I don't understand how people connect oil and gas imports to electricity generation. Go read this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants...

Now how much electricity is generated from oil in the US? A whopping 1%.

Now while it is true that we import a lot of natural gas... "Natural gas imports to the United States, 98% of which arrive via pipeline from Canada, have decreased almost every year since 2007, and in 2014 reached the lowest level (2,636 Bcf) since January 1995." According to http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/importsexports/annual/.

So if you think putting solar on your roof, or wind, is going to make any OPEC countries upset please think again.

Absolutely true, but nuance is necessary.

For one, a major part of energy use today is non-electric because it makes more sense to use fossil directly, than to use fossil to generate electricity and use that. But once you have cheaper electricity than fossil, and cleaner, you can start to see these industries shift towards electric.

Not everything is susceptible to that, like say chewing gum made of oil partially will not go electric obviously. But transportation likely will, and heating could possible go renewable (not necessarily electric. e.g. geothermal, solar thermal etc).

And so the cleaner electricity is, the fewer barrels of oil one would need in some non/low electricity industries right now, transportation being the biggest.

Secondly, it's true that the majority of US oil isn't from the middle east, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the US, that's a silly argument to make. What happens if the middle east produced 0 oil the next 100 years? You can't say 'who cares', obviously the world would go into a state of shock. Oil prices would skyrocket, production and consumption and worldwide trade would all drop sharply and recessions would break out. Which leads to unemployment, social welfare issues, friction, don't even get started on wars between countries, civil wars would be damaging enough.

The 1970s showed how brutal oil politics could be to the economy, and that was small-scale compared to the most far reaching scenario.

And beyond that, anyone who exports to the US, like Canada, would think twice, after all why not sell it to China who's willing to pay $500 a barrel, too?

Also, even if you don't import the energy yourself, that doesn't mean the US can't profit or doesn't profit when US companies are involved in the oil industry in the middle east, even if the region doesn't export the majority of its oil to the US.

And lastly, even if you don't import it yourself, you may want to control who has access to the oil, and in what currency it's sold. You wouldn't mind Germany selling Nuclear reactors to the Netherlands or vice versa, it's a different story for Iran. Just like you might want to have some control over oil reserves because your control means China doesn't have it, despite not being a top customer yourself.

As for the final point, the concept of petrodollars is real, and the fact oil trades are denominated in dollars, and the effect the standing as a reserve currency has on the US is significant.

The US doesn't have to be a customer of middle east oil to have a benefit in controlling it, that's naive and it's getting a bit tiring to see everyone act like you're a dumbass when you make this claim, always immediately pointing to charts of Saudi Arabian and Iraqi oil imports being so small compared to 'omg lol US production & Canadian imports, you're so dumb, bet you didn't know that'. Don't get me wrong not saying you do this but it's a common theme when discussing the issue.

And really just look at history. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to look at the middle east and conclude oil plays a role. When Iraq was getting decimated on forged evidence of WMD, guess who was developing WMD, admitted having WMD, and tested WMD, not just any kind but the nuclear kind? North Korea. Otherwise a beacon of democracy and human rights and quality of life. Comparing the eagerness and focus on invading this country and Iraq is telling.

I mean do you really think trillions of dollars were spent on an intelligence fluke? Or that the carter doctrine was some minor policy plan that has nothing to do with oil?

Besides it's not like this is a secret. People like Cheney openly talked about the importance of controlling oil reserves, how demand would outstrip supply in the coming decades, and talking about how 2/3rd of oil is in the middle east and that access is important. Which brings up the final obvious point, which is that the US isn't running energy policy because of today's needs, but the needs in 50 years from now, so pointing to today's import charts is not comprehensive enough an argument.

So hell yes, renewables have a substantial impact on all of that. They're not the entire story, but a substantial part of it.

"Additionally, even without a tax subsidy, installing solar on my roof in CA would generate a positive NPV over 20 years." I would like to see this analysis. I know that there are certain (mostly remote and very sunny) areas of the U.S. that have demonstrated unsubsidized market viability. But even then only with utility scale installations. I would think rooftop surpassing grid parity with conventional energy would be a pretty big milestone. Not doubting you, but I'd love to see it on paper.

Go pick an address in Silicon Valley (take for example 2 College Ave, Los Gatos). Set the monthly electric bill to $125. The calculator recommends a 4.25 kW installation, which has a 20 year NPV of $12,056, if you click into the detailed analysis and check the last line.

Subtract out the $5028 Federal tax benefit, and you are still left with a $7000 20-year NPV (assuming 4% cost of capital).

Still a positive ROI over and above inflation, even without a rebate.

I guess it depends on what you count as government support.

For example if you pay $50k for your installation, you could depreciate it within 5 years or so by 85%, which reduces your tax payments in total, at a 35% tax rate, by $15k.

That's $15k saved, whether you call that government support depends on whether you think that's 'normal business depreciation' or 'solar specific fiscal policy' I guess.

Same with RECs, they're government support in the sense the government sets requirements on companies to buy them, thus creating a market for solar producers to sell them. This isn't energy being sold, it's more like a carbon tax thingy. You could see that purely as a tax on non-renewables (which imo it is), or as government support to renewables (which it's technically structured as).

So the federal tax benefit, while large, is far from the only incentive.

OK, but as an individual homeowner, I can not take depreciation, nor can I sell REC's. I'm just buying solar panels and putting them on my roof ...

... And again, to compare apples to apples, you'd have to tease apart the tax benefits given to existing energy companies over the years to get a real accounting.

You're replying to a guy who talked about 'even utility solar'. So I'm just giving the story for utility solar.

And it's import to note that the biggest solar companies right now aren't residential, but utility, so we're not talking about some niche aspect of the industry here.

And even the biggest residential solar companies their main products are leases right now, meaning they do get to depreciate their installation costs and then either let you rent the panels or buy electricity from them.

So in the vast, vast majority of installed solar panels, depreciation plays a gigantic role.

As for SRECs, you could sell them actually, don't need to be a business to do so.