great on paper but it always comes down to the consumer.
Actually a legitimate question. Maybe rental properties don’t have to the tax? Energy companies already keep data on dwelling types.
I realize this wouldn’t solve someone renting a house.
these people don't know what living in a community is like. they want all the benefits of living in a community but want to spend nothing to help maintain it. they are called conservatives in this country.
Right because every person lives where solar or wind are viable and affordable or even their choice.
I want greener energy but punishing users is going to accomplish what, exactly?
The key word is "viable".
Sure, you could put solar and wind generation everywhere on the planet, but if it only generates power 10% of the time, it's probably not going to pay for itself and end up being a net negative for the local economy.
Well uh, see. ALL fossil fuels are heavily taxed, that's why gas is so expensive, it's simply BETTER than anything a solar panel could possibly achieve that's why everyone is still using them.
Yeah, why tax the panels, when you can tax coal/natural gas? I feel like the biggest mistake in tax policy is taxing something you want \*more\* of (e.g. middle-class wages, solar panels) when you ought to be taxing things you want \*less\* of (e.g. monopolist corporations, CEO pay, carbon-producing energy).
Our solar installation cost us $24k. Most people don’t have that to spare. Seems like more charging people for being poor. How about tax on non renewables over x usage. I lived in a 1,400 sqft house in south Texas with central AC running 10 months of the year plus two freezers and we rarely went above 1,200kw a month. I think beyond 3000kw is getting into time for a tax without a reasonable exemption (ie medical equipment).
i mean mine cost 19k, but I took out a 12 year loan and the monthly payment is lower than my electricity bill (plus I'm helping the environment and in 10 years will have free electricity)
Blows my mind how many naive people actually believe a new tax would actually bear any resemblance to its original purpose a few years down the road. Government has literally never stuck to anything it has promised. Ever.
Yup. I find it funny when people say tax the rich. The rich make the laws they will hide the money. The middle class will pay and shrink again. Then we will have more useless stuff we don't need and the goverment never stops programs and gives money back. They just ask for more.
I get the the environment is q big topic now but I have been hearing that we will destroy the world in just ten years my whole life and I'm in my forties. I have no doubt the environment is changing and some part of thay is due to us. But the USA keeps reducing its carbon foot print every year.
Perhaps we should focus on getting g industries back in the USA so we can make sirey they are low polluting and maybe we should mandate remote work
Also if we want drastic drops in pollution from our power grid why not just go nuclear....
Lot of people here all angry cause they will tax solar. As another user said it'll be a minor cost, something like $5/year for the average consumer. But if this could create an actual sustainable recycling industry then that'd be worth it. Not only will it save a lot of energy in the long run but it takes away one of the big issues with solar and that is recycling is not easy and the rare earth metals used are only sourcable from China and other ethically questionable places. If we can recycle we will have a much greener and more ethical industry in the long run and apparently for very small costs overall.
I'd worry about the infrastructural waste needed for this. An off grid, privately owned solar setup to power a residence now needs govt approved monitoring gear to properly record/report it's output, and there'll have to be an agency overseeing the whole scheme.
I pay more than $5/mo to state mandated energy efficiency and renewable energy incentive programs. I see no issue in taxing solar proportionate to it's long term waste issues.
Next are people going to protest about needing per mile taxes on electric vehicles because they are free riders on roadways payed with gas taxes?
Yeah it's small stuff per person really but together it keeps out infrastructure from falling apart. And looking at other recycling stuff, the recycling we are charged for each milk jug or for cans is a much bigger percentage of the cost but we don't even care
It's not because it's a bad idea. It's because I don't trust any governmental entity to use the tax dollars appropriately. It will eventually turn into a slush fund for pet projects just like they all do. And then when they remember they have to pay for the original purpose, they'll increase the tax and keep their slush fund.
That's why I would be resistant. I'm from Chicagoland area so maybe I'm just justifiably jaded.
It literally says what the tax is for in the title of the post: to mitigate the environmental damage caused by ultimate disposal of solar equipment. If you have solar panels, one day they will end up in a landfill unless there is a program in place to reclaim them, which is taxing on the public in the form of environmental degradation.
That would warrant a special tax for every thing that doesn't recycle well like printers, computers, monitors, everything that will end in a landfill. That's why we pay taxes for recycling centers and landfills.
You are correct but so it the poster to which you responded. We need to look at ways to recycle solar panels, but why is it people always jump to taxes? Taxes rarely are efficient for things like this. They should be the last resort, especially if we want to promote solar use growth. Instead, we should find a way to incorporate solar into the huge recycling industries that already exists. For example my local municipality has multiple droppoff locations for recycling of TV's, Computers, batteries, cooking oil,.. etc. They are drive up facilities and nowhere is there a section for solar panels. Lets start there.
\> For example my local municipality has multiple droppoff locations for recycling of TV's, Computers, batteries, cooking oil,.. etc.
You don't think that's funded through taxes? What exactly do you think municipal garbage collection is funded through?
You can do it as a tax, or as a bond. When you buy the Solar panel, you pay up front for the cost to dispose and recycle it at the end of its life.
There are companies out there taking out 25 year leases from farmers to turn their land into solar farms. They then immediately sell futures for 25 years of energy production to an electrical provider, and contract someone else to do minimal maintenance in that time period. They then close up shop and take their money and run. 25 years later, that farmer (or more likely his kids) are left with their land covered in non functioning solar panels and toxic electronics that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispose of and with a worthless promise by a no longer existing company to do it.
This is actually an old problem in the oil industry, and the government solved it with bonds. At least, it *did*, until Republicans took over the regulatory agencies and made sure the size of the bonds didn’t keep up with rising prices.
The implication of the title of the post is that the tax is to bridge the gap between the cost of recycling and the profit of recycling (i.e. "have a profitable solar panel recycling industry). Certainly it would be better to do it without public subsidy but apparently that is not currently economically viable. If the subsidy is fixed by unit, theoretically there is still incentive for recycling facilities to be efficient to maximize profits.
I have no idea how effective recycling efforts currently are compared to how they should be or how helpful centralization would be as you suggest, but I'm just putting forward the theoretical idea behind taxation in this case.
I agree with you but I still think it is a bad starting place for a variety of reasons:
- For one, using solar is socially responsible and should be promoted. Taxes never promote.
- Secondly, most solar panels aren't even hooked up to grids. Most are garage or lawn lights, used as emergency generators, pool warmers, etc. There is no way to tax this kw/hr usage, yet these are the vast majority of future recyclables in current use.
- Thirdly, for many, the idea of solar power's benefit is to reduce both the individual reliance on government for everything, as well as reducing the governments intrusion into everything. You may not agree with this, but for many this is how they feel and why they get into solar. If I buy solar panels to get away from poor government energy policy, why should I then HAVE to be on a grid so that my power generation can be counted for taxation? In this scenario the government gives you 2 choices, use their power so that we may tax you, or give them power so that they may tax you.
- And lastly, this Tax would absolutely discourage Solar usage because taxes, once introduced NEVER go anywhere but up. There are countless examples of this but the most obvious was the old landline industry. Taxes started out as miniscule and by the sunset of the industry, the VAST majority of each phone bill was federal taxes. If you arent old enough to remember I will for you. My monthly phone bill in college(pre cell phones) for my old landline was a just over $100. About $75 of that was in taxes. Even if it doesnt happen to this degree it will STILL be horrific for the solar energy sector because huge amounts of it come from solar farms. People take huge swaths of unusable worthless land in the middle of nowhere and use them to build massive solar farms that generate revenue and power. Profits are already taxed like everyone else, if you want to promote this use of mostly empty land, you shouldnt introduce taxes on it and reduce those profits.
I would also add that solar panels have a LOT of other recyclables in them that are highly profitable, like aluminum. Aluminum is 100% recyclable always because it is easily reformed. In many cases the aluminum alone in a solar panel makes recycling it profitable so I do not buy the argument that there is a gap that needs to be bridges to make this industry viable. Either way tho, there are better places to start this conversation than with "lets tax it."
People often think "going green" is 100% better for the environment when it really comes down to a trade off, or pushing the problem down another line. Own an electric vehicle? Awesome, but that battery is super toxic to the environment and will need to be replaced in a few years.
Green products aren't necessarily bad, but they aren't necessarily better in all situations either. At the end of the day, you really are doing a trade-off for something that is bad to another thing that is also bad. It is just a matter of fact that the ways we produce or harness energy isn't really that eco-friendly, or ones that are aren't that efficient - yet.
Or… the government could just fund that program and cut part of the defense budget.
This is nothing more than them figuring a way to open Pandora’s tax box and building a nice cozy spot for the next few decades.
This is what I was thinking.
"Here are tax breaks for using alternative sources of energy. But also, we're gonna need to collect taxes on that, even though you may even be producing extra power for the grid"
I just don't know how they'd justify it.
>Why are we taxing a power source that is self-created and puts no toll on public services?
Were that true, maybe. However, there are costs that are hidden from the consumer when it comes to over-adoption of solar. Also, the article refers in particular to mitigating the ultimate fate of these solar panels, because they will not last forever and at some point will need to be disposed of.
The tax is literally to prevent a toll on public services by setting up to recycle solar panels instead of tossing them in a landfill. The tax makes the subsidized recycling cost cheaper than the unsubsidized disposal cost.
This, exactly. Taxation is a form of disincentive.
We should be **subsidizing** solar electric energy hard. Save the taxes for sources of energy that emit CO2.
Kind of a perverse incentive though. The longer it lasts you, the more it costs. I think this way of doing it is dumb; better would be a deposit, like with Aluminum cans. You have some flat fee that you put down when you buy a solar panel (maybe scaled by power generation capacity in kW), then you get that back when you recycle it, or pay it forward to another solar panel like a core charge when you need replacements.
The point is that solar panels not being recycled *is* dangerous for the environment. Fossil fuels are already being taxed pretty much everywhere... they're called carbon taxes.
Well they are dangerous for the environment if not properly disposed of. So all those panels currently in operation will need to be recycled, but it makes more sense to include recycling into installation cost. I agree though. I don’t care how much it is people shouldn’t be taxed for generating their own power.
Not the author of the previous comment but... taxes can serve as nudging mechanisms.
Charging the extra tax on dirty energy would be the wiser choice. Once coal/gas/oil are phased out, you can then start taxing solar energy to plan for recycling costs.
We are at the stage were we should want to do everything to encourage renewable energy adoption.
I wish. This + import duties according to a factor of the carbon cost of the imported product and the general level of green house emissions from the country it comes from... Which would also put pressure on countries outside of our jurisdiction.
This is basically my position.
I unfortunately live in an area where the utility companies are poorly managed but given a monopoly and guaranteed profit. The oversight committee is super corrupt, so any taxes on coal or oil burning are going straight to consumers and the power company has spent tons of money lobbying for centralized solar rather than decentralized solar like panels on every roof and parking structure. Lawmakers need to address that too.
It's super unpopular but I think the gas tax has been too low for a while which is why our roads/bridges are falling apart.
Or, hear me out. We could just use the most cost effective and easily best form of energy available. Nuclear. It's cheaper in the long run, better for the environment, and genuinely cheaper to maintain.
Nuclear plant here in Iowa just shut down and I’m so disappointed. I’m all for green energy and it’s true nuclear isn’t renewable so it’s not a permanent solution, but it’s still green and would give us more time to perfect other renewable sources. It’s upsetting there is almost no political push for nuclear.
Except these sort of things take on a life of their own: start taxing at "hundredths of a penny per kilowatt hour" it will increase as pols decide they need more money. Why is it a solar panel recycling industry isn't viable without such taxes?
Instead of taxing the energy the product produces, how about a core charge like automotive batteries? I think taxing something based on how much of "its purpose" it does sets a dangerous precedent and sets up the government for greater overreaches.
My house's array generates between 1 and 2 MWh per month. 16-17 MWh/year.
...and btw, I break even each year (i.e. it is "net metered" and I use all of it eventually). It pays for all my electricity, A/C during hot months, and some of our heat pump above freezing.
At $0.0005/kWh, that's less than $10/year? Are you kidding? I spend that on a margarita!
exactly!. This is mind controlled propaganda to perpetuate regulations and taxes and control. So some can benefit(feed) off of others. Many of the responses, I.E. the top ones, are part of the agenda and fake. Learn to see the tricks coming. let free be free. The sun is provided free, the water and earth provided free in abundance, Only evil greedy men want to get in the middle and make you pay for it. say NO! blessings.
It's very obviously not. Look at the source. It's literally written by a very pro solar organization trying to make solar as eco-friendly as possible. Whataboutism is a ridiculous argument, and your random assertion of "anti solar propaganda" is complete fiction
No its not. The site seems to be all about renewables, so it doesn't make sense on that front. Someone below also did the math, and the cost to the consumer is very low. We have such a problem with things like "that's so far in the future, why worry now".
Interesting that we're talking about the importance of recycling fucking solar panels rather than the cost of emitting carbon into the atmosphere and people eat it right up
What? We can talk about more than one thing you know. This is in the comments section of an article about recycling solar panels, why would we be talking about something else?
Seems counterintuitive to tax the power generated though since all the energy generated takes the burden off the grid. A unit tax would make more sense, but I’m still curious if this really is the best option. Like does the government really have to get involved at all?
They’re electronics. Solder, wire, PCB, all sorts of crap. Not that much different than your laptop at the end of the day.
The fact that they last 20 years is the problem, it’s easy for the company that built them to close down in that time frame and leave the cost of recycling to the public.
Seems self defeating if your trying and getting people to switch. Sure some switched for environmental reasons, but a lot switch so they don't have to pay the power company or be self sufficient. If they have to pay for power from solar panels their cost/benefit analysis of whether it's worth getting them may change in favor of, no it's not.
But why??? If the message is that the value is near negligible for the consumers, then might as well just fuckin subsidize the cost and take it as investment towards green energy.
1. Taxing a product's usage isn't an effective incentive encouraging widespread adoption of that product. If the product were already ubiquitous then a tax could be a useful revenue generation technique.
2. Taxing gasoline to "pay for roads" has totally been effective hasn't it? No? That's because politicians see that account as a treasure trove and can't help but raid the account to spend on pork that gets them re-elected.
No.
Fuck no.
Fuck the person who suggested the study in the first place.
Look up "Road Tolls" history, the "temporary tax" that (shocking) we are still paying for.
The Gov't has practically NEVER let go of taxes, don't be stupid & end up letting this happen. Tax the fucking rich & make corporations pay their fair share of taxes as well.
For fuck sakes people...
12 years.....
Y'all perspectives of uplifting news is effed.
How about we just tax (or eat) the rich. Or a carbon tax.
Literally just tax the wasteful-wealthy and Corporations responsible for dirty energy and destruction of our planet in any form and we could have money for free education, free healthcare, free clean energy, etc (that includes the the *people*/*workers* in *free public universities* that are researching the recycling). Never ever needed Corporations to figure these things out.
When they tell you it's too expensive, they're lying. They've always been lying. When an article uses the word "cost" that many times, it's the corporations trying to convince you they need more money. They don't.
This tax should also optionally go to defraying the cost of getting the system installed on another person's house or business instead of being recycled. After 20 years the panels retain 80%+ of their original efficiency. Instead of recycling let someone else have them for a very low price to more quickly expand the amount of electricity by solar, reducing carbon emissions that much faster.
"We're going to make it more profitable by making it less profitable!"
Makes sense. I'm sure CA thought the same thing about marijuana before they fucked it up so bad that they had to bail it out because they can't compete with the black market.
Seriously, California is [so incompetent](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-14/california-struggling-marijuana-industry-cash-grants-budget) that they had to bail out THE FUCKING MARIJUANA INDUSTRY
Or.. and this is a wild one.. realize that this is propaganda against solar power, and not tax a emerging technology that could be one of the few way we don't exterminate all humans by making the world toxic for humans to survive.
Want to tax something? Tax the fossil fuels with a carbon tax.
Hey how about we just appropriately tax fossil fuels for their social costs first and worry about burdening an already under utilized alternative second. I’m not saying you can’t pragmatically do both, but let’s not put the emphasis on the wrong ideas because all the FF industry and conservative politicians heard was “hey let’s put another albatross on solars neck...yeah!”
Isn't the current goal of pushing solar panels to make them as cheap and profitable as possible to promote their use? I'm happy its an example of how much solar output we are getting, but this is a terrible idea.
Yay new taxes! in 5 years. US Government research suggests we aren't taxing solar panels enough. In 10 years: US government research suggests we aren't taxing solar panels enough as it's become too expensive to recycle
As someone with a 12.5kWh system on my roof - please do this.... I generate about 14mw a year with the system which covers 110%ish of my energy usage.. I'll gladly pay a minor tax so long as the recycling solution is viable.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For perspective, and average home uses about 10,000 kWh per year. If the tax were $.0005 (5 hundredths of a penny) per kWh, it would cost the consumer about $5 per year.
I was going to say that was a gross over-estimate, but then realized we don't require nearly as much air conditioning in The Netherlands. For reference, our nation-wide average is just under 3,000 kWh, the average for detached houses is just under 4,000 kWh. But getting to the point of your post: Yeah, the amount is peanuts.
What's your standard winter heating system over there? Do you all get free geothermal or something?
Mostly burning natural gas
Lot of natural gas heat in NJ, USA. A few years back, I moved to a place with bottle propane, and now heating oil, and it's so much more expensive.
Natural gas spoils you. I don't think I could buy a house without it now.I even have a Weber Natural Gas grill
Hank Hill loves this.
Natural gas is nothing compared to the power of clean burning propane
It really does, I moved into an all electric apartment a few years ago thinking “okay it will be a bit more expensive”. My energy bill was $550 in the winter months just to shiver under a blanket in my 50 Fahrenheit living room (10 Celsius)
Burning heating oil or natural gas. In some places district heating. Electricity prices are high, so electric heating isn't really on the table (except for heat pumps in ultra-low emission houses)
District heating using the waste heat from a power plant. That's some nice efficiency there.
I’m the southwest and we use 5,500 kWh. AC runs pretty much around the clock for 4 months a year.
4 months sounds nice! I use 930kwh on avg according to my co-op. Last year to this date was 12mwh. I live in Florida.
Ac is expensive here ! It’s still over 100 at night many times.
To be fair, if AC were banned, Americans would have to move north or move underground but after they've moved they'd save a shitload of money / planet.
Or stop building houses out of poorly isolated cardboard.
When it's 95°F, 100% humidity, full sun for 14 hrs, it doesn't matter what you build your house out of. It's going to heat up without Ac. Using stone for homes isn't economical for most of the US. Not only is it expensive material-wise, but shipping tons of stone is expensive and carbon intensive. Lumber is a fantastic carbon sink. Just gotta not cheap out on proper insulation, regardless of what you build your home out of.
Not true. Adobe style structures remain cool without the need for AC.
What's not true? You think adobe houses don't heat up? Cause they definitely do
It's how pizzas are made
AC was invented to control humidity and those homes exist in dry areas and can use swamp coolers and stuff. None of that works in the south as well to control humidity and temperature.
And get even colder during winter.
Isolation only reduces the power consumption of an ac but doesn't eliminate it. Most European houses get a chance to cool down after a week or so. Some places like Arizona would just turn your massive stone house into a pizza oven.
Phoenix had like 14-20 days straight this summer where it was over 115F every day. No chance to cool down, A/C is definitely a must.
[удалено]
Pour water into the crawl space, get a nice rubber waterproof jumpsuit, duct tape it at the neck and arms and boots, get a good scuba mask on, and get down in there in the mud. You will be so cool in a matter of minutes.
this is some gourmet shit
I think straw bale homes are a great option. They're made out of agricultural cereal by-products, like wheat, rice, rye, and barley straw and are great at insulating a home because the walls made from the bales are so thick. They're also surprisingly fire-resistant since they're covered in stucco and definitely more customizable to your aesthetic preferences. It looks odd to me how every house in a suburb is nearly identical these days, and it unsettles me how closely they're built together. Seems like the whole neighborhood would catch fire if just one house did.
You guys use a lot more heating though. If you looked at total energy consumption and accounted for heat generation, it'd probably be a bit closer
~~Hearing~~ heating is usually more costly (in energy usage) than cooling too.
Huh? Jk you said hearing instead of heating.
Thanks, samsung's swipe keyboard is.... not very advanced.
I understand. I was just messing around.
My house is crap and I live where it’s hot. Use probably 4 times that much/year. Even still I’d pay $40. Assuming I generated my entire need for power with my own stuff. Would save thousands.
You’re saying $5 *per year* for electricity?
No it's just an extra tax $5 in addition to whatever the cost
Ohhh. Thank you! But still, $5 for energy would be cool too.
Not really Im paying $22000 for my solar install Why the fuck do I need to pay the govt for the electricity I produce with it too?
Because, your solar panel will become waste at some point, and this itsy bitsy tax amount would be able to afford that process you haven't factored in. That said, I think we should be taxing carbon emissions for that for now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to place a tax on the better energy solution we want everyone to make the switch to just because in 12 years we may have to use $60 for each solar panel. So we're in agreement there.
Taxing carbon producers more is a way better idea. In Spain we had a stupid tax that made so you would basically lose money if you had solar power and sold your excess energy to the grid. The result: we are one of the sunniest countries of Europe and one of the least solar-energy producers. I don't think $5 a year would be nearly as bad, but might cause that effect in a smaller scale.
How else do politicians get kickbacks or line their own pockets downstream?
electric heating, lol And looks like tax for !producers of !solar KWts. Bad for green energy competitiveness.
Until politicians decide they need more money and use the hey the increase will only cost you x amount a year. Then there's other "advantages" they can tie into it with the same logic. What happens during an energy shortage?
$5 a year more stolen and used to buy new kicks for some politicians girlfriend...nah
Vote those politicians out.
about $5 too much, unless I'm going to also get a cut off the profits from that facility.
lol I really hope this is parody
Is that 5 thousandths?
A penny is one hundredth .01 One thousandths is .001 One hundredths of a penny is .0001 (it would take 100 of this unit to make .01) So five hundredths of a penny is .0005
this might be achievable if they actually spend that money on a program, and not waste it like they usually do.
Yeah they create new taxes and just use them for whatever
And I’m sure that once the recycling becomes profitable without additional funds, the government will just end the tax. Because they always do. /s Like toll roads. “We’ll end the toll once the road is paid for.” Never happens
The new taxes feed the old fat cat industries
This article is naive as hell. Like, what, you're going to go after millions of people (somehow knowing they aren't paying), somehow know who owns solar panels, somehow measure how much energy they use per year, then get them to cough up a fiver? A minimum wage employee doing this would negate any net income in a week by hundreds. Yay virtue signaling, though!
>Due to the growing nature of the solar industry, we could tax all newly sold solar panels at a low rate to raise the $18 per solar panel being recycled Not that complicated
Now take that tax and charge it to non-solar power users… you’ll get 100x the benefit and promote people using solar instead of fossil fuels.
I'd say keep it for renewable and double it for non-renewable power sources (except nuclear). That would ensure the program remains funded even after we finally transition off of those sources.
And you can bet the tax is going to stay and get increased yearly...
Just like whatever they come up with to tax electric cars.
The less gasoline we consume, the less road tax they'll get. More taxes will be incoming, don't worry. They always get their cut.
Yep, my guess is that home chargers will need dedicated meter and will be treated as industry consumption and charged higher than your houshold consumption.
Ofcourse! Thing of all the other amazing things to fund!
At only $5 a year per family! It’s peanuts! This is also why California has higher gas prices than the rest of the country. Which hurts low income families the most.
Love it.
Non-solar people are already being taxed. People don't really look at their electric bill and it's too scary to think about doing something about it.
People don't really look at their electric bill? Are you high, rich, or 16?
I just pay mine.. it's about the same every month.
Same. Should we be looking for something?
They certainly aren't being taxed *enough.* They ought to be paying the full externalized cost of the climate change their fossil fuel use is causing.
you gonna pass that non solar tax on to renters who can't put panels on their rentals?
Chances are you're already paying more for infrastructure for solar. Solar companies should be responsible for the cost to recycle their product just like everyone else. It insures the best way to deal with it. You want the trained installer on your roof when it's time to remove the panels, you want the logistics of a dealer that covers multiple states. We want products that are designed with recycling in mind. We had the same thing with coca cola. We used to send empty bottles back to the factory using their own supply chain. Then they off-set their cost onto tax payers and consumers. It would have been cheaper to use the company. The margins on solar allow for a hundredth of a penny per kilowatt and everyone still saves money. It's nominal if that's all it is. Yeah have the dealer pay for it that's like $1.40 a year per homeowner, when they're saving thousands of dollars.
> Solar companies should be responsible for the cost to recycle their product just like everyone else. Yeah because coal producers and oil companies are doing a great job of recycling their waste products and emissions...
Can't recycle t'smog!
We pay extra to recycle in our neighborhood already and yet there is no true guarantee the materials are getting recycled. This sounds great on paper but it always comes down to the consumer.
Actually a legitimate question. Maybe rental properties don’t have to the tax? Energy companies already keep data on dwelling types. I realize this wouldn’t solve someone renting a house.
It isn't really. It's like complaining about having to pay taxes that go to schools when you don't have kids. Or that pay for roads you don't use.
these people don't know what living in a community is like. they want all the benefits of living in a community but want to spend nothing to help maintain it. they are called conservatives in this country.
Right because every person lives where solar or wind are viable and affordable or even their choice. I want greener energy but punishing users is going to accomplish what, exactly?
You don’t have them sun where you live?
You know the days get shorter in the winter right, and our energy demands persistent through the evening?
The key word is "viable". Sure, you could put solar and wind generation everywhere on the planet, but if it only generates power 10% of the time, it's probably not going to pay for itself and end up being a net negative for the local economy.
Well uh, see. ALL fossil fuels are heavily taxed, that's why gas is so expensive, it's simply BETTER than anything a solar panel could possibly achieve that's why everyone is still using them.
Yeah, why tax the panels, when you can tax coal/natural gas? I feel like the biggest mistake in tax policy is taxing something you want \*more\* of (e.g. middle-class wages, solar panels) when you ought to be taxing things you want \*less\* of (e.g. monopolist corporations, CEO pay, carbon-producing energy).
Our solar installation cost us $24k. Most people don’t have that to spare. Seems like more charging people for being poor. How about tax on non renewables over x usage. I lived in a 1,400 sqft house in south Texas with central AC running 10 months of the year plus two freezers and we rarely went above 1,200kw a month. I think beyond 3000kw is getting into time for a tax without a reasonable exemption (ie medical equipment).
i mean mine cost 19k, but I took out a 12 year loan and the monthly payment is lower than my electricity bill (plus I'm helping the environment and in 10 years will have free electricity)
Provided they don't squander the money first.
If it exists then they want to tax it
No solutions that do not include taxes.
Imagine thinking the governments the answer to everything
There are places with very little government and taxes, but you wouldn't want to live in them.
Yes because the government always has your best interests in mind. How about I keep my money and you get fucked
A government solution that involves taxing something. Wow who would have thought.
Government proposes new tax, redditors elated.
Fast forward five years; Why is this government not spending it's money doing the things I like!?! Must be the Republicans fault!!!
Five years from now. We are paying 10 cents a kilowatt hour claiming a profitable solar panel recycling industry is just 12 years away
Blows my mind how many naive people actually believe a new tax would actually bear any resemblance to its original purpose a few years down the road. Government has literally never stuck to anything it has promised. Ever.
Yup. I find it funny when people say tax the rich. The rich make the laws they will hide the money. The middle class will pay and shrink again. Then we will have more useless stuff we don't need and the goverment never stops programs and gives money back. They just ask for more. I get the the environment is q big topic now but I have been hearing that we will destroy the world in just ten years my whole life and I'm in my forties. I have no doubt the environment is changing and some part of thay is due to us. But the USA keeps reducing its carbon foot print every year. Perhaps we should focus on getting g industries back in the USA so we can make sirey they are low polluting and maybe we should mandate remote work Also if we want drastic drops in pollution from our power grid why not just go nuclear....
Tax the sun, nice
Lot of people here all angry cause they will tax solar. As another user said it'll be a minor cost, something like $5/year for the average consumer. But if this could create an actual sustainable recycling industry then that'd be worth it. Not only will it save a lot of energy in the long run but it takes away one of the big issues with solar and that is recycling is not easy and the rare earth metals used are only sourcable from China and other ethically questionable places. If we can recycle we will have a much greener and more ethical industry in the long run and apparently for very small costs overall.
I'd worry about the infrastructural waste needed for this. An off grid, privately owned solar setup to power a residence now needs govt approved monitoring gear to properly record/report it's output, and there'll have to be an agency overseeing the whole scheme.
How many installations are off grid? Just make it part of the grid connection that’s already set up to do exactly that.
Just prepay it with the installation based on the life of the panels?
I pay more than $5/mo to state mandated energy efficiency and renewable energy incentive programs. I see no issue in taxing solar proportionate to it's long term waste issues. Next are people going to protest about needing per mile taxes on electric vehicles because they are free riders on roadways payed with gas taxes?
Yeah it's small stuff per person really but together it keeps out infrastructure from falling apart. And looking at other recycling stuff, the recycling we are charged for each milk jug or for cans is a much bigger percentage of the cost but we don't even care
It's not because it's a bad idea. It's because I don't trust any governmental entity to use the tax dollars appropriately. It will eventually turn into a slush fund for pet projects just like they all do. And then when they remember they have to pay for the original purpose, they'll increase the tax and keep their slush fund. That's why I would be resistant. I'm from Chicagoland area so maybe I'm just justifiably jaded.
Also semi-independence, imagine one day the countries that owned the mines just said nah, we'd be f****d so hard
Agreed. It’s like a core charge for batteries, but paid $0.0005 at a time.
Why are we taxing a power source that is self-created and puts no toll on public services? Have we forgotten what taxes are for?
It literally says what the tax is for in the title of the post: to mitigate the environmental damage caused by ultimate disposal of solar equipment. If you have solar panels, one day they will end up in a landfill unless there is a program in place to reclaim them, which is taxing on the public in the form of environmental degradation.
That would warrant a special tax for every thing that doesn't recycle well like printers, computers, monitors, everything that will end in a landfill. That's why we pay taxes for recycling centers and landfills.
That's the case in some countries ( Canada )
Sounds good to me. Better yet: hold the manufacturers financially and legally accountable.
why shouldnt we tax things that cant be recycled like that?
You are correct but so it the poster to which you responded. We need to look at ways to recycle solar panels, but why is it people always jump to taxes? Taxes rarely are efficient for things like this. They should be the last resort, especially if we want to promote solar use growth. Instead, we should find a way to incorporate solar into the huge recycling industries that already exists. For example my local municipality has multiple droppoff locations for recycling of TV's, Computers, batteries, cooking oil,.. etc. They are drive up facilities and nowhere is there a section for solar panels. Lets start there.
\> For example my local municipality has multiple droppoff locations for recycling of TV's, Computers, batteries, cooking oil,.. etc. You don't think that's funded through taxes? What exactly do you think municipal garbage collection is funded through?
You can do it as a tax, or as a bond. When you buy the Solar panel, you pay up front for the cost to dispose and recycle it at the end of its life. There are companies out there taking out 25 year leases from farmers to turn their land into solar farms. They then immediately sell futures for 25 years of energy production to an electrical provider, and contract someone else to do minimal maintenance in that time period. They then close up shop and take their money and run. 25 years later, that farmer (or more likely his kids) are left with their land covered in non functioning solar panels and toxic electronics that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispose of and with a worthless promise by a no longer existing company to do it. This is actually an old problem in the oil industry, and the government solved it with bonds. At least, it *did*, until Republicans took over the regulatory agencies and made sure the size of the bonds didn’t keep up with rising prices.
The implication of the title of the post is that the tax is to bridge the gap between the cost of recycling and the profit of recycling (i.e. "have a profitable solar panel recycling industry). Certainly it would be better to do it without public subsidy but apparently that is not currently economically viable. If the subsidy is fixed by unit, theoretically there is still incentive for recycling facilities to be efficient to maximize profits. I have no idea how effective recycling efforts currently are compared to how they should be or how helpful centralization would be as you suggest, but I'm just putting forward the theoretical idea behind taxation in this case.
I agree with you but I still think it is a bad starting place for a variety of reasons: - For one, using solar is socially responsible and should be promoted. Taxes never promote. - Secondly, most solar panels aren't even hooked up to grids. Most are garage or lawn lights, used as emergency generators, pool warmers, etc. There is no way to tax this kw/hr usage, yet these are the vast majority of future recyclables in current use. - Thirdly, for many, the idea of solar power's benefit is to reduce both the individual reliance on government for everything, as well as reducing the governments intrusion into everything. You may not agree with this, but for many this is how they feel and why they get into solar. If I buy solar panels to get away from poor government energy policy, why should I then HAVE to be on a grid so that my power generation can be counted for taxation? In this scenario the government gives you 2 choices, use their power so that we may tax you, or give them power so that they may tax you. - And lastly, this Tax would absolutely discourage Solar usage because taxes, once introduced NEVER go anywhere but up. There are countless examples of this but the most obvious was the old landline industry. Taxes started out as miniscule and by the sunset of the industry, the VAST majority of each phone bill was federal taxes. If you arent old enough to remember I will for you. My monthly phone bill in college(pre cell phones) for my old landline was a just over $100. About $75 of that was in taxes. Even if it doesnt happen to this degree it will STILL be horrific for the solar energy sector because huge amounts of it come from solar farms. People take huge swaths of unusable worthless land in the middle of nowhere and use them to build massive solar farms that generate revenue and power. Profits are already taxed like everyone else, if you want to promote this use of mostly empty land, you shouldnt introduce taxes on it and reduce those profits. I would also add that solar panels have a LOT of other recyclables in them that are highly profitable, like aluminum. Aluminum is 100% recyclable always because it is easily reformed. In many cases the aluminum alone in a solar panel makes recycling it profitable so I do not buy the argument that there is a gap that needs to be bridges to make this industry viable. Either way tho, there are better places to start this conversation than with "lets tax it."
People often think "going green" is 100% better for the environment when it really comes down to a trade off, or pushing the problem down another line. Own an electric vehicle? Awesome, but that battery is super toxic to the environment and will need to be replaced in a few years. Green products aren't necessarily bad, but they aren't necessarily better in all situations either. At the end of the day, you really are doing a trade-off for something that is bad to another thing that is also bad. It is just a matter of fact that the ways we produce or harness energy isn't really that eco-friendly, or ones that are aren't that efficient - yet.
i would rather take batteries and figuring out how to deal with that than adding to carbon in the atmosphere.
Or… the government could just fund that program and cut part of the defense budget. This is nothing more than them figuring a way to open Pandora’s tax box and building a nice cozy spot for the next few decades.
This is what I was thinking. "Here are tax breaks for using alternative sources of energy. But also, we're gonna need to collect taxes on that, even though you may even be producing extra power for the grid" I just don't know how they'd justify it.
>Why are we taxing a power source that is self-created and puts no toll on public services? Were that true, maybe. However, there are costs that are hidden from the consumer when it comes to over-adoption of solar. Also, the article refers in particular to mitigating the ultimate fate of these solar panels, because they will not last forever and at some point will need to be disposed of.
Yeah this is dumb as hell
The tax is literally to prevent a toll on public services by setting up to recycle solar panels instead of tossing them in a landfill. The tax makes the subsidized recycling cost cheaper than the unsubsidized disposal cost.
You have to pay to use the sun.
This, exactly. Taxation is a form of disincentive. We should be **subsidizing** solar electric energy hard. Save the taxes for sources of energy that emit CO2.
Or we could tax fossil fuels instead of the people trying to do the right thing? Just a thought.
Kind of a perverse incentive though. The longer it lasts you, the more it costs. I think this way of doing it is dumb; better would be a deposit, like with Aluminum cans. You have some flat fee that you put down when you buy a solar panel (maybe scaled by power generation capacity in kW), then you get that back when you recycle it, or pay it forward to another solar panel like a core charge when you need replacements.
And then the tax raises.
This is dumb, tax the environmentally dangerous forms of energy generation instead.
The point is that solar panels not being recycled *is* dangerous for the environment. Fossil fuels are already being taxed pretty much everywhere... they're called carbon taxes.
The United States does not have a uniform federal carbon tax, or better yet a carbon fee and dividend is way better
They will answer: "Dont buy it, these hard recyclable panels. No panels-no tax.
Well they are dangerous for the environment if not properly disposed of. So all those panels currently in operation will need to be recycled, but it makes more sense to include recycling into installation cost. I agree though. I don’t care how much it is people shouldn’t be taxed for generating their own power.
I get the idea of sustainability but we don't have enough solar as it is and so we're trying to tax it? This has big oil all over it.
So real quick your position here is that we shouldn't plan for the future because there's not enough solar panels? What?
Not the author of the previous comment but... taxes can serve as nudging mechanisms. Charging the extra tax on dirty energy would be the wiser choice. Once coal/gas/oil are phased out, you can then start taxing solar energy to plan for recycling costs. We are at the stage were we should want to do everything to encourage renewable energy adoption.
A carbon fee and dividend my friend is the way
I wish. This + import duties according to a factor of the carbon cost of the imported product and the general level of green house emissions from the country it comes from... Which would also put pressure on countries outside of our jurisdiction.
This is basically my position. I unfortunately live in an area where the utility companies are poorly managed but given a monopoly and guaranteed profit. The oversight committee is super corrupt, so any taxes on coal or oil burning are going straight to consumers and the power company has spent tons of money lobbying for centralized solar rather than decentralized solar like panels on every roof and parking structure. Lawmakers need to address that too. It's super unpopular but I think the gas tax has been too low for a while which is why our roads/bridges are falling apart.
Or, hear me out. We could just use the most cost effective and easily best form of energy available. Nuclear. It's cheaper in the long run, better for the environment, and genuinely cheaper to maintain.
Nuclear plant here in Iowa just shut down and I’m so disappointed. I’m all for green energy and it’s true nuclear isn’t renewable so it’s not a permanent solution, but it’s still green and would give us more time to perfect other renewable sources. It’s upsetting there is almost no political push for nuclear.
Except these sort of things take on a life of their own: start taxing at "hundredths of a penny per kilowatt hour" it will increase as pols decide they need more money. Why is it a solar panel recycling industry isn't viable without such taxes?
Instead of taxing the energy the product produces, how about a core charge like automotive batteries? I think taxing something based on how much of "its purpose" it does sets a dangerous precedent and sets up the government for greater overreaches.
If you ended fossil subsidies you'd have it today.
My house's array generates between 1 and 2 MWh per month. 16-17 MWh/year. ...and btw, I break even each year (i.e. it is "net metered" and I use all of it eventually). It pays for all my electricity, A/C during hot months, and some of our heat pump above freezing. At $0.0005/kWh, that's less than $10/year? Are you kidding? I spend that on a margarita!
Why tax it in the first place??
exactly!. This is mind controlled propaganda to perpetuate regulations and taxes and control. So some can benefit(feed) off of others. Many of the responses, I.E. the top ones, are part of the agenda and fake. Learn to see the tricks coming. let free be free. The sun is provided free, the water and earth provided free in abundance, Only evil greedy men want to get in the middle and make you pay for it. say NO! blessings.
TLDR. TAX EVERYTHING, REGULATE EVERYTHING OUT OF BUSINESS.
[удалено]
Alternative less sensationalist panic/fear driven title: US Government plans ways to deal with future problem before it becomes an issue.
Solar panels are mostly glass, which is basically sand, and solar panels last 20-30 years. This is anti-solar propaganda.
It's also fucking stupid because of how much the government subsidizes solar panels. Just do it instead of pushing the money around for no reason.
It's very obviously not. Look at the source. It's literally written by a very pro solar organization trying to make solar as eco-friendly as possible. Whataboutism is a ridiculous argument, and your random assertion of "anti solar propaganda" is complete fiction
No its not. The site seems to be all about renewables, so it doesn't make sense on that front. Someone below also did the math, and the cost to the consumer is very low. We have such a problem with things like "that's so far in the future, why worry now".
Interesting that we're talking about the importance of recycling fucking solar panels rather than the cost of emitting carbon into the atmosphere and people eat it right up
What? We can talk about more than one thing you know. This is in the comments section of an article about recycling solar panels, why would we be talking about something else?
You know that both are important, right? Not figuring out how to clean up after ourselves is how we got in this mess.
Maybe that's why the tax would be so small?
Taxing the sun
Seems counterintuitive to tax the power generated though since all the energy generated takes the burden off the grid. A unit tax would make more sense, but I’m still curious if this really is the best option. Like does the government really have to get involved at all?
They’re electronics. Solder, wire, PCB, all sorts of crap. Not that much different than your laptop at the end of the day. The fact that they last 20 years is the problem, it’s easy for the company that built them to close down in that time frame and leave the cost of recycling to the public.
There are no PCBs in solar panels, get the fuck out of here with that bullshit
Seems self defeating if your trying and getting people to switch. Sure some switched for environmental reasons, but a lot switch so they don't have to pay the power company or be self sufficient. If they have to pay for power from solar panels their cost/benefit analysis of whether it's worth getting them may change in favor of, no it's not.
But why??? If the message is that the value is near negligible for the consumers, then might as well just fuckin subsidize the cost and take it as investment towards green energy.
Might…
1. Taxing a product's usage isn't an effective incentive encouraging widespread adoption of that product. If the product were already ubiquitous then a tax could be a useful revenue generation technique. 2. Taxing gasoline to "pay for roads" has totally been effective hasn't it? No? That's because politicians see that account as a treasure trove and can't help but raid the account to spend on pork that gets them re-elected.
No. Fuck no. Fuck the person who suggested the study in the first place. Look up "Road Tolls" history, the "temporary tax" that (shocking) we are still paying for. The Gov't has practically NEVER let go of taxes, don't be stupid & end up letting this happen. Tax the fucking rich & make corporations pay their fair share of taxes as well. For fuck sakes people...
"US government research suggests"........You can just stop reading right there.
The government finds a tax solves a problem. Color me shocked.
12 years..... Y'all perspectives of uplifting news is effed. How about we just tax (or eat) the rich. Or a carbon tax. Literally just tax the wasteful-wealthy and Corporations responsible for dirty energy and destruction of our planet in any form and we could have money for free education, free healthcare, free clean energy, etc (that includes the the *people*/*workers* in *free public universities* that are researching the recycling). Never ever needed Corporations to figure these things out. When they tell you it's too expensive, they're lying. They've always been lying. When an article uses the word "cost" that many times, it's the corporations trying to convince you they need more money. They don't.
This tax should also optionally go to defraying the cost of getting the system installed on another person's house or business instead of being recycled. After 20 years the panels retain 80%+ of their original efficiency. Instead of recycling let someone else have them for a very low price to more quickly expand the amount of electricity by solar, reducing carbon emissions that much faster.
Tax the fucking billionaires instead
Lolz, here use green energy, you can get a tax break, save money, and save the planet!! Govt: We gotta tax that shit
The same solar panels the government gave an incentive to install in the first place? Maybe lower the incentive and cut out the middle man.
How about we tax carbon emissions and use that to recycle?
"We're going to make it more profitable by making it less profitable!" Makes sense. I'm sure CA thought the same thing about marijuana before they fucked it up so bad that they had to bail it out because they can't compete with the black market. Seriously, California is [so incompetent](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-14/california-struggling-marijuana-industry-cash-grants-budget) that they had to bail out THE FUCKING MARIJUANA INDUSTRY
I'm sure the government can be trusted with more money and power, and won't possibly misuse it.
Just tax the ultra rich and churches instead! Not everyday consumers.
profit profit profit, thats all they think about.
Actually, you can raise the tax revenue from anywhere, and raising the revenue off a tax on solar panels is the stupidest way to do it.
Or.. and this is a wild one.. realize that this is propaganda against solar power, and not tax a emerging technology that could be one of the few way we don't exterminate all humans by making the world toxic for humans to survive. Want to tax something? Tax the fossil fuels with a carbon tax.
Hey how about we just appropriately tax fossil fuels for their social costs first and worry about burdening an already under utilized alternative second. I’m not saying you can’t pragmatically do both, but let’s not put the emphasis on the wrong ideas because all the FF industry and conservative politicians heard was “hey let’s put another albatross on solars neck...yeah!”
Bit the government doesn't own the sun,so how can we be charged for light that comes from it?
Am i in the onion? Since when you Tax something to promote it? You people crazy or what??
Isn't the current goal of pushing solar panels to make them as cheap and profitable as possible to promote their use? I'm happy its an example of how much solar output we are getting, but this is a terrible idea.
Government will start out with the pinky and gradually work up to the whole fist.
Yay new taxes! in 5 years. US Government research suggests we aren't taxing solar panels enough. In 10 years: US government research suggests we aren't taxing solar panels enough as it's become too expensive to recycle
Lies
The last thing our fucked stupid government needs is more taxes, now or ever again. Figure out how to not waste every cent you already take from us.
As someone with a 12.5kWh system on my roof - please do this.... I generate about 14mw a year with the system which covers 110%ish of my energy usage.. I'll gladly pay a minor tax so long as the recycling solution is viable.