Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Will US Solar Businesses Weather the Coming Storm?

By Glenn Harris, SunCentric Incorporated
August 21, 2008   |   84 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] With just over 120 days left before federal incentives expire, solar businesses in the U.S. are taking action to protect their core business. Layoffs, announced and unannounced, have started. Construction projects are being canceled or postponed and new sales have dropped dramatically. Uncertainty is forcing our solar businesses into difficult decisions -- not if, but when to cut and, how deep to cut. The coming loss of talented people and companies should be viewed as a loss of our country's intellectual property -- and a national tragedy.

It has been my habit over the years to look for the silver lining when it comes to the solar business in the U.S. But today, it's tough to find one.
Additional Information

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

84 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 84
August 21, 2008
This is a great article. I hope that whoever reads it forwards it to their government representative.

WHY? what is the reason behind this audacity....i hope i dont become so bitter that i have to cling to my guns and religion...
Comment
2 of 84
August 21, 2008
Glen,
If you take the time to look at the issue from a few perspectives, I think it's easy to understand why The People are uneasy about continuing "technology-specific-favoritism." And I would go further and suggest that shills like yourself are doing much to harm the general field of clean energy by demanding "special-treatment" for people invested in PV. Government should not choose winners as you are asking it to do. PV is a losing technology - it cannot compete on a level playing field - even with wind, geothermal, or tidal energy - even after 50 years. Let the government provide tax credits for "new energy" and let innovators pick winners. Stalin tried this winner-picking business and it led to the worse "deficits" ever experienced by an industrialized country.

If you think PV is a winner - you are free to invest in it - but my taxes should go towards a fair competition for new energy, not a rigged race where the judges choose the winner. That would create lasting jobs rather than the temporary, government-subsidized make-work jobs you propose.

Who benefits from PV? Those rich enough to put $30K on their roof - who pays? Those who are not rich enough to participate and get left holding all the costs of the grid while the rich ride free.

Benjamin
Comment
3 of 84
August 22, 2008
PV may be costly now but cost per Kw is sure to decline as the technology improves. It is regretable that just 120 days are left before federal incentives expire. Our government seems to be interested in giving big oil tax breaks but where are the renewables.

Incentives

Our governing guys place the sun outside to dry,
Its black oil not the power from the sky,
The big boy's lobby now controls the vote,
And oil is sure right to the top to float,
Legislation, legislation,
Lobbyist see our Congressmen have found,
A dinner or a trip, to help the tally flip,
When it comes to voting as the bill comes round.
Tax breaks for big business and oil,
Who cares about the small guy's daily toil,
Incentives for the sun and wind and waves,
I guess their out of luck lost in the voting maze.
Washington, Washington,
You'd be surprised to find the situation,
Like the kings of long ago, pushing people to and fro,
Controlling tax incentive needs for cleaner power,
Soul of our nation going down,
Sending SOS's out to all around,
Where support is needed, help is not being heeded,
I guess that forward progress is to drown.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
4 of 84
August 22, 2008
This and a companion Article,(" Creating Realistic Expectations for Renewable Energy") point out the failings of our energy policies, the failing of our investment market system and the failing of the renewables industries to demand a fair playing field. Remembering the 1973 oil embargo when big oil said it was investigating renewables while bringing us the most dependable energy source NOW; is like todays news that offshore drilling will open new cheap energy supplies. As a dabbler in solar stocks, I find stock market investment is convoluted, secretive and hinged on government incentives which may or may not favor renewables as they do established big oil. The renewable industry providers need to get their technology into the common consumers hands as soon as possible. It's true; a $30,000 PV system is hard to swallow in our recession economy. Bypass the politics and show you can free the consuming public from energy dependance if you want the industry to grow.
Comment
5 of 84
August 22, 2008
At this point in the history of our countrys' energy policies and energy needs, it is deplorable that our elected officials both federal and local have dropped the ball. We as consumers are being taken for granted. Oil companies, Coal companies, and Utilities make massive profits at our expense, in a time when our economy is the weakest. There is something extemely wrong and unfair with this picture. Just as we begin to actually practice conservation (50 years late) and increase our awareness toward a climate in peril, the tax incentives run out, and the price of energy on all levels increases. We as middle class Americans should be outraged. Oil companies are fighting to aquire more land leases to "drill for dollars" in environmentally sensitive areas of the world. Coal companies are decimating the mountain tops and polluting local environments and water supplies. Lastly big Utilities are raising their prices because we as citizens are actually beginning to conserve energy. Our government is all for letting the big oil, coal, and utility companies prosper at our expense, without a care for the how they rape our environment. None of our elected officials have done much of anything to curb this and help the working consumer.
It is easy for the wealthy to add expensive renewable technology systems to their homes. President Bush lives in a home that incorporates every green feature that can be used: geothermal heat, solar pv, wind energy, and rainwater, blackwater and grey water recycling. Is it not odd that one who is in bed with the oil companies and profits from their wanton destruction of our environment, can also reap the benefits of renewable technologies? This is a blatant example of the fact that these technologies should not be just for the wealthy, but brought down to the working class people. I am in favor of tax incentives for businesses and consumers to promote an environmentally responsible economy and future.
Comment
6 of 84
August 22, 2008
Edward,
If one is interested in renewable energy for the lowest price, then one should support "technology neutral" incentives. The unfair advantage given to one technology (PV) draws investment and engineers away from the best renewable technologies. Every dollar spent on PV is a dollar not spent on lowering the price of renewable energy. (PV is three times the price of other renewable energies and not getting lower faster).
Comment
7 of 84
August 22, 2008
Hard to bet against the sun. And one group that won't will be the cash heavy oil companies that are planning to pick up the baby solar giant, after arranging for the tripping of that same giant. Brilliant boohahahahahaha
Comment
8 of 84
August 22, 2008
The Title is Misleading. The Author is referring to the PV business, which is a minority of the Solar Energy business. Solar energy is used to heat water - that business is doing fine, and by far the greatest use of Solar energy; second is Solar Thermal power, and here again, more electricity is produced by Solar Thermal power stations in the US than by PV (IIRC). PV is a tea-spoon approach to an oceanic problem. 0.01% and counting...
Comment
9 of 84
August 22, 2008
The Investment Tax Credit is not the only way to level the playing field for RE. A national Renewable Portfolio Standard will spur investment in RE by working through the utilities and may lead to innovation in many unanticipated ways. ITCs have attracted unscrupulous players into the installation and service market in the past. An RPS will rally many more people around the issue by encouraging larger projects than just $30k PV systems for the wealthy.
Comment
10 of 84
August 22, 2008
Ben Gatti is correct. I'll take it a step further. All subsidies across the board for solar should be removed. This is a disruptive technology we dearly need but the subsidies have kept the prices artificially high. It has also encouraged huge investment in past generation solar. For example, look at the billions going into Si plants all over the globe. That technology will not last another five years. This money would have been better spent waiting on the sidelines to invest in next gen solar. We can accept this gen if the price was dirt cheap as it should be. To promote a cliche, they (manufacturers) can make it up in volume predicated on inexpensive panels.

Look at the 10k/q's for many of these companies and how many new millionaires (and even billionaires) this industry is minting and they scream they can't compete without subsidy!

Make them compete. The price per installed watt will drop like a rock and then we can finally get on with the solar revolution.

The industry is living on borrowed time if they think they can constantly -- constantly -- scream they need more subsidy. The information to show otherwise is just to easy to obtain.
Comment
11 of 84
August 22, 2008
Well put.
How can this be happening?
Change can't come soon enough.
Be it PTC, ITC, RPS, or Feed in Tarriff, or some combination,we need a consistent national policy that will keep these indrustries advancing long enough for them to take off on there own.
this is one more bit of bad news for America's economy, and the world's future.
Comment
12 of 84
August 22, 2008
Perhaps one "silver lining" Glenn might consider is the possibility of a public rejection of government bribery (tax credits) which breeds excessive social conformity and promotes government dependency.
Could it really be that today's voters are close to seeing through the anti-solar hydrocarbon/nuclear monopolies treasonous politics which have hijacked American economy and foreign policy for the last 30 year? A real "silver lining" would be if "America's solar cyclical history" would be stopped by a solar industry that rejected the "benevolent" hand of government (i.e. tax subsidies) and earnestly worked to double solar's utility and aesthetic value. By embedding PV into attractive looking building cladding products (thus doubling it utility) and quadrupling its aesthetic appeal (by transforming PV "panels" into aesthetically interesting forms and shapes) industry would give architects and designers the tools they need to sell "integrated solar" instead of continuing to rely on government to support "solar stick-on".
If an angry consumer could find SHW and PV building componants that were as aesthetically beautiful as good passive solar design is, it could enter the world of normalized marketing (status and esteem) and people would incorporate it in a heartbeat without even thinking about subsidies. International competition, peaking oil and growing climate change awareness are forces that are naturally motivating consumers to seek out solar but "aesthetics must close the deal."
Freedom from government dependency and architectural aesthetics were the two silver linings that cause many builders in the 1970's and early 80's to reorient their homebuilding businesses to changing conditions. Government stopped it in many was and is doing so now and will again. Promoting home energy independence, design and marketing are much safer paths for solar. Are these not silver linings? Would the industry like to be jerked around by government for another 30 years?
Comment
13 of 84
August 22, 2008
George,
We don't build enough new buildings to address any real problem with Integrated Solar - even if - it were less expensive. No one is holding out on the pretty solar products - quite simply, there isn't a real market. Connecting wires to each and every component of a building would be cost prohibitive in more ways than you can count.

Real quantities of energy are going to come from large utility scale installations. Support those, support RPS, support technology neutral incentives. But leave off this fantasy about PV on every roof, which means only on the riches roofs - while the poor see their share of the costs go up. It's not merely an inadequate model, it is an immoral model - as is corn ethanol for bio-hummers.
Comment
14 of 84
August 22, 2008
PV is already grid parity, w/out incentives...it only depends on the system life expectancy, location and the grid $/kwh you are comparing. We have to look in the longer term. Most Warranties for crystaline silicon modules (obviously the bulk of the cost of a system and the muscle behind the technology) are 25 years. Someone has said "take how long you are sure your product will last, divide by 2, and that's how long you should warrant it." If we only take the 25 or 30 years as life expectancy, the PV electricity cost $0.17 - $0.20 per kWh...if you presume 50 year system life, the cumulative $/kwh drops in half to $0.10/kwh. This includes the conservative 4 inverter replacements over that 50 years...and the first production Solar cells from Bell Labs are still producing power over 50 years later...with 50 year old technology.

On the ITC loss (at this point I am only hoping for a delay...full Q4 2008 extension would be nice, but don't hold your breath)...it will generate a weeding out of smaller unsecured companies, and consolodate to the larger more sustainable businesses. This will limit the options and choices out there, but it is going to happen sometime, as it has with many successful industries (Cars, Energy, Oil, Gas). The looming deadline has generated a new "shortage" by inflated demand on PV manufacturers to supply by Dec 31 for rushed installations, and has already begun to limit the modules available for smaller installation companies.

As a country, we need to follow suite behind the Japanese and German models...and not strictly approach this Energy and Security issue from a $ perspective...it's much bigger than that...make the commitments for the future not for the padded pockets today. Of course this requires selflessness on the individual level that has fallen away from the US society and leadership. When Gas is $15/gal and energy is $1.00/kwh, PV will be a clear solution. Unfortunatly we'll all be coughing and frying by that point.
Comment
15 of 84
August 22, 2008
Come on guys, be real about the rich getting the benefit the poor are paying for....Should we do away with investing in the market and mutual and retirement funds because it only makes the people who can afford to invest richer and the poor get nothing from it.
With PV the grid is more secure from blackouts or brown outs, energy production is local, not imported.

Cristaline silicon PV only has five years left...that's a joke right?
The cost of purified Si (the most abundant material on earth) has gone up some 10x from 10 years ago due to high demand from the industry. When these Si factories come on line the price for Si will fall. Si is about 50-65% of the cost for crystaline PV modules, if the expected explosion of available Si only drops the current price in half, that's a conservative 25% reduction in the current cost of a PV module.

We need to build the bridges to the future not throw a bunch of rocks in the river until we can cross it.
Comment
16 of 84
August 22, 2008
Ford,
Investing in businesses directly helps the poor by creating jobs - at it costs the taxpayer zero. That is a good model. buying PV for the rich however, takes them off the grid (kindof) leaving the costs of the grid increasingly to the poorer.

Si is too demand-sensitive. Small increases in demand create huge jumps in price. We need solutions which can scale up. SI can't.
Comment
17 of 84
August 22, 2008
Si is scaling up...faster than any other Tech

Investing in an industry creates MORE jobs...hence the ITC
Comment
18 of 84
August 22, 2008
Picking winners and losers destroys more jobs than it creates. The jobs created are not sustainable because they are not the best technology, merely the favored special interest.

SI is not scaling well my friend. It is embarrassingly bad in fact. Prices are going up with more volume, if it scaled well, then prices would be going down as volume increased.

Jobs and taxes are not a perpetual motion machine - you can't tax people enough to create more unnecessary jobs - which you then tax to cover the cost of those jobs. Incentives are only revenue positive, if the industry has a chance of operating at a surplus. PV has no chance of competing in a fair market. And it isn't scaling well, so it can't outgrow its shortcomings.
Comment
19 of 84
August 22, 2008
There are a whole raft of measures that local and national governments can take, many of which do not dip into the public purse. Loby your congressman and more important, get a commitment from the two presidential candidates before the election when they are most 'sugestable'. For a by no means complete list of measures which would make solar financially feasible see:
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/solar-electric-government-role.html
Comment
20 of 84
August 22, 2008
Ford

The 100% fact is that the poor pay for rich homeowners PV system. I'll use my home states program (CA) as an example. Of course the rich ratepayers pay in also but not to the extent that their socioeconomic strata covers the program costs. Not even close.

All ratepayers pay monthly into the solar fund. There is no "opt-out" ability. This means renters and the disadvantaged are forced to pay into something they will never be able to access. We are talking about millions of families ineligible for solar -- yet they pay up every month . $3.2 bn doesn't just show up... Of course the rich ratepayers pay in also, but not to the extent that their socioeconomic strata covers the program costs. Not even close.The funding ultimately ends up being applied to a rich homeowner. This nets multiple benefits to the homeowner

1. Increases homeowners house value. Nothing to/for disadvantaged

2. Lowers or zeros homeowners monthly utility bill. No benefit to disadvantaged.

3. Obvious tax implications. No benefit to disadvantaged.

This is just the beginning to the ridiculous subsidy scheme. The entire thing should be scrapped due to the fact it is impacting millions of ratepayers with no consideration for them. It is basically a free welfare program for the solar industry and should be stopped. There is no metric for eligibility. You simply pay every month mandated by law. My opinion -- it will be challenged in a California court of law soon. God forbid the numbers escape to the general population. The solar industry will look hucksters and scam artists. The *industry* should be working night and day to get out from these subsidies instead of devising new schemes to keep the gravy coming -- before it's too late and the entire industry is tarnished to oblivion.
Comment
21 of 84
August 22, 2008
Ford

Let's also look at this scenario:

Average 2.5kWh system in California is approx $21-25k after subsidies of approx 50%.

So this means that $21-25k is payed for by ratepayers and taxpayers.

Now lets look at the system provider. In this case it is huge oil multinational BP (British Petroleum) and their solar division. According to their 10k BP makes almost $90,000 per minute -- every minute of every day.

So let's track this.

1. Ratepayers and taxpayers flesh out the $3.2bn fund by paying in monthly.

2. Homeowner applies for funding and is approved.

3. BP Solar provides system.

Ok. This means that millions of families which are ineligible to receive solar on their homes, pay into a fund so a select few homeowners will receive the pointed benefits.

This offset/funding/buydown/subsidy -- whatever you want to call it now goes to the product provided by an oil company making $90,000 per minute! Basically the poor are subsidizing the rich homeowner and putting money directly into the pocket of an oil company!

These subsidies are poorly constructed, unfair and to make the situation worse is when you look at many (most) of the solar companies they are now wildly profitable. Why are we even discussing subsidy for these guys anymore. End them all now. Make the solar companies compete. They are part of the semiconductor industry which is subject to Moores Law. Except for solar for some reason. The more they make the more expensive it has become (it started rising in price per watt in Dec 2005) . Gee... could that be due to subsidies that destroy motivation to price appropriately? Righto...
Comment
22 of 84
August 22, 2008
Concerned,
Only it's slightly worst than you stated.

There is a 4th disparity, and that is the cost of "White Flight" on the grid. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Rich Flight"; but the effect is the same, the more the rich leave the grid, and stop paying for the cost to maintain it, the more those costs must be borne by the poor. Even farm subsidies which take taxes from the poor and pay millionaire farmers to grow or not to grow some product - at least pass the costs back on society in a distributed fashion, but the chief costs of PV subsidies are avoided by the rich who take taxes to install pv. They stop paying for the grid (ps. they don't stop using the grid, just stop paying for it).
Comment
23 of 84
August 22, 2008
You are right Ben. Because these systems are all grid tied, the newly PV'd homeowner still calls PG&E with power problems (not from the PV but blackouts etc), still uses their systems and infrastructure yet when they zero their bill every month, they are net negative revenue to the utility. I've heard the argument that they are now less "energy intensive" because they are providing their own but that is only a single component to the entire utilities cost. Transmission, infrastructure and of course the massive costs to employ thousands of people still must be covered -- just not by the the rich homeowner that gets a big fat zero on their monthly bill.

I don't want people to be confused. I want solar to win. It *needs* to win. I'm for rewriting the business model and making it right and proper. Only then will we see solar really take off. OR perhaps somebody like Nanosolar or Netcrystal will do it for us through the free markets. Either way -- bring it on.
Comment
24 of 84
August 22, 2008
"favored special interest"
I'm thinking that the oil and Gas industries are far more a favored special interest group than PV. Don't get me wrong, we need investment in all REs but we shouldn't rob Peter(PV) to pay Paul (other REs)...maybe take it from Judas (Oil, gas, they get the highest incentives AND the highest profits...wasn't it Exxon that made more money than any company EVER last year).

"Si is not scaling well"
It takes a minimum of 3 years for a Si purification factory to begin production from ground breaking. The investments in that expansion started about 2 years ago...then it takes time to trickle down, I would actually say they are on schedule. I know we live in a world of instant gratification. payoff in 6-18 months, cook in 20 seconds, instant loans to buy a home...but that thinking is part of what got us in this environmental predicament and economic issue...break the paradigm.
"tax to cover the cost of those jobs"
A tax credit for the willing does not lead to higher taxes for everyone else. We don't have to raise taxes to pay for this...the companies involved in the sale all have to pay taxes, Manufacturers, distributors, Installers and all of thier emplyees. The money comes back to the Government plus some. Ideally, they grow expanding the workforce and the taxes paid...all while economies of scale decrease the price...plus we can keep the cash flow here, not send it to Europe or Asia...because they are not planning on being out of the PV business in 5 years, of that I am sure.
"PV has no chance of competing in a fair market"
This is where there is a fundamental difference in opinion. First a definition of "Fair" is subjective...you know that Utilities and Coal Plants and Oil and gas industries ALL get substantial subsedies...we haven't paid the true cost of energy yet as consumers...they are all subsedized. Second, the market will continue to change.
All said, I enjoy a good debate Ben. We'll both just have to wait and see.
Comment
25 of 84
August 22, 2008
Concerned Solar Advocate,

I accept the subsidy problem as you've described. My state of Illinois (98% nuke and coal for electricity) has an aggressive RPS and a pretty firm committment to continuing the state tax credit for small solar & wind. I'm an independent solar system designer (PV and hot water) and solar sales guy who knows that the systems work technically but I realize that they have to fit into the greater scheme of things to make a lasting impact. I'd like to learn what you think the proper sort of help for renewables is.

alex@ChicagoRenewableEnergy.com
Comment
26 of 84
August 22, 2008
taking some hits and I need to respond...

Concerned, not sure where you are in Califonia and paying $20/Wp for an installed system, the state Average is $8/Wp. That Homeowner 2.5kW system should be $25K BEFORE incentives (at the easy $10/W)...about $19-18K after, that's $6-7 K paid by the subsedies, about 25% (ITC currently caps Homeowners at $2K)

Regarding the Bill...PV owners still pay the maintinance costs for the grid...same as everyone else...only pay less or $0 for the KWh they use. they will never have a $0.00 bill per annum...anyone tells you that they are lying. Every bill has base rates that are charged. If they're getting a system that supplies all of thier kWh, they didn't have a very good PV system designer...from a financial perspective.

Some California Utilities have a program for low income households, they can actually get a PV system essentially for FREE under this program...

Everyone is paying anyway...it's what to do with the money being paid.
Even if the utility rates go up for everyone to pay for a PV program (which currently doesn't exist in the US) we're talking pennies per year per meter...PENNIES! Inflation will go up much faster than that.
Comment
27 of 84
August 23, 2008
Ford,
- regarding the timescale for new SI. unfortunately, the latest Prometheus report indicates that new SI plants are mixed - some are going ahead, while others are backing out. So the price point for new SI is about where it has to be to justify a new plant. At lower SI prices, it would be much more difficult to cost justify a new SI plant.

- But Google and Vinod Khosla have both asserted that PV cannot compete in a fair market (ie with coal). Both Google and Vinod (I assume) have a fair amount of investment in PV, so these are statements made against self-interest. The learning curve of PV has run out, the scaling is poor, and the hard problems are not SI, they are you - the installer - you simply couldn't work long and hard enough to install enough PV to make a difference. It's all good, but it's not nearly enough. It's pitiful really, and the best we can say is that if PV were more pervasive, it would increase the rich-ride-free problem.

Last point - you dismissed, the rich-ride-free problem by suggesting the minimal "use fee" covers the cost of a grid. Let me ask you this. If every customer only paid the "grid fee" would it be enough to motivate PG&E to run power, and keep in running? I doubt it. I suspect the grid fee doesn't bring in enough money to run PG&E and interest investors - which means the poor have to pay enough to pay the dividends and profits needed to attract investors.
Comment
28 of 84
August 23, 2008
Every state across the country should not hesitate to immediately implement a plan of action and a type of legislation termed Renewable Energy Payments or REP's. The policy behind REP's has been called "the world's best renewable energy law". It has proven to promote the fastest, cheapest, and widest growth of renewable energy. Its core principles are: 1. access to the power grid, 2. long-term guaranteed prices, and 3. no limit to the amount of renewable energy that can be sold to the utility companies.

STATE LEADERSHIP
In the US, energy policy is set at the national and state levels. Recognizing that our Federal Government is doing far too little to promote renewable energy, every state government needs to take leadership.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
The US consumes 25% of the world's oil, but only has 3% of the world's oil reserves. Our national and state economies are overly dependent on oil. Developing our own renewable energy breaks our dependence on Middle East and other foreign oil, thereby increasing our energy security. Renewables will help to solve global warming, and create millions of new well-paid jobs.

MORE THAN ENOUGH
Every state has more than enough renewable energy from the sun, wind, water, biomass and/or heat from the earth, to meet their needs. Renewable energy can be used for heating, cooling, electricity, and as fuel for machinery and transportation.

FREE & CLEAN
Once the investments are made to buy, install and maintain solar panels, wind turbines, etc., the actual "fuel" is free and ongoing. Compared to the costs related to fossil fuels-extraction, production, transport, pollution, illnesses, and wars-clean renewable energy is cheap. While fossil fuels pollute the environment and cause global warming, renewable energy is clean.

MOST EFFECTIVE LAW
The most effective legislation to stimulate a rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy has been pioneered in Germany. This has made Germany the world leade
Comment
29 of 84
August 23, 2008
This has made Germany the world leader in the production of solar panels, creating 234,000 jobs. In the 1980s the US had an 80% share of the solar panel market; today we have 25%. The German legislation is so effective that over 45 other countries, states and provinces have adopted similar laws with great success. We must remember Germany has the same number of peak sun hours (3) per day as southern Canada. Most states receive an annual average of twice this amount of solar resource per day.

HOW IT WORKS
This legislation encourages people and groups to install solar panels, wind generators, etc. to produce energy and sell it to their power company at a price guaranteed for 15 to 20 years. People are eager to install this equipment, as they will recoup their investment in about 9 years and have a steady stream of income after that. This increased demand creates jobs, conserves fossil fuels, and lowers greenhouse gas emissions-Germany is on track to meet its reduced CO2 emissions targets three years early.

BRING IT HOME
This simple idea that is producing astonishing results elsewhere has received little attention in the USA. It can help states reach their CO2 reduction targets, and their goals to have a percentage of their energy come from renewables by a set date. Climate chaos, escalating fuel prices, and wars show us that we need to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We have the technology, know-how, and resources. Now we need leadership from our state government.

WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
We can all be innovative leaders in renewable energy. With REP's we can do the most to help our country make a rapid transition from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. By being a leader in clean renewable energy, we will create many thousands of well-paid jobs, improve public health, and help stop global warming. By reducing our dependence on imported fuels, we will keep the revenues of the energy industry within each state and increase
Comment
30 of 84
August 23, 2008
By reducing our dependence on imported fuels, we will keep the revenues of the energy industry within each state and increase our national security.


PLAN OF ACTION

With Decentralized Renewable Energy we create:

Efficiency - Renewable energy can be produced right where it's used, so almost nothing is wasted.

Security - Currently, accessible renewable resources can deliver six times more energy than all the people on this planet use every day.

Investment - Governments should support future technology that has the capacity to solve energy problems with clean, affordable energy for everyone.

Ecology - Most renewable-energy fuels produce no emissions. The quicker we switch, the quicker we can stabilize our climate and prevent catastrophes.

Independence - Renewable-energy technology produces energy in diverse, small-scale ways, allowing energy independence for everyone, everywhere.

Cost - Renewable-energy fuels are free. The sun and wind do not increase their price, and technology will become cheaper as the market grows. As a result, our valuable water supplies are left to meet other needs.

Economic Growth - Renewable energy provides stable fuel prices while creating a large number of high-skilled jobs in many sectors. The benefits are spread throughout society.

Similar legislation is being introduced in Washington, DC, Florida and Michigan.
Comment
31 of 84
August 23, 2008
Ron,
"Made Germany the Leader in PV"

Note that it has not made Germany the leader in Renewable Energy - Denmark gets far more of its energy from wind, than Germany does from Solar.

Germany is in an energy pickle though - they have poor sun, they probably don't like the look of wind turbines, they don't have much tidal, river, or wave resource. Nor do they have much coal, oil, or natural gas IIRC.This is what led France to go Nuclear. I'm not sure the world wants a nuclear Germany.

The US has much better access to a wide variety of renewable energies than does Germany, and we shouldn't restrict our options based on their example. Better sun, wind, tide, geothermal, wave.

So do you support an RFP for transportation fleets?
Comment
32 of 84
August 23, 2008
Lot's of issues to address on this thread. Let's take them one at a time. Ben says that PV is a losing technology, 'unable to compete after 50 years'. As stated that's obviously untrue. Solar cells can compete well in some niches: satellites, calculators, temporary road hazard/construction signs, and remote applications where one would otherwise have to run power lines several miles. I don't want to put words in your mouth Ben, but I think you really mean is that solar power can't compete in providing utility-scale power where grid connections are available.

Here are the problems with that position. First, the "unable to compete after 50 years" bit doesn't give a true picture of the solar cell industry. The industry in the US has grown all but three years of the last 32. As a percentage the growth has been huge. From .3 megawatts in 1976 to 201 megawatts in 2006. The US solar industry in 2006 was over 600 times the size it was in 1976. It has grown much faster in the last couple of years, with several manufacturers building factories in the 100-300 megawatt/year range. The industry consensus seems to be that even larger plants--a gigawatt per year will give additional economies of scale and plants of that size are in the pipeline for 2010. The industry grew with on-again off-again subsidies that make planning difficult, and often with no subsidies.

Costs also came down over those years. A solar cell module in 2008 costs under one fourth what it did in 1980. In 1980 solar cell modules cost $9-10 per peak watt versus $4.80-4.90 per peak watt now--in 1980 dollars, worth around 2.3 times 2008 dollars. ($20.70 to $23 in 1980 versus $4.80 to $4.90 now) Solar cell prices did go back up 40-50 cents per watt recently because demand for polysilicon temporarily outstripped supply and drove polysilicon costs up by around a dollar per watt, partially offsetting continuing price cuts elsewhere.
Comment
33 of 84
August 23, 2008
Solar cells still cost on average 3 times what they'll need to in order to be competitive on roof-tops, which means that the subsidies we have make it possible for upper-middle-class to wealthy ecologically conscious consumers to pay somewhat more than the market rate for their electricity rather than outrageously more. Can solar cells become competitive? I think so. The July 8, 2008 Wall Street Journal had an article that explains the economics of solar. A solar cell system installed on your roof costs $8.25 per watt. According to the article, of that:

$1.50 = Polysilicon
$ .75 = Creating wafers from polysilicon
$ .75 = Creating solar cells from wafers
$. 75:= Creating modules from the solar cells.

So, $3.75 per watt for creating the modules.

The rest of the cost breaks down to:

$ .50 = Inverter
$ .75 = racks, wires, other installation
$1.25 = labor
$2 = installer overhead

So $4.50 = balance of system.

How do you get that down? Two ways: (1) Go thin film. First Solar mass-produces Cadmium Telluride thin film modules at $1.14 per watt. Production efficiency is too low so far for rooftop applications, but efficiencies in the lab are good enough. If those efficiencies move to production lines, you get $2.50+ drop in costs right there. Plus thin films weigh less, decreasing rack and labor costs. (2) Reduce costs of silicon cells. The polysilicon shortage tripled prices. Figure they go back down by half. That's $.75 off. Knock off $.25 for increased economies of scale. Knock off $.30 for increased cell efficiencies. Knock off $.25 by producing thinner wafers and reducing silicon waste. That = $2.20/watt. Now the balance of system: Larger market = less overhead per unit. Cut labor and balance of system. According to the article, one company cut number of parts for an install 70%, and uses less labor. More cell efficiency = lower labor costs/watt too. That gets you in the ballpark.
Comment
34 of 84
August 23, 2008
Dale, welcome to the thread.

If only saying made it so.

Thin film lowers the polysi, but raises inverter, racks, wires, labor and installation overhead. (did I say inverter?) That's right thin film means less watts per roof, so smaller inverters - at a higher cost. Thin film isn't the way forward.

Poly Si production? See the promethies report.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/reports/research-polysilicon.html
Basically a mixed bag for new polysi production - some going forward, some bailing - and that is at CURRENT prices - which are very high. If the price were lower for Polysi - then more of the planned production would be cancelled. It is unlikely that poly silicon can scale up at low prices. It has taken these high prices to bring new plants on line. New poly-si isn't the way forward.

Thankfully - you didn't stoop to misquoting Moore by suggesting that silicon will get better and cheaper at the rate of 2x every 18 months. There are very few opportunities for price improvements. If the profits for solar were any less, these chip makers will go back to fabbing memory chips, mems or some other silicon part that brings in more money.

You began a reference to the Wall Street Journal, but didn't close the quote. I assume this schedule for lowering the cost of Silicon is your own estimates, and the current price breakdown is WSJ. eh?

Why not jus support technology neutral RPS? Then you can keep your optimism about PV, and I can keep my optimism for CSP, and we can both lobby congress for a sensible energy policy which is open to the best technology, not the strongest lobby?
Comment
35 of 84
August 23, 2008
Ben: I think you misread my point on thin film. You are right that they don't currently make sense on roofs due to relatively low efficiency. However, in laboratory settings thin film efficiencies reach the high teens. If thin film companies reach even 14-15% none of your arguments apply.

I think you are missing the point of the Prometheus report. Yes, some projected new polysilicon manufacturing is being axed while a great deal more is going ahead as scheduled. Why isn't it all going forward? A manufacturer looks at projected future prices as well as current prices. If you have unmet demand of 10,000 tons of polysilicon and five manufacturers each try to meet half of that you end up with a glut, low prices and no profits. That's a calculation companies have to make.

Wall Street Journal Report: My paraphrase of the article ends at the line "So $4.50 = balance of system". The figure on Cadmium Telluride is also from the article.

On solar subsidies:In a world where no other sources of energy are subsidized and no other sources of energy have ever been subsidized I would be happy to see solar cells compete in the marketplace. In a world where almost every energy source is or has been subsidized, and the price of utility electricity is set directly or indirectly by politicians, subsidies don't bother me. What is happening with these subsidies is that taxpayers are giving wealthy early adopters an incentive to be early adopters of PV. They still end up paying more for their electricity than the rest of us do because the subsidies don't cover all of the additional costs. And those wealthy early adopters end up paying a lot of the cost of gearing up for mass production.

I say make a timetable and stick with it. Give solar tax breaks three years, then phase them out in year four. Let the companies know that from the beginning. If the industry makes it big, great. If it doesn't, it has its chance.
Comment
36 of 84
August 24, 2008
Dale,
Thin films don't make much sense at less than 20% efficiency. Silicon is a relatively small piece of the pie compared to installation and paneling - but low efficiency attacks all costs.

I understand your complaint that if nuclear gets a subsidy, then X should as well. So create a balancing subsidy which supports new energies - which are clean, local, and do not compete with food - without making reference to a special-interest technology.

Why shouldn't an Oilgae farmer in Wisconsin get the same incentives as a Bloke importing PV panels from a factory in China which is dumping arsenic or what have you in the local river?

The PV industry has allowed itself to become tainted with scams, and un-clean imports. I don't want my taxes going to support Chinese arsenic dumping or obvious pyramidish-schemes like CitizenRE. Nor am I inclined to support a subsidy which is exclusively enjoyed by people more wealthy than myself or the average taxpayer. Maybe this is good for people who don't even know how many houses they have; but it's not good for the rest of us.
Comment
37 of 84
August 24, 2008
Dale,
With PV, the rich pay LESS for solar electricity than it costs - while the Poor pay MORE for their electricity in order to help the rich feel as though they have "done their part" while the poor get no sense of having participated. An RPS is fair - everyone supports RPS in accordance with their energy use, and everyone receives the social benefits of participating in the solution. (And Utility scale systems cost less - so theres a savings as well.)
Comment
38 of 84
August 24, 2008
I wouldn't be rich if I didn't make wise decisions, s.a. investing in a solar electric system for my home. BTW - I can't get 0% financing for 15 years like the supposed "Disadvantaged" can for buying solar. Interestingly enough, almost No One is taking advantage of the free money in these finance programs. If you really want to help the "Disadvantaged" direct them toward an education that shows them how not to be a victim.
Comment
39 of 84
August 24, 2008
Getting back to the article at hand, hopefully all these large, bandwagon companies that install and sell PV systems for big bucks, preying on ignorant consumers with the promise of getting rebates and tax incentives, will crumble and fall. I believe that installers should start giving customers systems that are affordable and near cost for materials with the incentive that the system they are purchasing will reduce or eliminate their need for the grid, who they are trying to avoid in the first place. Smaller dedicated systems are much easier and cheaper to install. Smaller systems can be added to over time as the customer saves money. Why invest such large sums of money for a system you don't even use. Grid tie customeres send all the power they make back to the big guy they are tying to avoid. Does that make sense? Then they want the government to give them something for it. That makes even less sense, especially if you are familiar with our government.
As always, it is up to us, the small guys, to make things happen. If all the smaller RE companies out there can convince their customer base to install systems that directly benefit themselves and lowball prices so the big guys cannot compete then maybe we will see some positive growth in the RE market. Growth that will benefit the public and not the private sector. Also if you took all the time and money invested by those who try to convince the government to change their policies, just think of all the RE systems that could have been installed. A picture, or in this case, a RE system you can see, is worth a thousand words.
Convincing customers to invest in private systems that utilize 12 volt appliances and lighting to keep system size small and affordable should be the goal. Convincing customers to utilize passive means for heating and lighting, solar hot water for domestic use and home heating should also be on the agenda. As always, education is the key, as opposed to monetary promises.
Comment
40 of 84
August 25, 2008
Thanks to all who are posting here. I am getting my feet wet in the solar/renewable energy field and am enjoying your discussion.

A few observations gleaned from the posts.

It seems that on the one hand solar is being spoken of only in terms of homeowner/roof-top systems and then comparing that to other energy generation systems, be they reneable sources or older methods (coal, nuclear, etc) Government subsidies are available to large centralized projects as well a domentic scale projects.

Rebates/tax credits given to those able to afford the upfront costs (subsidized or not) is a net positive for all, even to those unable to participate, becuse any and all who generate part or all of their power are helping to slow or eliminate the need for new centralized power plants This would have the effect of keeping power bills stable and slow future increases.

It is my belief that a distributed model of power generation makes the most sense for reasons having to do with transmission lines, environmental impact of large central sites and EIS reporting needs.

However, there will always be a need for centralised generation. Solar is different than wind, geothermal, wave/tidal, etc. in than it CAN be installed on a domestic level. To not incent citizens to adopt and participate in this seems short-sighted in the long run.

We are at a unique time in that it is never going to get any easier to set up new models for power generation. Relying on centralized projects exclusively, even if renewable is the source is draping new ideas on a foundation of old ways of doing things.

Let's don't miss this chance. I agree with others here; structured incentives for a set period of time, once the ball gets rolling they can be dropped.

Solar is only one part of the puzzle. Wind, geo-thermal, tidal all have their part to play. But one of solar's biggest feature is it allows homeowners to opt out of the grid, partailly or completely.

That will help everybody.
Comment
41 of 84
August 25, 2008
Jim,
Welcome to the thread.

Net-Metering encourages roof-top PV at the expense of many RE options which are MORE cost effective not less. The "savings" of not building a new power plant are over-stated. First - PV doesn't meet the early evening peaks (6 pm) so the new generation is required anyway, second that new generation plant might have been tracking, concentrated CPV system which is 35% efficient rather than 18%.

If rooftop PV produces the most bang for the buck then PV-people shouldn't be afraid of a level playing field for RE generation. Instead they ask the government to choose winners. The idea of asking the poorest electricity subscribers to foot the bill for the grid while the richest-ride-free is undemocratic and can't be justified where it is understood.

rooftop PV does very little to lower emissions - perhaps nothing - in regions with nuclear power for example; while it takes more than any other renewable energy technology on a tax-dollar per watt basis.

That's not helping anyone - except the rich.

Ben
Comment
42 of 84
August 25, 2008
Boy, there are some confusing notions here.

First off, there is no such thing as an unsubsidized energy market. The idea that PV should have no subsidies while all other energy forms get subsidized is fairly ludricous. The best thing that could happen is to have ALL forms of energy subsidies removed from the market, but I think you would be suprised at how quickly oil, gas and nukes would be uncompetitive and PV would be a better choice.

Second, in CA the utility rates are set so that the poor do not subsidize the program like others do, and part of the PV program includes special increased rebates for low income families and affordable housing. So the notion that the poor are paying for the rich to install PV is not quite accurate.

Furthermore, as we all know, the mix of PV into utility power is so small that there is no immediate danger of everyone leavng the grid for PV and leaving poor innercity residents left paying ungodly prices.

Get a grip, folks. Everything is subsidized, and the only unfairness built into the system (and the comments on this thread) are that PV should be different and receive NO subsidies at all. So what will it be: no subsidies for any energy type, or subsidies for PV, too?

I think you'd be surpirsed at what you'd get with a true free market!
Comment
43 of 84
August 25, 2008
Ben- Thanks for the welcome.

It appears for the purposes of this issue you are attempting to place solar in the smallest box possible when comparing it to other, and in your words, more cost effective RE processes. The point is to get PV systems to the point where they can become a more viable part of the RE mix. Solar has hurdles that other methods don't as you well pointed out. As you also know, this field is anything but static. What the state of the art is today will certainly be different in the near future; panel efficiencies will get better. CPV will become available for rooftops. Some new wiz kid will think of something that will leave us all saying, "Why didn't I think of that?".

It's time to just get the ball rolling. New discoveries wwill come. Today's fancy wind turbines, solar panels and the like will be rplaced by the wiz kids invention. But we simply cannot wait. This is too important to get bogged down in inside-baseball squabbles. And yes this is even more important than immediate economic considerations. Be they unfair to one social strata or another. It's only ro get things going.

In the worst climate for housing in many years, housing starts were at some 950,000 this year. That's down from 1.7mil in 2006. Can you imagine even in a terrible year having all those homes with PV on the roof? Even giving the 18% to 20% effciencies of today's panels, that's a ever growing installation base. That's every year mind you.

1. Early evening generation - Have you forgotten about batteries? Yes, they are an additional expense, but they can certainly be added to the mix to enhance the usefulness of PV rooftop systems.

2. The government may pick solar now for economic support, but they can just as well add them for other struggling technologies as needed and as they become marketable. Nothing is written in stone. This is just one step.
Comment
44 of 84
August 25, 2008
3. As NorCal Solar Pro said - - Many energy providers recieve supoorts of one kind or another from the Feds via tax loop-holes, production encentives, etc. Why get in a huff over solar. Geez, the list of the government bail out to private business is long and growing; Amtrak, Chrystler, the airlines, wall street, banks. etc, etc. Yes there is much grumbling, but in every case the thinking behind it is that it, in the long run it will benefit the greater good, and save governemt money. Imagine the savings to the miltary if we didn't have to run around protecting the oil producing countries that hate everything about use except our money?

Given that a few buck to get solar up and running, as well as, ther RE methods if need be, seems like a solid investment to me.

Look st the bigger picture.
Comment
45 of 84
August 25, 2008
Grid parity is on it's way for PV...which can be implemented anywhere, unlike Wind or Hydro (which is important from a National perspective). A defined term for system subsedies will allow the industry to continue to move forward with progression towards cost reductions and economies of Scale with a clear grid parity deadline. The promethies report sited by Ben actually supports the growth of the Si purification capacities...5X in 6 years (2006-20012). and that's with the seimans process for 9x9's purity...PV only needs 6x9's purity...that can be done cheaper and that is also under development. (9x9's is a carry over from the semiconductor industry where purity is a large concern...same plants have provided the PV industry for years)

On the Environmental impact of Chinese PV Companies...buy Modules made in the US (or locally for EU readers) and support those companies with clearly stated company environmental goals and targets. I can think of 3-4 in the US and Canada. The Company that manufactures the modules I use, actually includes an environmental impact statement along with thier Quarterly Financial Statement....and they are made locally.

If the true goal of the Energy Plan is to reduce dependance and increase energy independance in an environmentally responsable way...then some subsedy is required for the new technology to expand to a scale where costs can be reduced without subsedies. PV is available now and is a proven performer and will produce Energy in every US State every day (save northern Alaska in the winter months).
Comment
46 of 84
August 25, 2008
Jim and Ford,
Nothing in what you've written begins to justify special treatment for privatized PV over an Open-To-Innovation Policy such as RPS, or a renewable subsidy which is fair and open to all technologies.

If you believe that PV is the second coming, then by all means invest in it - The government should give it a fair market, but if as you say, the Whizz Kids product comes along, he shouldn't have to wait for the next Energy Policy to go through congress to get access to the same market.

Take Wave energy as an example - tell me in three words why a wave energy plant shouldn't get the same support as a PV install?

I'll wait...
Comment
47 of 84
August 25, 2008
I appreciate NorCal solar pro's concreteness in responding to Mr. Gatti's excesses. Sheer scale of oil depletion allowances & kid gloves approach to Exxon's massive profits last year, while reinvesting in new exploration at lowest level ever, less than 5% of profits, completely dwarfs any subsidies for renewable energy, as a whole, a fraction of which would enable the industrial stability needed for capitalization of technology transitioning from R&D into commercial products. Stalinism is just not the right analogy for sustaining the development of PV. Not sure how you'd analogize the huge subsidy of PG&E's "stranded" nuclear assets. The bills have failed because of Republican intransigence over funding renewable incentives by reducing benefits to oil companies, 12 times this year. What could be more wealth concentrating? National investment to achieve grid parity costs for renewables should be a higher priority than an anti-ballistic missile technology, a small part of which if allocated to renewables development has more possibility of being a game changer. Building Integrated PV is not just about new buildings, although there are more LEEDS compliant projects in planning that are held up for lack of materials, including PV; its also about retrofitting, which will be the largest market for PV roofing tiles & windows as more of these applications come to market; & flexible backing amorphous PV, which although is lower efficiency, also has the lowest installation costs, is attractive for large commercial roofs. Net metering, in NY, is structured to encourage distributed use, so systems are sized at 80% of typical usage; feed in tariff rates drop off at over 100%, meaning homeowners are discouraged from trying to capitalize up to supply power to the grid, & are encouraged just to get off the grid. The utilities are granted caps to the amount of power they have to buy back at a premium over other generation. Coz & Phillips comments were also appreciated.
Comment
48 of 84
August 25, 2008
I agree that other forms of technology should also be supported, wave/tidal, osmotic, solar concentrating, geothermal, thermoelectric, biotech for cellulosic ethanol & algal fuels, hydrides, & anything else Vinod Khosla might be looking into.
Comment
49 of 84
August 25, 2008
Ben-

Shorter technology curve.

------

Less potential benefits
Comment
50 of 84
August 25, 2008
Daryl - I appreciate your support for Open-Door policies for Renewable energies, and I wonder if you are principled enough to accept that means no more support for PV-Only legislation? Look at DESIRE sometime - there are tinsy subsidies for renewables and huge supports for PV. I'm not against PV per se, but I'm quite against the Closed Door policies which restrict other renewable energies.

Jim - Short tech curve? eh? for Wave energy - really - can you provide a reference?

NorCal - you've made a lot of speculation about ending subsidies - here's my question on that... Nuclear has have a 50 year head start with huge subsidies. If you stop subsidizing now - how is that fair to Wind, Wave, CSP and PV which did not get the same support for the last 50 years? Regrettably, there is no magic means to a free market on energy.

Support fair energy markets. Not narrow PV-favoritism.
Comment
51 of 84
August 26, 2008
Norcal

From the Go Solar California FAQ page.

Q. Do I pay a surcharge to my utility even if I don't sign-up for solar?

A. There will not be a separate surcharge on your bill. The costs of the solar program will be included in the distribution component of your utility bill. ****All utility customers will pay for the program**** except for low-income customers who qualify for California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and/or Family Energy Rate Assistance (FERA).

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/faqs.html

I looked for any reference on my power bill about CARE & FERA and how I may be impacted by the CA Go Solar program and oddly there is no reference...

The poor, disadvantaged and renters are paying for this program. It is a fact.

Another thing.

Q. Are there special incentives for low-income housing?

A. Ten percent of program funds are allocated for solar installations in low-income and affordable housing. The PUC is currently considering program design options towards a decision in 2007.

Well I've looked high and low and there are references to this however there never seems to be info on how many systems have been installed using this threshold -- only that it exists. Maybe you can find more.

The point I'm making is this. There is a thin safety net for the poor and disadvantaged but in most situations like this, if they don't know about it or the info is buried they will never be used. The architects of the plan just stand back and say "Well if they really wanted it -- they'd find the info".

Please...
Comment
52 of 84
August 26, 2008
And regarding energy subsidy at large. Give it a break... Stay focused people. If you engage in the canard regarding oil and nuclear you won't ever get anywhere.

Solar is THE most disruptive technology that this country/world has seen in a long while -- maybe ever. Just consider how many industries and the sea change if solar were adopted en masse. Everybody from the coal, natgas, nuclear and of course oil industry would get dinged big time. When (and they are surely coming) the plug in hybrids come and you charge it (partially) off a cheap array over your garage then big oil will get it's upcomance. Peaker plants, nukes et al will have all further development shelved.

THE PROBLEM IS SOLAR IS TOO EXPENSIVE! And it is an artificial price due to excessive subsidy. Remove the subsidy make the majors compete. Some of the small players will cease. This is capitalistic Darwinism and it is healthy. Then when the price drops like a rock -- everybody will buy en masse and those industries we discussed will be pounded! Think to the next step people. Only when the subsidies are removed will we have the solar renaissance that we need. Disengage from the extraneous argument of nukes, oil, coal etc. It is inconsequential.
Comment
53 of 84
August 26, 2008
One more thing about these solar subsidies that is very fragile and needs to be called into question from a legal perspective.

The subsidy program was developed to help the industry reach technological milestones that will deliver scale to the buying public and business market. Well they did that. It worked.

Moreover lets introduce the spoiler -- Nanosolar. These guys are shipping at .99 per Watt to MW industrial applications. Why are we subsidizing inferior technology at $4.83 per Watt if Nanosolar can do it for .99? Our job as rate and taxpayers isn't to subsidize worst of breed technology. Our job (and we are done doing it) is to subsidize to the point of breakthrough or scale -- which has happened.

The "industry" is controlling the checkbook -- your and mine checkbook. End the subsidy. I don't want to pay anymore. When Nanosolar PROVED it could be done WITHOUT a subsidy, then the rest of this simply corporate welfare. And again, this is money directly from poor and disadvantaged to pay for a rich homeowners toy/pet and the subsidy is driven to huge multinationals like BP.
Comment
54 of 84
August 26, 2008
Concerned - We agree that excessive subsidies are probably more detrimental than helpful - however - I have to take some issue with this latest line of reason:

1. Nanosolar means nanoimpact. As Vinod Khosla puts it - even if PV cells were free - the remaining costs, installation etc... would still leave it more costly than Coal. Nanosolar = nanopower; their efficiencies aren't very good. So the remaining costs are Higher - not lower.

2. The price of Solar isn't artificially high, there is sufficient volume currently for every cost-saving tool to be in use. robots, pick-n-place, assembly lines, the whole nine. The profits are just acceptable, given the risks, not much more. And as I can see it, there is very little room for the costs to come down. Indeed nowhere in this thread has anyone identified a credible potential for cost reduction. (Thin film isn't credible cost reduction. - and that's the most likely quoted example f lowering cost.)
Comment
55 of 84
August 26, 2008
Concerned Solar wrote:
> Moreover lets introduce the spoiler -- Nanosolar. These guys are
> shipping at .99 per Watt to MW industrial applications.

Really? Do you believe that? Where you can buy any of their panels?
OK, they sell only to big companies. But have you read
about any news recently, where the company X made a deal with
Nanosolar for an installation with so and so many panels? Like we can read with e.g. First Solar. Okay, there is this one announcement almost a year ago by Nanosolar, that they sell to Beck Energy (see below). But anything after that?

And that price, 0.99$/Watt, has been touted by so many PV / RE
start-ups already, that I have lost the count. I suspect it is just a
way to vie for the attention of venture capitalists.

The RE-business would have much more respect, if its representatives would STOP LYING. Don't call a pilot project "commercial production".
Don't exaggerate your conversion efficiencies, don't lie about the
price.

But even if their $/W claim were true, the subsidies are still on
the way, so in that respect I agree with you: Definitely
the subsidies should stop.

See this:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/nanosolar-begins-production-413.html

Nanosolar Begins Production

by: Jennifer Kho, December 18, 2007

Nanosolar said Tuesday it has begun production at its San Jose,
Calif., facility and has shipped its commercial thin-film panels to
its first customer, Beck Energy.

...

He (Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen) added that Nanosolar could
profitably sell solar panels for as little as 99 cents per watt,
but didn't give information about the price range Nanosolar actually
expects to offer -- instead saying that pricing will be based on
supply and demand "as in any business."

...

"In general, we have no interest in starting a price war with First Solar."
Comment
56 of 84
August 26, 2008
Wow, why so bitter. There are some numbers that relate to reality here and many that may not according to my limited knowledge of government spending, the cost of solar and other options. Way too many statements that are unfortunately just that. Statements and ill founded opinions. First of all our government throws more money around in foreign soil to those less fortunate than most of our poor ever thought of being that the implied cliche of 'rich getting richer...' in reference to the solar industry and a clean renewable long lasting did I mention it actually does pay for itself do to shelf life, is redicules! I represent a technology company that is high on the list of inovators in the solar industry. I have been to many foreign countries, seen first hand the misteps our Gov enables as well as the good stuff. Right now many countries are turning to solar and it is solar that is in part being funded by our government, hello yes USA. We should absolutely help develop this technology in our own country as well. I built my first offgrid wireless system 16years ago. Still playing with a handful of manhours post install.
Just offsetting global warming is enough incentive to deploy as much as we can as fast as we can. Definately develop all options including wind, wave hydrogen co-gen. All of the later are of course not as reliable and do have high on-going overhead kinda like our current global power choices... bla bla bla
Comment
57 of 84
August 26, 2008
BTW, see another article here,
"Creating Realistic Expectations for Renewable Energy":
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53361
where a RE-darling from a few years back, "Stirling Energy Systems"
is debunked. I sincerely hope that Nanosolar won't be the next
SES, because cheaper PV is really needed.
Comment
58 of 84
August 26, 2008
Dear Evert Ervasti,
I think NanoSolar was debunked a while back when Vinod Khosla pointed out that even $0 per Watt, PV would not be competitive unless the efficiencies were improved. Next...
Comment
59 of 84
August 26, 2008
Surprised this is still going. A couple of things: First, Ben: I gave point by point where the decrease in solar costs could come from, both in single crystal silicon and in thin film. Gave current figures. Gave projected cost reduction. Gave the reasons the why the reductions should be possible. If you disagree with any of those specifics I would be interested in your reasoning. The only thing I can find where you challenge the specifics is on thin film. I say that increased efficiency in thin film would make it economical on rooftops. You say thin films don't make much sense at less than 20%. Ummm, you do realize that 20% is higher than all but the most efficient single crystal silicon cells, don't you? If thin films hit 15% they'll be good to go.

On Chinese solar cells and pollution: So far the Chinese have made almost no dent in the US solar cell market, either through Chinese companies or Chinese production of cells for US companies. That's not an issue now. If it becomes one we can address it then.

By the way, according to this article, surveys of signed long-term contracts show that the price of polysilicon will drop an average of 43 percent next year. The drop will continue, reaching 63% in a few years. That's pretty much in line with the numbers I used in my calcs .

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/new-energy-finance-predicts-43-solar-silicon-price-drop-1288.html

I see no problem with the equity of the federal tax incentives that the article talks about. So someone is willing to pay three times the going rate for electricity to to help the environment. In return, they get a tax break of up to $2000. It takes a good $40,000 for a solar cell system to give you most of the energy for a house. People who take this option pay more for electricity even with the tax breaks. They pay for R&D and production ramp-up that will let the rest of us buy cheaper solar cells. That's win-win.
Comment
60 of 84
August 27, 2008
Dale, your list wasn't very good:

1. Thin film weighs less? perhaps on a square foot basis, but on a watt per pound basis in panels - Thin film weighs more do to its low output.

2. Economies of scale? we've has a huge run up in scale, and the costs went up not down. It would appear that PV has exceeded the point of diminishing returns. Every energy source reaches a point where you have to pay more and more for the resources - because the easy resources have been used.

3. I don't see the subsidies for PV contributing to improvements - these subsidies support installing a useless product. We can solve nothing with PV as it is - nothing, not global warming, not energy independence - at current efficiencies - PV solves nothing. We would do better to subsidize scientists and engineers doing research into higher efficiencies or lower costs. But paying the rich while the poor pay more is putting tax money into the pockets of non-innovating panel installers and Chinese chemical-dumping PV makers.
Comment
61 of 84
August 27, 2008
Ben: You say "Dale, your list wasn't very good:" Then it should be easy to refute it. Thing is, you don't refute anything I actually said. For example, I never claimed that current thin films are lighter than single crystal on a per watt basis. They may or may not be. Irrelevant to my actual argument. I claimed that if the efficiency of thin films go up from 9-10% to 14-15% (roughly the average efficiency of current single module, though some do go higher), then the light weight of the thin films would be an advantage. Big difference. Your counter doesn't apply to what I actually said.

You say: "Economies of scale? we've has a huge run up in scale, and the costs went up not down. It would appear that PV has exceeded the point of diminishing returns."

I've already addressed that and backed up my point with specific numbers and sources for those numbers. PV prices went down to about one-fourth of their 1980s era prices, bounced back up by about 10% due to a temporary shortage of polysilicon that caused polysilicon prices to triple. That offset continuing decreases in the rest of the costs of PV. The shortage is ending, and as the link I cited pointed out, prices of polysilicon will be dropping by 43% next year, with additional drops in subsequent years. That's not speculation. That's based on surveys of large (1.7 gigawatts worth) signed contracts between polysilicon suppliers and solar cell manufacturers.

I've already addressed your point three. I'm not sure why you thought it would be persuasive to repeat it rather addressing the reasons why I think you are wrong.
Comment
62 of 84
August 27, 2008
Oops. The contracts are for 6 gigawatts worth of polysilicon rather than 1.7 gigawatts.
Comment
63 of 84
August 27, 2008
Dale,
Your quote way above asserted that Thin Films were lighter, and that would reduce the cost of panels and railing - this is simply absurd. A 2Kw PV system in thin film would have MORE rails not less; moreover the cost of rails has more to do with wind loading than with the weight of the substrate.

Your dream of higher efficiency thin film has been promised for 15 years. That dog don't hunt.

I've looked at all the other costs, from slicing to paneling and by and large, these techniques have been largely perfected already, the low-hanging fruit is picked, and any additional costs savings would only after huge expenses.
Comment
64 of 84
August 27, 2008
Let's go back to what I actually said: "Go thin film. First Solar mass-produces Cadmium Telluride thin film modules at $1.14 per watt. Production efficiency is too low so far for rooftop applications, but efficiencies in the lab are good enough. If those efficiencies move to production lines, you get $2.50+ drop in costs right there. Plus thin films weigh less, decreasing rack and labor costs."

Seems straight-forward to me. I'll walk you through it a step at a time: (1) Production thin films are already down to $1.14/peak watt (over $2.50 less than single crystal). (2) Thin film efficiencies currently are too low for roof-tops because it takes too much additional roof-space, too much rack space, too much labor. (3) However, thin films in the lab have efficiencies comparable to single crystal. (4) Therefore, if those lab efficiencies can be moved to production, you not only get the low cost, you also get lighter-weight panels (5) If the thin films are as efficient as single crystal they take up the same roof-space, thus no additional rack space. (6) Lighter-weight panels are easier to handle and require less support.

If you disagree with anything specific in that then I would be interested in hearing about. My comments refer and have from the beginning referred to higher efficiency thin films. Your responses consistently refer to thin film panels at current efficiency.

It's easy to set up an argument that you want to respond to and then demolish it. Not so easy to respond to what people actually say. Is it too much to ask that you respond to the arguments and statements I actually make? If so, there is little point in continuing.
Comment
65 of 84
August 27, 2008
Dale,
I appreciate your tireless optimism on PV. The problem with 5 & 6 is the predicate IF in 4. frankly, I'm tired of these excuses and EVEN IF a cheap panel came along, We'd still need energy storage. CSP is here today with a lower cost and it includes cheap energy storage with 99% efficiency.

So tell me why should CSP be handicapped by post-rational support for rich-top PV?
Comment
66 of 84
August 27, 2008
Ben: You say "I've looked at all the other costs, from slicing to paneling and by and large, these techniques have been largely perfected already, the low-hanging fruit is picked, and any additional costs savings would only after huge expenses."

I'm afraid that simply is not true. Let's look at each of the reductions I suggested for single crystal:

1) Reduce the cost of polysilicon by $.75 per peak watt. (down from $1.50). Most of that will happen next year. The rest will happen within a few years. Baked in. WILL HAPPEN, but hasn't yet.
2) "Knock off $.25 for increased economies of scale." Every major solar cell company is going for much larger plants--5 or 10 times as big. Why? They think it will yield increased economies of scale. Their investors think it will yield increased economies of scale. In the past every doubling of production has yielded a 20% drop in costs. I'm figuring less than 10% drop for growing 10-fold. You give no reason why economies of scale won't continue.
3) "Knock off $.30 for increased cell efficiencies." Still room to grow there. SunPower recently announced a 10%-plus jump in cell efficiency to be implemented next year. All other things being equal that would reduce the cost per watt by $.37.
4) "Knock off $.25 by producing thinner wafers and reducing silicon waste." According to the Wall Street journal article a lot of that has been done in the last couple of years. Some companies have reduced the amount of silicon per watt from 12 grams to 6-8 grams. Is that the best we can do? With processes like Evergreen's silicon ribbon going into massive production I doubt it. Do you have anything beyond your assertion to say that no further improvements are possible?

"That = $2.20/watt." That's under 59% single crystal's cost of production now, and I've deliberately been very conservative on the calculations.
Comment
67 of 84
August 27, 2008
X-posted. Of course 5 and 6 are dependent on increased efficiency of thin film. Never said otherwise.

You say "frankly, I'm tired of these excuses"

Huh? What excuses? I responded to one of your posts which said in part "PV is a losing technology - it cannot compete on a level playing field" I pointed out ways in which it may be able to compete. I pointed to a very impressive record of sales growth and price reduction. If you are talking about the thin film part of the solar industry, I don't make any excuses for them. Material science is HARD. It can take decades and tens of millions to move promising technologies from the lab into production. First Solar has gotten there and is doing very well. Some others will probably fail. That's life.

"and EVEN IF a cheap panel came along, We'd still need energy storage." There you're changing the subject. Yes, it would be nice to have better energy storage. Even coal powered and nuke plants would be more efficient if we had better energy storage. Solar and wind certainly will be. A lot of the patents that currently encumber NIMH expire in 2014, but there will probably be better options by then.

CSP? I'm not aware of anything about PV and Concentrating Solar Power that makes them mutually exclusive. What keeps us from cutting out a few bridges to nowhere and funding both?
Comment
68 of 84
August 28, 2008
Dale,
First let me say - you've got a good grip on the subject and I respect that.

Here my position. In the case that CSP and rich-top PV were in a fair contest, where empirical science were more important than pandering to the politically generous, PV would be the losing technology, so much so that no-one who is currently grid-connected would use PV. In that case, CSP would scale faster - with zero material shortages and 99% eff. energy storage - such that we would be making measurable progress towards the goals of independent and clean energy.

Second - because the playing field is so tilted towards rich-top PV, we are farther from our goals than we could have been had the same incentives been available in an attribute-oriented market, rather than a technology-specific market.

Third, even given the most optimistic view of your proposed cost improvements, they would not significantly help us meet our goals: PV is at best a teensy niche market with no impact. Net metering is not sustainable - if everyone rides free instead of just the rich, then who will pay for the grid? These cost improvements will only come at a great cost, and those investors expect to see huge profits before passing the cost savings on to the customer. String silicon? c'mon, that herring has been around for a long time, the quality isn't high, internal losses preclude effeciency.
Comment
69 of 84
August 28, 2008
Ben: I'm not quite sure what to make of you. You seem interested in renewable energy and passionate about it. On the other hand I see statements like this:

"In the case that CSP and rich-top PV were in a fair contest, where empirical science were more important than pandering to the politically generous, PV would be the losing technology." (snip) "because the playing field is so tilted towards rich-top PV, we are farther from our goals than we could have been had the same incentives been available in an attribute-oriented market, rather than a technology-specific market."

So, PV on rooftops is getting federal tax breaks while Concentrating Solar Power is not, right? And as a result of this tilted playing field CSP is languishing, right? Wrong and wrong.. CSP is currently getting a 30% federal investment tax credit. That's one of the things that will go away if the solar credits mentioned in the article aren't renewed. And Concentrating Solar is hardly languishing.

"Today, more than a dozen new CSP plants are being planned in the United States, with some 3,100 megawatts expected to come online by 2012."

"Economic and policy incentives are partly responsible for the renewed interest in CSP. The incentives in the United States include a 30-percent federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar through the end of 2008, which has good prospects for being extended"

http://www.celsias.com/article/solar-thermal-power-coming-boil/

That's starting from zero new plants--there were no new concentrating solar-thermal plants for15 years. If it really grows that fast, CSP will undoubtedly suffer from the same kinds of growing pains PV is suffering with the polysilicon shortage.

On string silicon: It had a long gestation, but Evergreen and a joint venture with Q-Cells both have fair sized plants in production and are expanding rapidly. Efficiency is currently around 15%, slated to go up to 18% by 2010.
Comment
70 of 84
August 28, 2008
On grid issues: CSP will have it's own grid issues if it takes off. Who is going to build the extra grid capacity needed to move all of that electricity from the deserts where it is produced to the cities where it is needed? Wind power is having that same problem already. Current grid isn't designed to move as much energy as you need to move with large-scale energy generation in remote areas.

As to the size of the solar cell niche, it really depends on the price. Every price drop makes more applications economical, and there are people who will buy PV on principle even if electricity from PV costs more. I'm one of them. I can't afford to spend $40,000 to put panels on my house, with or without the maximum of $2,000 in tax credits. Cut that in half and it still wouldn't be quite there for me economically because of local climate and electricity costs. At $20,000 to $25,000 I probably would go for it though, for non-economic reasons. I suspect that a lot of other people would too.
Comment
71 of 84
August 29, 2008
Dale,
I do understand that some tax incentives are attribute-based; but if you have spent any time perusing the DESIRE database of incentives by state, you'll see that every 3rd incentive applies only to the least cost effective form of Solar energy - unconcentrated PV. - so by that measure, I think it is fair to say that UPV has been promoted at the expense of superior options - including other forms of Solar energy, and its not just me saying it.

Google, who owns (one of) the largest PV installations, does not support PV of any kind in its new energy investments - because it argues that it cannot compete with the coast of coal, and is in essence a pseudo-product - propped up by government supports. A similar argument is held by Khosla Ventures.

My position, is that it's time to get serious about renewable energies and focus on technologies which can scale up to meet our independence and climate goals - and that means an open eyed evaluation of what works, and what isn't working.

Ben
Comment
72 of 84
August 29, 2008
Dale,
I'll be proposing a technology which we hope will lower the costs of CSP even below its current best-of-breed costs. If we, as a nation, are serious about solving the energy problem, we'll have to choose between the best technology, and special interests - and my observation is that corn and pv represent special interests with very narrowly-tailored vote-subsidies. The challenge of all new technologies is that they do not enjoy the political advantages of a large number of voters. PV-on-a-million-roofs is a significant political constituency, as is anyone in Ohio because of its perpetual monopoly on President choosing.
Comment
73 of 84
August 30, 2008
Ben: Interesting that you would mention Khosla Ventures and Google as looking at PV as a pseudo-product and not investing in it. That appears not to be true in the case of Khosla Ventures.

"Stion Corporation (formerly NStructures) is a solar photovoltaics company developing high-efficiency thin-film modules. (snip)

Stion's current investors are:

* Khosla Ventures.."

http://www.stion.com/

Google is a little more complicated. The company itself apparently hasn't invested in PV (other than the big installation on their campus), but the founders of Google were major early backers of Nanosolar, the CIGS solar cell startup.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2007/ /solar_google_gr.html

As to the state subsidies: How many of states that don't offer subsidies for CSP are realistic prospects for it to begin with? Concentrated solar is going to require a combination of lots of sun and large areas of open, inexpensive, non-tillable land that you simply aren't going to find in New England, the Northwest or the Midwest. It's irrelevant whether or not the likes of Rhode Island or Illinois or Indiana or Washington State support CSP, because it makes no sense to put it there in the first place.
Comment
74 of 84
August 30, 2008
Google has set a standard for its investments which includes RE<C or translated some reasonable prospects of costing less than coal. PV doesn't qualify. Khosla has said it wouldn't matter if the price of PV cells went to zero - if the efficiency was low - because of the downstream effect on cost.

I think thin-film was interesting when it was unknown - now that we understand the challenges, and realize that lower efficiencies are the norm, Google won't invest further. Somehow I doubt the Khosla is making many new investments in PV. Do you have a date on the stion investment?
Comment
75 of 84
August 30, 2008
Ben: Stion was founded in 2006, so the Khosla investment would have had to be either then or after. Khosla also participated in Stion's most recent round of financing on June 27, 2007.

http://www.stion.com/images/Stion%20Series%20B%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf

Now we can play silly little hair splitting games about how recent an investment has to be to be considered "new", but the reality is that the venture capitalist you cited as not thinking PV is a viable market has in fact invested in a PV company in two rounds of financing. The founders of Google have also invested in a PV company.

As to the investments from Google itself, as opposed to its founders: as of January 08, one of the founders of Google actually seems to think that photovoltaics would be next in line if Google wanted to expand beyond their current initiatives:

"Sergey Brin says they are concentrating on three energy sources: solar-thermal, deep geothermal, and high-altitude wind; if he had to add one, it would be photovoltaic."

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/01/24/davos08-googles-environment/

At this point I'm certainly justified in asking you to provide some evidence that either Khosla or Google hold the views on photovoltaics that you claim they do, beyond a simple assertion.
Comment
76 of 84
August 31, 2008
Dale,
Bearing in mind that both are entitled to change their minds - I'll try to provide some links. Unfortunately, when you read as voraciously as I do, it's often hard to remember where you read or head some factoid.

http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/eqtv/061016/ppt/Vinod%20Khosla.pdf
In this 2006 presentation Vinod ends by suggesting that annual global production of PV is, and will continue to be drawfed by new demand in China. (last slide). Appears to more strongly support CSP, troughs in particular.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/28/0153245&from=rss
Here Slashdot looks at the Moores' Law argument (Khosla has PV improving on 10 year cycles rather than the 1.5 year cycle of Moore's law).

I'll let Google's investments speak for themselves 0 if they change, then they change. They;ve had plenty of opportunities to invest in PV, so far it fails on RE<C.

Is it true that Ausra can generate almost 4 times the electricity on the same plot of ground?

http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/05/19/optisolars-vertical-integration/

58/177 MWe per Km2?
Comment
77 of 84
September 2, 2008
Did a little research. Khosla's points seems to be that (1) balance of system costs mean that focusing on low-cost solar cells is a mistake because the resulting systems are still expensive. To paraphrase: If a solar module itself was free the system would still cost $2/watt (his figure, not mine), and (2) PV will take too long to ramp up for it to solve global warming.

So why is he investing in a PV company (Stion)? Because Stion is taking a different approach. It is planning to make solar cells that are theoretically capable of reaching the 33-50% efficiency range. They are very cagey about how they plan to do that, but they are currently planning pilot production of 5 MW in 2009 and 25 MW in 2010. I don't know how close to the theoretical top range they will be at initially, or if they'll meet their production schedule. The fact that a PV skeptic like Khosla was willing to invest in both rounds of their financing gives them some additional credibility in my eyes.

As to his points: I agree that low efficiency thin films aren't the answer for rooftops. The ramp-up argument has a point, but it applies to any new energy technology. Concentrating Solar is going to run into bottlenecks too. You can't just zap an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars into existence. You have to train people at every level: engineers, assemblers, middle managers, maintenance people. You have to establish a supply chain and make sure it grows fast enough to keep up with your growth. Not easy. Not fast.
Comment
78 of 84
September 2, 2008
A little more on Stion: They are shooting for 15% efficiency initially and 20% for a second generation cell. I suspect that the technology's growth potential in terms of efficiency was what attracted Khosla.

I'm skeptical about the timing of their ramp-up. Figure another two or three years if the pattern for most startups using new materials holds true.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/stealthy-stion-to-raise-another-round-944.html
Comment
79 of 84
September 2, 2008
Dale,
In other pieces, Khosla has pointed out that lowering efficiency raises BOS costs - so much so that even at free, low-efficiencies wouldn't cut it.

I think you're wrong about the ramp-up potential for CSP.
Training people to run steam turbines really isn't an issues, since most power is already steam turbine. Training people to build, install and wash mirrors is also not difficult. The constraint on ramp-up turns on two things: 1. economics, and 2. Material scarcity.

CSP uses glass and metal - so there really is no material scarcity, the receivers are a small component, and the rest of the system is standard steam.

PV on the other hand is constrained by storage, it can only operate during the day leaving 30% or so of the peak demand unmet. So if you want to talk about your new PV technology, I'd like to first hear about your new battery technology. Let's face it - every year we invest in new battery technologies, and while we've doubled this metric or halved that metric over the last 5-10 years, I don't see battery technologies coming on fast enough to allow PV systems to contribute significantly.

If we did not have the option of CSP, then the storage issues of PV might bear more looking into, but I think that CSP is lower initial cost, faster ramp-up, with much better storage options. The efficiency of the storage system is 99% - a lead acid battery by comparison is about 50% efficiency.
Comment
80 of 84
September 14, 2008
Not that anyone is still looking at this, but the ramp-up for solar cells is going to be amazingly fast. By 2010 worldwide production should be over 5 times what was in 2007.

"Jigar Shah for one has been counting. The vice president of Beltsville, Maryland-based solar electricity provider SunEdison LLC keeps a running list of how much silicon all new manufacturers will produce by 2010. In another list, he adds up how much cell and thin-film module manufacturers could produce in the same year. The results of both counts: in two years, there will be enough material to produce about 21.3 GW of module power &ndash; and on top of everything, enough factories use those raw materials. PHOTON Consulting maintains a similar list. Unlike Shah's list, it's kept secret. Nonetheless, PHOTON Consulting, the consulting branch of publishing house Solar Verlag GmbH, has now revealed its results: cell and module production will amount to at least 23 GW in 2010. So, whomever you chose to believe, it looks like the PV market is positioned to sextuple in growth in just three years &ndash; according to PHOTON Consulting estimates »only« 3.9 GW were produced in 2007. "

http://www.photon-magazine.com/news_archiv/details.aspx?cat=News_PI&sub=media&pub=4&parent=981

It takes 3 years to build a polysilicon manufacturing facility, so to be producing in 2010 that capacity has to be in construction now. Solar cell plants take less time than that, so not all of the capacity at the cell production level is baked in yet. The point is that the solar cell industry has capability for rapid expansion.

Does anyone (other than you Ben) believe CSP will hit 20+ gigawatts/year of new construction by 2010? It's not just the technology and people. It's also corporate structure and government red-tape. Getting rights to the land. Getting permits from BLM, finding the right management team. Can't zap an industry into existence. Takes years
Comment
81 of 84
September 14, 2008
Dale,
I understand there is a land grab already underway for CSP, but here's the question.
I read that a number of new silicon plants are going forward, but that some planned silicon plants are being canceled. The real question is how many new plants are being pushed through for the next round of silicon increases? s times nothing is still nothing, and even 6 times the PV we have today isn't going to free us from foriegn oil.

Here's my theory - those silicon plants are dependant on continued state subsidies - which are in question. f those same subsidies were available for other renewable energies - PV could not win. It can only win if the government excludes other candidates. We are seeing the subsidies open up, and as a result, I expect other renewable will move to the front of PV; this will express itself, if the next series of Silicon plants is less growth than the current round.
Comment
82 of 84
September 14, 2008
Ben: (1)The article I quoted was posted within the last couple of days, so it presumably reflects the current supply position. If you have reason to believe it doesn't I would appreciate it if you pointed me to the source of that info. (2) Subsidies: As I pointed out earlier, the soon to expire federal subsidies do include both CSP and large-scale PV farms, and at the same rate. Right now that's a level playing field between the two technologies. It'll be interesting to see which one there are more of in five years. My bet: If federal subsidies go away so will new CSP construction. PV farms will be smaller than planned, but they will keep going.

There are also small federal subsidies for rooftop PV, and some state incentives for rooftop PV, some more sizable than the fed ones. I would not support an energy policy that supported only large centralized power plants. If you're going to subsidize big solar, then subsidize small-scale solar too. (3) I don't recall saying anything about solar cells freeing us from foreign oil. Not sure where that came from. CSP won't free us from foreign oil by 2010 either for that matter.

To be honest I don't see any rational reason for rivalry between CSP and PV in terms of incentives. The only way any alternate energy source is going to get a level playing field versus oil, gas and coal is through a coalition with supporters of other forms of alternate energy. Break that coalition into fragments fighting for their particular form of alternate energy and badmouthing the others and all forms lose, especially CSP.
Comment
83 of 84
September 15, 2008
Dale,
I think you are right about Federal Subsidies, but wrong about state subsidies. The subsidy environment is the combination of both. Go to DESIRE and read the list of subsidies, I believe you will find that Solid State PV is closely targeted.

If we were serious about CSP, we could convert a few idled car plants to produce CSP components and reduce foreign oil dependency from critical to uncomfortable. (We'd also need to convert to electric or NG vehicles, commute by train, telecommute, and build shops a walking distance like the rest of the entire world).

On point 1. the recent Prometheus report says some future silicon production has been canceled. It would seem if we are canceling future production, that the future ramp-up is not going to keep pace wit the current ramp-up.

As for coalitions, I don't believe that any group which supports pyramid schemes like CitizenRE are going to an effective approach.

Ben
No image available
Comment
84 of 84
Anonymous
March 31, 2010
I know this thread is long dead, but I have to laugh that predictions (and the goal of the incentives) have come true, the installed pice for PV has dropped another 15 - 25% since this thread, the Extention occured and the increase to 30% tax credit was adopted, and Si manufacturing is expanded considerably. Arizona, after several years of research, has chosen to use PV instead of CSP for thier large scale installations moving forward. There have been CSP installations in the desert west, and I am happy for them...but they are learning the drawbacks to the maintinance requirements and the harsh environment. I hope they continue to successfully work for many years.
In Anaheim, CA, Poor and under privledged rate payers get enough subsidies to recieve an essentially free system.
I hope that Ben put his energies towards government support for CSP rather than trying to tear down PV. Unfortunately...Government does decide the winners many times...that is the game we play called democracy. The power lies with the powerful. PV only has 5 years left? time will tell on that one...I think it's a much longer lifetime.

Ford Eversun
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Sign Up

Recent Opinion & Commentary

Sundrop Fuels, ThyssenKrupp Partner for 50 Million-Gallon Louisiana Drop-in Biofuels Project
Will 2012 Finally be the Year of the Strong Grid?
Saving Birds and Bucks: Wind States Its Case
60,000 Californians Urge CPUC Action on Net Metering
Large-scale Molybdenum Electrodes for Manufacturing CIGS Solar Cells

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Solaire Generation Rich Hessler Solar Business Development Westinghouse Solar 2GreenEnergy.com
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters