yes

I do not think so. This was done not to long ago. Did that accomplish anything of value.
It was done to conserve gas and electric use.

they already do here in australia.

Yes, certainly, but also then discounts for concession holders, to make it fair, such as pensioners, who do not pay tax.

Government gives up to $2000.- for LPG Conversion for cars and could give tax rebates or choose to give a Grant to a person who wants to convert to solar power!

No. Domestic solar power systems are costly, inefficient, in the hands of untrained people, require large amounts of battery storage in heavy metal batteries and when a single house is producing more than it can use, so is every other similarly equipped house in the neighbourhood. See my answer to “A conversation about energy” a few questions later than this one.

Solar hot water systems though are a different matter and every effort should be made to encourage their use.

no

solar power is an investment… and a choice.

When it becomes practical and economical, then realistic people will start getting the systems.

Right now… its unreasonably expensive. So only unrealistic people want it.

Why should my tax dollars subsidize your impractical unrealistic solar system?

It costs apex $0.08 a kilowatt hr to produce electricity now using standard methods. (mostly coal fired plants)

It ends up costing $0.60 to $1.20 per kilowatt hr to produce electricity using solar power.

You just about have to be insane to put the solar system on your house.

Solar panels for solar photovoltaic systems are esentially status symbols for people who are wealthy enough to buy a home.

The only people who benefit are wealthy homeowners.

Solar photovoltaic systems produce very little electricity for the amount of money spent.

A homeowner unit produces electricity at a cost of over $1.00 per kilowatt hour. That is a very expensive way to produce electricity.

A better way to spend that money would be to pay for government owned wind turbines to produce and sell electricity to the wholesale market or directly to consumers.

Wind turbines are much more efficient and cost effective producers of electricity.

The cost of production of electricity with a wind turbine is only 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Compare that with the over one dollar per kilowatt hour cost of production of electricity by a homeowner solar photovoltaic system.

One thing that the Enron debacle taught us is how easy it is to manipulate the energy markets.

If the Federal Government provided an alternate source of electricity it would be much more difficult for unscrupulous businesspeople to manipulate the market.

Yes to the rebate for any energy saving device or operation.

There is a federal tax rebate for solar power up to $2000. There is also tax rebates or deductions from most states with income taxes as well. Also many states have a rebate program that basically helps pay for the system unrelated to the tax system. California for instance will pay about $2.50 per installed watt. For a typical home systems that will work out to about $5000.

If you are interested in estimating the cost of a system for your home and would also like information about available rebates and tax incentive try the website below. Check out the “My Solar Estimator” link.

Solar power is actually very cost effective. It rases the value of your home and counting that value increase, most well designed solar installations will pay for themselves within about five years. That depends of course on the amount of sun you get and your local electrical rates.

The government already offers a deduction of sorts for installing solar panels. The problem is, solar panels are ungodly expensive and what the government offers in deduction doesn’t begin to cover the expenses regarding installing collectors and energy storage devices to run a house. What the government refunds back is the equivalent of installing enough solar energy to power your hot water heater. The cost to completely power a 2000 square foot house with solar energy is in the neighborhood of $95,000. The government, even if you factor in state tax rebates, accounts for about $5,000 of that. Meaning you would have to use the solar energy for over FIFTY YEARS before it paid for itself–assuming nothing ever broke and had to be replaced. And seeing as how solar panels don’t significantly increase the value of your home….

Personally I don’t think the answer is to offer bigger rebates to those who wish to go solar, but rather to stop living in the 70’s and build more nuclear facilities. The plants currently running are all at least 30 years old. Technology is SO much better now than it was then, there would essentially be no risk of contamination, and it would light a fire under their ***** to finally finish constructing the disposal site in Yucca.

Nuclear energy is cheap, it’s efficient, and most importantly, it’s almost completely emission free, making it the best option. While it’s true that there is no purer form of energy than wind, each mill produces so little energy that it would require mammoth fields the size of a large city to produce enough energy to really matter.