Well the liberal media is elated that solar power in Florida just got a boost from the Public Service Commission (PSC).

In their editorial, "Fueling solar power" the Sarasota Herald-Tribune says that, "The PSC, which regulates utilities, approved a rule change that triples the credit for excess solar energy that homeowners and businesses sell to power companies. The PSC also expanded the size of solar electric systems that qualify for the program and broadened the types of systems eligible to all sources of solar energy, not just photovoltaic cells."

Here we go, government subsidizing one thing over another and thereby trying to impact the market. We believe, like Milton Friedman, that the government solution to any problem is worse than the problem itself. Our question is who is paying for the credits? We consumers are, of course.

This is the same as subsidizing corn for ethanol in the Midwest that has the environmentalists up in arms because the fertilizer run off into the Gulf of Mexico has dramatically impacted the "dead zone".

Something that the editorial board says however is misleading at best and mis-information at worst. They state, "Locally, the PSC's new rule could help attain a goal set last Friday at a gathering of community leaders in Sarasota: that half of the homes and buildings in Sarasota County will have solar water heaters in five years. It was among the proposals made at the Environmental Summit for Action, which drew 180 representatives of the local, state and federal governments, community groups, businesses and environmental organizations."

In fact, there were only 97 participants remaining (not the implied 180) that voted on this "idea". According to the SCOPE post summit e-mail we received this was an "idea" and not a proposal. Most of the elected officials and nearly half of the participants left during the lunch break and never saw, discussed or voted on these "ideas". I have asked the Herald-Tribune to print a clarification.

Of course, 97 participants at a limited access summit do not equate to nor reflect the wants, needs and desires of the other 370,000 residents of Sarasota.

In the editorial the cost of implementing the "idea" that 50% of the "buildings" in Sarasota County would have solar water heaters is mentioned - between $3,000 and $5,000 for a single family home and much higher for larger systems.

What the editorial does not tell you is that a good standard water heater is around $300 and a tank less water heater system sold by Tankless, Inc. a Sarasota based green manufacturing company costs from $800 to $1,000 for a home with two adults, two teenage children and two showers. A tank less water heater saves the average home 70+% on their electricity bill because it only runs when used, unlike a standard water heater that runs 24 hours a day.

What they also don't tell you is that when the sun goes down or it is cloudy, no hot water. What if you go to work early before the sun comes up (remember daylight savings time) and want a hot shower? What if you take a shower in the evening? We also know people who have put solar powered pool heaters on their roofs and have serious problems with roof leaks and roof maintenance afterward.

Here are some cons of solar energy from PowerPedia:

• Limited areal power density: For electrical generation with photovoltaics, the average irradiation power density is approximately 1 kW/m² usable by 8-15% efficient solar panels.
• Intermittency: It is not available at night and is reduced when there is cloud cover, decreasing the reliability of peak output performance or requiring a means of energy storage. For power grids to stay functional at all times, the addition of substantial amounts of solar generated electricity would require one or more of the following;
  • energy storage facilities, such as Pumped-storage hydroelectric facilities, are needed to 'gapfill' low points in solar generation
  • other renewable energy sources (i.e., wind, geothermal, tidal, wave, ocean power, etc) would need to be active, or
  • backup conventional powerplants would be needed. There is an energy cost to keep coal-burning power plants 'hot', which includes the burning of coal to keep boilers at temperature. Natural gas power plants can quickly come up to full load without requiring significant standby idling. Without changes in the energy supply and control system (such as a shift to using current hydropower as nighttime/backup across wider regions or the incorporation of more renewable power), few coal power plants could be displaced, according to critics.
• Locations at high latitudes or with frequent substantial cloud cover offer reduced potential for solar power use.
• Solar cells produce DC which must be converted to AC when used in currently existing distribution grids. This incurs an energy penalty of 5-10%.
  

We want to say that we are not against solar water heaters or the companies that produce, market or sell them. We like companies that make standard water heaters, and companies like Tankless, Inc. a local green manufacturing company that builds, markets and sells tank less water heater systems. These companies should be able to compete in our markets on a level playing field.

Government should stay out of the way and not try to pick winners and losers. Government certainly should not impose upon the consumer one proposal or "idea" over another. Consumers should look at the pros and cons and costs of each system and make a decision.