04 Sep 23
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/[WORD TOO LONG]/
Sanders and EPA Administrator Announce $7 Billion Solar for All Program That Combats Climate Change and Lowers Energy Costs for Working Families
BURLINGTON, Vt., June 28 – At an event today in Waterbury, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael S. Regan announced a $7 billion grant competition for rooftop and residential solar that will increase access to affordable, resilient, and clean solar energy for millions of low-income households in Vermont and across the country.
Championed by Sanders in the Senate and established when the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law in August of 2022, the Solar for All program will help expand access to rooftop and residential solar by awarding up to 60 grants to states, territories, Tribal governments, municipalities, and eligible nonprofits. The new grant competition will provide funds to expand existing low-income solar programs as well as develop and implement new Solar for All programs nationwide.
“At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, all while dealing with the existential threat of climate change, we must make residential rooftop solar a reality for low-income and working families that need it most,” said Sen. Sanders. “This $7 billion residential solar program that I introduced and the EPA is administering is a major step in the right direction. I look forward to working with the EPA on this program to make it more affordable for low-income and working-class families to install solar on their homes and save money on their electricity bills, as well as help create millions of good jobs in Vermont and across the country.”
@vivify saidAustralia tried this and it was like virtually every mega project a major failure, the NBN, QLD's desalination plant, the only conclusion one can come to is Sanders is in the pocket of the roof top solar panel vendors. The way so much of goobermint was in the pocket of the mega billion $ drug Co's.
[youtube]f5pGd2w1a_0?si=1Wp_gUsnlOLqv0Jv[/youtube]
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/[WORD TOO LONG]/
[b]Sanders and EPA Administrator Announce $7 Billion Solar for All Program That Combats Climate Change and Lowers Energ ...[text shortened]... city bills, as well as help create millions of good jobs in Vermont and across the country.”
It's all jobs for the boys with back channeling.
You saps keep swallowing the story they've got your welfare at heart, there's only one principle: get in power, stay in power and use your money to do it.
04 Sep 23
@Wajoma
Solar doesn't even fight climate change like he falsely claimed. Making the panels puts a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe he is just ignorant. Doesn't China sell the most solar panels in the USA?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-dominates-u-s-solar-market-as-lawmakers-tussle-over-tariffs-7c2d749d
Sanders would have to be in the pocket of China's solar manufacturers. Right?
04 Sep 23
@metal-brain saidYou make up for any manufacturing cost within 3 years of running that solar panel. They will also get better.
@Wajoma
Solar doesn't even fight climate change like he falsely claimed. Making the panels puts a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe he is just ignorant. Doesn't China sell the most solar panels in the USA?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-dominates-u-s-solar-market-as-lawmakers-tussle-over-tariffs-7c2d749d
Sanders would have to be in the pocket of China's solar manufacturers. Right?
@metal-brain saidAll technology ever madeimproves over time.
What is your source of information?
Light bulbs, cars, computers, cell phones, the internet: any technology you can name is comparably better now than in the past.
It will be the same with solar panels the more popular they get.
04 Sep 23
@vivify saidWe've heard this idiot claim before, there is only so much energy in a square meter of sunlight, there's no where to go. And the sun only shines x numbers of hours a day.
All technology ever madeimproves over time.
Light bulbs, cars, computers, cell phones, the internet: any technology you can name is comparably better now than in the past.
It will be the same with solar panels the more popular they get.
04 Sep 23
@vivify saidAs usual, Sen. Sanders misses the point.
[youtube]f5pGd2w1a_0?si=1Wp_gUsnlOLqv0Jv[/youtube]
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/[WORD TOO LONG]/
[b]Sanders and EPA Administrator Announce $7 Billion Solar for All Program That Combats Climate Change and Lowers Energ ...[text shortened]... city bills, as well as help create millions of good jobs in Vermont and across the country.”
Rooftop solar energy has been around and available for decades to be installed at no cost and the rental cost is supposed to be roughly the same as your energy savings. I got solar panels on my roof in 2015 for $0 down, and it wasn't government subsidized. I pay X amount per month and I save Y amount per month on electicity. Which is greater? I don't really know. In the summer Y is greater and in the winter X is greater and there are too many variables to really do a full analysis. I imagine I'm losing a little net, but not enough to get worked up over.
But here's the thing: If the technology is efficient enough to be worth it, then the government doesn't have to throw a dime at it. And if it's not, then unless the government is going to subsidize everyone's utility bills forever, it's one massive exercise in futility. You can throw government money at things, but government money can't change the fundamental natures of the relative technologies.
If the government really wants to throw money at solar energy, it should invest in research to make the technology more efficient than fossil fuels. Then it won't have to spend a dime on the panels. The free market will take care of that part.
Of course, there already is a clean technology that's at least as efficient as fossil fuels: nuclear energy. But for some bizzare reason (which betrays their non-seriousness about the entire issue), most environmentalists have not pushed this as a solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
@sh76 saidyou're already subsidizing fossil fuel
As usual, Sen. Sanders misses the point.
Rooftop solar energy has been around and available for decades to be installed at no cost and the rental cost is supposed to be roughly the same as your energy savings. I got solar panels on my roof in 2015 for $0 down, and it wasn't government subsidized. I pay X amount per month and I save Y amount per month on electicity. Which is g ...[text shortened]... ntire issue), most environmentalists have not pushed this as a solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
"Then it won't have to spend a dime on the panels. The free market will take care of that part."
so you should stop subsidies to big oil then?
"If the technology is efficient enough to be worth it, then the government doesn't have to throw a dime at it."
There are costs involved when adopting a new energy. You have to spend money until you break even then a free source of renewable energy becomes better than a wasteful, finite one.
I know the republican way is to run up the bill and have the next one pick it up. Which is why you will simply be outvoted.
"Of course, there already is a clean technology that's at least as efficient as fossil fuels: nuclear energy"
It's not an either-or situation
04 Sep 23
@sh76 saidNuclear energy leaves nice, "clean" waste which is toxic for tens of thousands of years. And the entire industry couldn't exist without government subsidies and special protections, so your post is hilariously internally inconsistent.
As usual, Sen. Sanders misses the point.
Rooftop solar energy has been around and available for decades to be installed at no cost and the rental cost is supposed to be roughly the same as your energy savings. I got solar panels on my roof in 2015 for $0 down, and it wasn't government subsidized. I pay X amount per month and I save Y amount per month on electicity. Which is g ...[text shortened]... ntire issue), most environmentalists have not pushed this as a solution to greenhouse gas emissions.
04 Sep 23
@pawnpaw saidHe'll need a big rocket:
Scientists should think out side the box, or the sphere, icw nuclear waste. If its so toxic to humans, Elon Musk must shoot it with rockets or whatever into the sun... solved.
"About 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors remain stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/
04 Sep 23
@no1marauder
True. If that slingshot system is working, they can put it in repeat mode, ongoing slinging all the waste into space.
Dream on, hey.