For comparison, Field researched the property tax for the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Covert Township along Lake Michigan. He found that the annual real and personal property taxes for Palisades are just over $12 million or .2 cents per kilowatt hour.
…
Field said he considers Michigan’s system to be “schizophrenic” in the sense that it places a tax burden on renewable energy while at the same time the state has a renewable portfolio standard law to encourage renewable energy. He contends that all sources of producing energy should have the same per kilowatt hour tax rate.
Full story here
h/t to Mike Lorrey
Luboš Motl says:
May 16, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“I wonder why the hi-tech folks don’t invent some sophisticated panels that e.g. collect light from a bigger areas via mirrors and lenses, so that the area of the expensive solar panels is reduced, and/or why the detectors are not rotating themselves to optimize the inflow of radiation.”
A few year ago tracker systems were used in Germany to move the panels as you describe; but as silicon PV panels got cheaper, the tracker systems became too expensive. As they’re mechanical systems exposed to the weather, they’re not cheap. So, the invention WAS made, it WAS deployed, but not anymore.
dcardno says:
May 16, 2011 at 11:49 pm
You’d think we’d push for floating nuclear power plants, 2o miles off-shore.
Won’t someone think of the fish?…
/sarc
When I lived in Jacksonville, Florida this was under serious discussion by Jax Electric. They had to switch from oil burning plants to something after 1973 and this was part of the thinking. They finally settled on coal.
I live in the UP of Michigan and much is wrong with the RES passed several years ago by Granholm. This is one of them. My rates have almost doubled. Coal is good but Granholm spiked a coal plant before she left. But she was in love with the Volt. Sell Volts but cut back on electricity production. Fine move hers.
The math doesn’t work on that, no way $27,000 exceeds their profit on their generation. now if they are saying that their cost too service dept+property taxes exceeds their profit that me be true, and more likely is the case.
Don’t you love it when rent-seeking-bastards whine?
This is why rooftop solar is the best choice. The space is available, it shades the roof to lower cooling costs in the sumer, and the property tax is the same with or without the panels. Using farmland for solar energy is wasteful. Using buildings and homes is not.
Solar anywhere is wasteful simply because of its high capitol cost. Solar north of about 30 degrees north is foolish……..zenith angle to the sun and all that rot. I live in SW Lower Michigan near this plant and solar here is colossally stupid. As others have alluded to, Lake Michigan ensures we see very little sun through much of the late fall and winter.
Dear State of Michigan,
There is a power plant near Climax in Kalamazoo county that has sold 225,592 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Have they paid their sales tax on this sale?
I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING WITH A “NUKE”.
It was 1964 or 65, a hurricane hit Hawaii and a poseidon sub pulled up and ran the whole island for a while.
Jeese! I tell them how valuation for property tax purposes is established and they blather on in ignorance anyway. Go back and read what I wrote. If you spend a million bucks building a facility including the price of the land, your initial valuation is a million bucks minimum. End of story. It has nothing to do with dollars per Kwh or acres involved.
After a few years of losing money on that investment and establishing that no one in his right mind would pay you a million bucks for that property, you may appeal that valuation to the county tax assessor with a case for “market value”. But you can only establish your case after you have demonstrated over a period of time that, “I was a fool. I can’t find a buyer who is foolish enough to pay me anything like what I’ve put into this facility. I’m losing my behind on this property. Please give me the ‘terminally stupid’ reduction in valuation.”
Again, in most states the initial property valuation for tax purposes is the higher of either: 1) what you paid or 2) market value based on either comparable sales or cash flow analysis.
In the ’90’s when the “USSR” was contemplating having a fire sale, Asian Development Bank did a feasibility to help power Metro Manila with a lease of two Russian nuke subs. The MM area was having daily brown-outs at the time. It was found to be an easy installation nad the economics were excellent but anti-nuke public pressure and a sudden award for several IPO coal-fired plant installations ruled it out. There have been several “barge” power plants used but they are normally diesel or gas powered.
$27,689 is a ridiculous property tax bill. Something’s fishy.
Ah, I see the problem. Someone forgot to tell them that you don’t use prime real estate for solar farms. As the utility of the land is not a factor when installing solar panels, they could have used a brownsite or rocky, unfeasible building site. As we can see from the picture, that site could have been developed into housing at a far higher return.
Claude Harvey says:
May 17, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“Again, in most states the initial property valuation for tax purposes is the higher of either: 1) what you paid or 2) market value based on either comparable sales or cash flow analysis.”
There is also the “highest and best use” formula. Many commercial properties are taxed based on that concept without regard to what is actually built on the property or how it is used.
GaryP says:
May 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“There is a power plant near Climax in Kalamazoo county that has sold 225,592 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Have they paid their sales tax on this sale?”
Buyers pay sales tax, sellers simply collect it for the government.
Hi Dennis.
Would that be a reference to a Poseidon Missile sub?
Wiki is showing this regarding Poseidon missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-73_Poseidon
“The Poseidon missile was the second US Navy ballistic missile system, powered by a two-stage solid fuel rocket. It succeeded the Polaris missile beginning in 1972, bringing major advances in warheads and accuracy. It was followed by Trident I in 1979, and Trident II in 1990.
…
The first test launch took place on 16 August 1968 and the first test launch from a submarine took place on the USS James Madison on 3 August 1970. The weapon officially entered service on 31 March 1971. It eventually equipped Lafayette-, James Madison- and Benjamin Franklin-class submarines.”
Another reference on the Poseidon missile: http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/id.92/missile_detail.asp
.
A quick check of ’64 and ’65 showed nary a hurricane hitting Hawaii (although a tropical storm did $500,000 damage in 1958):
1951–1964 Pacific hurricane seasons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950-1965_Pacific_hurricane_seasons
1965 Pacific hurricane season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Pacific_hurricane_season
Could it have been a different year?
.
Re:Tom in Florida says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:16 pm
“There is also the “highest and best use” formula. Many commercial properties are taxed based on that concept without regard to what is actually built on the property or how it is used.”
You are certainly correct about that. It explains why there are no cabbage farms remaining in New York City, even with the agricultural exemption.
in 96/97 the indonesians were looking to buy a half dozen barge mounted steam power plants fueled by natural gas tankered in from the middle east or from the indonesian oil fields.
never heard what happened to that project.
C
Dear everyone, I of course agree that at this moment, it’s just very unreasonable to produce energy by solar panels and the required subsidies are a genuine crime of the government that proves that this whole scheme is fraudulent.
However, that doesn’t prevent me from thinking about ways how solar panels could become economically feasible at some point.
Re:Luboš Motl says:
May 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“However, that doesn’t prevent me from thinking about ways how solar panels could become economically feasible at some point.”
While you are thinking about that one, consider that only 50% of the cost of a central photovoltaic solar power plant resides in the solar cells themselves. The other 50% of the investment is in land, hardware and software required to mount the cells, track the sun, convert and condition the electrical output, etc. That means if the cost of the solar cells were reduced to “zero”, the plants would still not be anywhere near economically viable without subsidies. The problem with solar is its very poor “energy density” which precludes its achieving economic parity through “economy of scale”.
To a less extreme degree, wind power has the same problem.
re: Claude Harvey says: May 18, 2011 at 5:39 am
I agree that using solar to supply a grid is not feasible. It is much more likely that individual homes and commercial buildings will have their own solar array to supplement there power needs. This will reduce demand on the grid and is the only way solar will have any chance of making a significant contribution.
The trouble with solar on residential roofs is that they reduce your property value, they void your shingle warrenties, they cause leaks into the house, they get dirty and need cleaning, leaves cover them in the fall, high winds can rip them from the roof, they need cleaning in winter due to snow, etc. Home owners need to hire someone to manage them or climb on the roof to maintain the panels themselves and will fall off on occasion. In the end they never pay for themselves. The list of reasons not to put them on roofs goes on and on. Yet people still do it. Amazing.
I just think putting this near Kalamazoo is pretty darn funny. No sunshine in the Autumn, not much in the winter, terrible place for solar. Well I guess there aren’t any really good ones Lovins proved that. but Kalamazoo is especially bad.
Frederick Michael says:
May 17, 2011 at 7:37 pm
$27,689 is a ridiculous property tax bill. Something’s fishy.
——————————
My house sits on a third of an acre, and I’m sure cost less to construct than a third of an acre of solar panels. My tax bill is right at $4000. Multiply that by 4.5 and you get $18000 for 1.5 acres. Now, considering that my bill is reduced by a homestead exemption, the millage rate here is less than in Michigan, and the millage rates for residential property is less than commercial, then $27,689 begins to sound about right.
That’s why many say only the Government owns real estate, and the rest of us just rent from the government.
This just proves that the level of capital spending required for solar power is way out of proportion to the value of the power such plants can produce.