The extremely high cost of producing solar energy has repeatedly led the federal government to give taxpayer subsidies to solar projects. That gives solar power a false appearance of affordability by disguising its true cost when consumers pay their electricity bills.
Yet federal officials have only gotten more brazen in defending subsidies and pretending that solar power is just as cost-effective as traditional sources of energy such as coal and natural gas.
Two big solar power projects were recently approved to be built on federal lands in California.
One of the projects will cost $2 billion and will produce only enough power for around 200,000 homes. The other project will provide energy for only around 13,000 homes.
The projects are on the "fast track" to get more than $300 million from the federal "stimulus," according to news accounts. That is a pretty clear indication that they are inefficient and that they would not be able to succeed on their own in a truly free market.
And yet, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made this bizarre claim when the approval of the construction was announced:
"Given the many benefits, the extensive mitigation measures, and the fair market value economic return, approval of these projects is clearly in the public interest."
What "fair market value" could he possibly mean? It is hard to place a fair market value on energy whose true production cost is hidden underneath layers of subsidies from taxpayers.
We do not agree that such a scheme is "in the public interest" -- at all.