32 replies to this topic

[rwac]

maxwatt, on 10 September 2011 - 03:04 AM, said:

It's not that simple,  and the direct subsidy has been phased out. The net result is that when it is needed, solar will be in place and cheaper than carbon based sources.

The subsidy has been phased out and the demand for solar cells has dropped, makes perfect sense.

It's not really cheaper, unless you ignore the fact that it was taxpayer subsidized. Someone had to pay for it, because the Government is not an unending fount of money...

[rwac]

maxwatt, on 10 September 2011 - 03:04 AM, said:

The net result is that when it is needed, solar will be in place and cheaper than carbon based sources.

Rather, the Government just invested in solar panels. Apparently this was an investment that individual people largely did not consider worthwhile without subsidies.

[Brainbox]

I don't think you should view this subsidizing initiative as a steady state situation, because it's dynamic. For product and market development, the first introduction stage is characterized by high development and production cost, low volume and hence high end user cost. Initially this subsidization was intended to help boots-trapping the market for solar panels into more profitable and end-user friendly stages. But, not uncommon for governments, they did not have the guts to continue the initiative up until its intended effect was realized. Leaving the market in a half baked situation were these discussions continue forever. In a way you are both right. It's the inconsistency of government policy caused by lack of guts that's the culprit here.

Edited by Brainbox, 10 September 2011 - 10:24 AM.