U.S Town rejects solar farm, worried they will 'suck up all the energy from the sun'.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Furthermore, these individuals are using falsehoods to achieve their aims, and one must accept that only ends achieved by truth have any merit whatsoever.

A big concern was job loss iirc. Can you prove that is a falsehood.

Ever noticed how two people, even from the same family, can argue about anything under the sun? They are both right in their own minds, and just never give an inch?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's possible the rest were stupid excuses and this was the real reason.

Did her property value actually go down or did it just not rise with her neighbors who have solar panels?

Solar panels will increase property value.

The economists looked at utility data, sales records of single family homes and building permit data in San Diego County and Sacramento County from 2003 through year-end 2010. The study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled “Understanding the Solar Home Price Premium: Electricity Generation and ‘Green’ Social Status,” is available here.

For the average installation, the authors found that solar panels added a $20,194 premium to the sales price of the house based on repeat sales data (houses were in the mid-$500,000 range). Solar is really expensive to install—the average total system cost is $35,967, but the effective price to homeowners with subsidies including the federal tax credit is $20,892. Thus, homeowners appear to recover approximately 97% of their investment costs – in addition to the savings associated with reduced energy bills.

Forbes

Of course maybe the property values go down if photosynthesis is stolen from the nearby plants and they all turn brown and die or the panels cause cancer...

(science teacher, really?)

originally posted by: Kali74

Solar is really expensive to install—the average total system cost is $35,967, but the effective price to homeowners with subsidies including the federal tax credit is $20,892. Thus, homeowners appear to recover approximately 97% of their investment costs – in addition to the savings associated with reduced energy bills.

This makes me nuts. Yeah, the homeowner who installed it is getting an effective rate of $20,000 installed but the actual cost is still $35,000 because the rest of the community paid for it via societal benefits charges on their utility bills.

a reply to: Britguy

If any brain power was used at all, I'm guessing that factory farming is taking over the area... which tends to be the leading cause of rural towns turning to ghost towns and land owners know that once they establish in an area adjacent properties tend to sell off their land to the factory farm. Farmers and livestock owners can't compete with factory. Funny how no one gets input about those.

a reply to: Kali74

Solar panels on the house will. That doesn't prove what a solar farm nearby will do to values.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Kali74

Solar is really expensive to install—the average total system cost is $35,967, but the effective price to homeowners with subsidies including the federal tax credit is $20,892. Thus, homeowners appear to recover approximately 97% of their investment costs – in addition to the savings associated with reduced energy bills.

This makes me nuts. Yeah, the homeowner who installed it is getting an effective rate of $20,000 installed but the actual cost is still $35,000 because the rest of the community paid for it via societal benefits charges on their utility bills.

We all pay to subsidize oil, coal and natural gas too with no end in sight to that drain.

originally posted by: Kali74
We all pay to subsidize oil, coal and natural gas too with no end in sight to that drain.

Nothing should be subsidized, ever. Either it is profitable and it works or it goes away, artificial market influencers are always bad decisions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If resident utilities don't go down or that wasn't part of the deal then that should be the issue.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm just saying that if subsidies are going to be used against renewables than that argument can be more than doubly used against fossil fuels. An argument that there is way too much private control over tax dollars would be more appropriate.

originally posted by: Kali74
I'm just saying that if subsidies are going to be used against renewables than that argument can be more than doubly used against fossil fuels.

Not disagreeing, I am just making it clear I do not play favorites. I think fossil fuels and renewables should receive the same subsidies as banks and automobile manufactures, ZERO.

An argument that there is way too much private control over tax dollars would be more appropriate.

That is certainly the case as well.

Here is the original source for the story: Link

The comments about 'scaring away young people' has to do with the state of the town apparently:

Mary Hobbs has been living in Woodland for 50 years and said she has watched it slowly becoming a ghost town with no job opportunities for young people.

She said her home is surrounded by solar farms and is no longer worth its value because of those facilities.

She added that the only people profiting are the landowners who sell their land, the solar companies, and the electrical companies.

Im not sure about the 'preventing photosynthesis' part, it sounds a little absurd, but the rest are not completely crazy comments, the cancer one for instance, might be related to the power substation:

The solar farm companies seek placement around Woodland because it has an electrical substation the solar power generated by the panels can be hooked up to the electrical grid.

And that's not really a new thing, kids growing up under power lines, etc

Whether or not EM fields cause cancer, it's been up for debate for a very long time, and evidence is mixed on it. But its something that has been and will continue to be tested for a long time to come.

I think some of the comments might be taken out of context, slightly. Others maybe not so much.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I do think there's some things that everyone should pitch in for and we have always done so... infrastructure, railroads, access to energy and clean water but yes, overall... profits should be able to be made and usually are without subsidy and there's way too much of it going on.

However I think what it all really boils down to is public perception we have working grids, jobs, cheap access. The problem is we really aren't recouping the most major losses. I think you know what I'm referring to. The general public... the voting public, what are representation actually directs us toward is fossils fuels good, profit good, makes people rich (woo-hoo!) and renewable bad, lofty, insufficient (for industry yes, residential no) and too easily associated with "earthy-crunchy freaks" who like to hug trees, not work or shower.

originally posted by: Kali74
I do think there's some things that everyone should pitch in for and we have always done so... infrastructure...

That is supposed to be handled via the gasoline tax and, if actually adhered to, would be fair as it would only be paid for by those who utilize the roadways.

...railroads...

Railroads are private enterprises that own and maintain their own physical plants and rights of way.

...access to energy and clean water but yes...

Energy production and distribution are private companies which also own and maintain their networks, they should not receive subsidies.

Water distribution can be both public and private depending on the municipality. If private it again is their physical plant to maintain and should not be subsidized, if public it should be revenue neutral.

overall... profits should be able to be made and usually are without subsidy and there's way too much of it going on.

If you need to be subsidized in your business than by definition it is not profitable and should be allowed to fail.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Neither should be subsidised, unfortunately they are.

From what I read about gas without subsidies it would cost around $12.75 a gallon.

If neither were subsidised many of the renewable energy technologies would be cheaper.


I don't know of any groups rallying to do away with nasty subsidies for both so until then we work with the framework.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Neither should be subsidised, unfortunately they are.

It is very unfortunate as the citizenry should not be involved in picking winners and losers along with the government.

From what I read about gas without subsidies it would cost around $12.75 a gallon.

Do you have a link to this?

If neither were subsidised many of the renewable energy technologies would be cheaper.

There is only one way to ascertain that.

I don't know of any groups rallying to do away with nasty subsidies for both so until then we work with the framework.

There are plenty of citizens that do not want to subsidize business and willfully maintaining the status quo only adds to our financial issues.

If more people experienced a solar farm we would have fewer because it does impact the area surrounding it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I didn't do a great search but this came up with a few key words.

Increasing Gas Prices Despite Subsidies
compare
COST COMPARISON OF ENERGY SOURCES 2015

And for the pump.

$3-$6 per gallon,

There are plenty of citizens that do not want to subsidize business and willfully maintaining the status quo only adds to our financial issues.

You and I can grumble about it, but that doesn't help.

originally posted by: searching411
If more people experienced a solar farm we would have fewer because it does impact the area surrounding it.

More or less than these?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Increasing Gas Prices Despite Subsidies

This is a blog post from 2011 with no links to hard data. The Congressional budgets from the year in question show dramatically different figures.

COST COMPARISON OF ENERGY SOURCES 2015

That shows that solar, at its cheapest, is still the same as natural gas at its highest.

$3-$6 per gallon,

That is an article discussing making fuel from seawater that would cost $3-6 a gallon. Gasoline by me is currently in the $1.70's.

You and I can grumble about it, but that doesn't help.

The more people that disgruntled individuals such as ourselves voice our concerns to is more that may ultimately change their own opinions.