Big Opportunity in Solar Panel Glut

Declining prices are only part of the solution for getting solar energy into the mainstream. We also need government policies that remove barriers for those that do not have a location to install their own solar panels. Solar hosting farms on government owned lands could open up vast opportunities for residents and businesses that want to go solar, but, do not have a location to install their solar panels. Imagine the amount of capital that could be tapped around the world if governments implemented policies to open up territories to allow solar hosting farms for residents and businesses. I've already written an article on this subject titled "A Framework For Energy Independence Via Solar Hosting Farms" which was published by U.C. Berkeley on August 12, 2009. I also sent a copy of this article to the Solar PEIS and received a response from one of its project managers which included the following statement, "While the solar hosting farms concept presented in your paper is very interesting and would be a nice option for people wanting to utilize solar power, it is outside of the scope for the Solar PEIS." Unless we address the barriers to entry in solar energy, only a small percentage of residents and businesses will ever be able to participate in solar energy, even if the price is way below $1/watt. The only way we can address such barriers is to have governments implement policies granting residents and businesses access to government owned land in order to install their solar panels via solar hosting farms.

VIrtually everywhere where one can connect to a grid the notion of solar parity is a mirage and those "making the numbers work," as Dana claims, are doing so with invalid assumptions and huge subsidies. Here is one easy analysis: Solar PV prices are plummeting due both to technological innovation and overproduction so system installs are expected to drop by more than 10% next year (and possibly much more). Thus, if your electricity bill for next year will be less than 10% of the price of a solar PV system you are better off waiting at least 1 more year before you install such a system. If you have spare cash you wish to fritter away, follow Dana's advise and buy now.
Steven

Sure, non-solar industry people are going to point fingers and say it isn't cost effective, but there is too much real and concrete proof that Commerical installations are even more valuable and profitable than are residential installs. The economy of scale for both the panels, but also the supporting hardware of Fronius and SMA inverters, makes getting solar not only a no brainer for return on investment, but also makes good use of reserve capital in a growing company, since the ROI is usually returned within 5-7 years for commercial installations. Even the SBA believes it is a good option and supports new or developing businesses to consider the tax and cost advantages versus other new technology that is considered green or renewable. No fossil fuels are doing that and frankly, they just can't compete with the long term advantages of solar, so they hire writers to go to solar websites and disparage the solar industry any way they can. Residential solar is still a few years away, but not because of efficiencies or due to incentives. It has to do with ROI and financing only. No residential customer is worried that they can't get their investment back in case they sell their home. It is an immediate value enhancer for real estate in every state it is deployed. Once financing is a common procedure, and cities and states consolidate paperwork requirements from solar companies, the effort to go to solar will be huge and unstopable by natural gas or by big oil. It is simply the better alternative.

I wish writers would qualify their statements on costs and ROI with "in mainland America". In the Caribbean islands, Hawaii, and other regions where electricity is not subsidized by government grants to nuclear plants, solar is so far past parity it's no longer possible to argue otherwise. Run your numbers with electricity at 42c per KWh and see what that does to your ROI.
http://caribbeanrenewable.blogspot.com/
As long as governments keep electricity artificially cheap to stimulate the economy, it will be hard to assess the real value of solar; in places where the resources are not available to do that, growth in solar is only restricted by antiquated legislation and ignorance.
Chris Mason, Anguilla

Chris, that is so true! It is the difference between night and light, as long as your battery banks can hold a charge. It is my opinion, that those same islands will be the beneficiaries of solar energy's ability to become a full time energy source for remote locations, by developing Hydrogen fuel cell technology that will eventually make not having batteries not a bad thing, since with hydrogen split from water, there will always be a way to generate electricity via a renewable source that only has water vapor as a product of combustion. A perfect compliment to solar PV and Solar Thermal. It is now likely that those technologies will arrive sooner than later...

GregorS writes in comment #4: "No fossil fuels are doing that and frankly, they just can't compete with the long term advantages of solar, so they hire writers to go to solar websites and disparage the solar industry any way they can. "

This is apparently in response to my comment. I note that he would actually seem to agree with the claim given his statement: "Residential solar is still a few years away...." Of course, if you cannot win an argument based on the facts throwing some mud might seem like a reasonable tactic. There is something paranoid about this myth that writers are paid to make obscure posts on solar websites, but let's suppose for a moment that this is true; if there is a santa claus out there funding the dissemination of the truth, there is only one group disadvantaged by this: liars. I personally don't believe in santa claus; certainly no one is sending me cash gifts for my posts. Many of the other posters on this site have a strong financial interest in the solar industry; I think that is fine, I only wish all of them had a similar interest in the truth.
Steven

Masonc writes: "I wish writers would qualify their statements on costs and ROI with 'in mainland America'. In the Caribbean islands, Hawaii, and other regions where electricity is not subsidized by government grants to nuclear plants, solar is so far past parity...."

In my post, the first two words "Virtually everywhere" should surely suffice as a qualifier sufficient to exclude a few Caribbean islands and Hawaii.

As for solar PV at some of these isolated locales being at grid parity, this is likely true, at least if one neglects intermittency issues. Curiously, places like Hawaii still need to produce most of their electricity with expensive oil, suggesting that solar PV is far less competitive than some would have us believe.
Steven

Gee Steven, if that is your name. Obviously you are insecure enough not to show your face,or then, someone might be able to find you as you or any of those here can with my photo. I am not afraid of your hollow inuendos about what is and what is not factual. When I mentioned that it will be a few years until Residential solar explodes as a fully accepted industry, it was only to explain that it is because financing of solar systems still are NOT offered by banks. If you want to check on facts, they are that banks are unwilling to offer credit to poor people, not that they can't get their money back in a solar system installation. Oregon, California and the far western states do not have the trouble that midwestern states like Oklahoma have when it comes to finding financial businesses to fund solar business. Otherwise, I won't need to fight the ignorance and misinformation that comes from non-solar circles. The return on investment does depend on many issues, and all are appropriate to bring to light. But none of them are due to the inability of solar PV to return the investment fully. Can any fossil fuel say that? Coal, oil, natural gas? No, because they are rental fuels, which do not even give a return, except for the fleeting energy they provide for a short duration, but then has to be cleaned up afterwards, due to pollution, and due to long-term persistance in soil, in air, and in water resources. Solar does the job, gives the owner, Real Estate value, gives energy, and pays back in reducing the damage of those not able to easily find financing, and so are forced to not only pay for rental fuels, but also be inhibited from switching to something that does not pollute. Solar will eventually find that funding, but until it does, Millions are forced to use fossil fuels against their preferences.