Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

France Raises Solar Feed-in Tariffs; New York SEIA Calls for FITs

By Paul Gipe, Contributing Writer
November 21, 2008   |   16 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Borloo said that France intends to become one of the world's leaders in the development of solar photovoltaic technology and will increase the supply of solar-generated electricity 400 times by 2020.
16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
November 21, 2008
Paying outlandish prices for inefficient solar generation hardly seems conducive to the realization of efficient energy generation. Why not put the money into further research instead?
Comment
2 of 16
November 22, 2008
States and even some local jurisdictions that are serious about scaling up solar should carefully weigh how FITs ramp up production in a relatively short period of time, not just achieve levels that won't help solve the envrionmental and transmisson challenges we face. And let's not forget the thousands of green jobs hanging in the balance and the enhanced control consumers can achieve long-term over their own electricity costs -- all without more government money.
Comment
3 of 16
November 23, 2008
Jim,
Regarding your comment #2, why would we want to scale up an inefficient process that costs ~57 cents/kWh??

I note that many types of solar cells are currently limited due to constraints on available silicon and bidding up the price of the cells does nothing to address that problem. As for your remark about "all without more government money" these huge FITs are being paid either by the government or the consumer--either way it is hard to believe it is money well spent.
Comment
4 of 16
November 23, 2008
Outlandish prices for inefficient solar generation? Hardly! This is exactly what is needed to promote wider adoption, ramp up manufacturing economies of scale, and create market demand -- which in turn will promote further research.

This is how industries are born.

Don't worry about supply chain shortages. That is the least of the industry problem right now -- and, in some ways, not a bad problem to have vs. a lagging demand. Market behavior will help alleviate shortages -- capitalism never fails us in that regard.
Comment
5 of 16
November 24, 2008
I have to agree that the level of these subsidies is much too high. Solar cells are nowadays produced for around 3 euro/Wp. The price is expected to decline with 20% next year. That means the solar modules only cost 2.20 euro. With an installation fee of 1 euro/Wp the total cost will be 3.2 euro.

The electricity prices in france are 15 cents/kWh? Taking everything together you earn your system back in 7 years and get free electricity for another 23 years!!!
Comment
6 of 16
November 26, 2008
Wow what an argument - I totally agree with you carbon freaks that subsidies are a stand allone thing with renewables.

If you wann rethink this here's some hints:
Coal and Gas Powerplants do have extensive tax subsidies which helps them again generate a lower Cost/W
Nuces not to mention plus: they have a zero cost warrenty by the running state in case a GAU happens
Comment
7 of 16
November 26, 2008
What is often not captured in comments that solar subsidies are too high under a feed-in tariff are that the price paid for the electricity supplied does not increase for twenty years. Although the feed-in tariff is more expensive during the early years, perhaps for ten years or so, the cost of the conventionally generated electricity will continue to increase, narrowing the cost gap. In addition, the additional societal value delivered from distributed solar generation has not yet been adequately quantified. With a high penetration of solar in a particular area of the grid, utilities will not have to expand distribution capacity with additional feeders or substations, less load will be imposed on the distribution grid during peak demand hours, potentially lowering maintenance cost and less or no new generation capacity will need to be built. New coal plants are up to nearly $4000/kw and that cost does not include anything to capture the enormous amount of carbon they will emit over their lifetime. If one were to really quantify all the avoided costs of solar electricity delivered during peak hours the gap in cost is greatly narrowed and will narrow further over the term of the feed-in tariff.
Solar generation costs will also come down as the industry reaches economies of scale, and as soon as next year we will see some decline in PV module costs as more silicon becomes available to cell manufacturers. Thin film PV is also making great progress and will narrow the price gap further.
Comment
8 of 16
November 26, 2008
Let's examine the FIT concept, which uses the brute force of government to compell the utility company to buy its inputs at inflated prices, under threat of prosecution and eventually jail time. Taking the productivity of one man and giving it to another, without compensation....the word for this is SLAVERY. Welcome, brothers, to the Peoples Republic of America!
Comment
9 of 16
November 26, 2008
Sunflower,
Regarding your comment #6, subsidies for the nuclear and coal industry are only a few billion dollars per year. Even using very inflated estimates of what subsidies are, the value of these per kWh is less than 1 cent/kWh (for coal it is much less than that). Thus, subsides for standard generation schemes are negligible compared to those in these FITs.

I'd much rather spend money researching better products than forcing utilities to buy inefficient ones--especially when the FITs makes siting in suboptimal locations profitable, promotes the continuation of inferior products, etc. Huge solar FITs have existed in some countries for several years now but solar breakthroughs attributable to them are hard to spot.
Comment
10 of 16
November 26, 2008
George,

The citizens of Germany (who have more experience with the FIT concept than anyone on earth) don't feel at all like slaves. With just a few pages of paperwork, they can go to their local bank and get financing for their PV system. The terms allow them to spread out the payment in such a way that the PV system is cash positive from day one, i.e. it covers the interest payments and produces a profit. The result?

- the bank is happy: it has a new customer whose ability to repay the loan is backed by the FIT law
- the PV system owner is happy: help the environment AND have more cash on hand to pay the rest of the bills?? Sounds good to me!
- the government is happy: less carbon in the atmosphere, less money shipped out of the country for oil and gas, and the increased production levels for PV lead to lower costs and the eventual end to any need for subsidies
- the PV companies are happy (obviously)

Who's not happy?
- the other rate payers who don't have PV systems. But then again it only costs them on average the price of a loaf of bread per month. Besides, they can go to the bank and get their *own* PV system in a matter of weeks
- the utilities are unhappy, but only a little since the FIT means very little net-additional costs for them. Besides, they're starting to notice their grids are more stable and they're spending less on imported oil and gas. And when they think about it, the FIT is only "forcing" them to begin implementing technologies they themselves should have been driving.

So who's *really* unhappy? Guys like you who would rather see clean energy fail (and more money flow to governments who finance terrorists) than to take a closer look at renewable energy and possibly have to admit they were wrong.

Memo to guys like you: You're wrong. Get over it.
Comment
11 of 16
November 26, 2008
It is hard not to want to comment on the ridiculus, but I must have confidence in the majority; a majority that views the world in a common situation, with shared values about how we individually fit in. Yes, George, we are a republic. And to use and emphasize the word 'slavery' demonstrates at best an insensitivity to real slavery, when a person cannot vote, relocate, ajudicate or in some meanful and realistic way change the circumstances of injustice. The poor in America experience far more environmental injustice than those who would have to pay more to clean up the collateral mess caused by their subsidized lifestyles.
Comment
12 of 16
November 26, 2008
Whenever someone wants to give you something for nothing (unrealistic FIT's) look for the fish hooks and these systems definitely have fish hooks. They all have a time limit on them since it is clearly not sustainable to pay someone three times as much for a product as you sell it for. All these excessive FIT systems require double metering, else how will you know how much to pay for the generated electricity. When the scheme ends, the small generator is exposed to income tax at his marginal rate for every dollar of power he generates and sales tax (VAT, GST) for every unit (kWh) he uses. Depending on the level of sales tax in his country and his income tax bracket, he will have to generate between 1.7 and 4 times as much power as he uses to be financially neutral with respect to electricity. Worse still, the company that is buying the power from him is exposed to the same taxes, making the company much more reluctant to be the "batteries" of the small generator. Even at present in Germany, while they are trying to promote the uptake of solar-electric, they charge sales tax and income tax as outlined above. For a more detailed analysis see:
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2008/04/double-metering-its-insidious.html
Comment
13 of 16
November 26, 2008
If France or any other country really wants to promote solar-electric and stop America from starting wars to ensure her fuel supply, oil country mafias supressing their own people using obsene levels of oil revenue and other oil countries financing terrorists just to keep the terrs off their backs, there is one simple measure needed.

Put in the research effort to get solar panels down to $1.00 US per watt. The rest will follow automatically.
Comment
14 of 16
November 26, 2008
Hello Paul,
thanks for another good article for the good cause.
As you may have heard, the mayor of LA has just announced ambitious plans for LADWP in terms of solar (goal 1.3 GW by 2020) including a FIT.

http://mayor.lacity.org/villaraigosaplan/EnergyandEnvironment/LACITY_004467.htm

Step by step the critics are pushed back and the path will become clear for America to be the number one in something useful...


Keep up the fight,
We will succeed.

Marcus
Comment
15 of 16
November 26, 2008
In his comment #10 arguing for FITs Brian writes: "Who's not happy?
- the other rate payers who don't have PV systems. But then again it only costs them on average the price of a loaf of bread per month."

People always seem to switch to arcane units such as "loaf of bread per month" when clear ones would not enhance their case. My electricity bill costs me about 20 loaves of bread, so (within the very low precision of this type of unit conversion) I suppose Brian is saying I'd be paying an extra 5% for electricity if I lived in Germany to promote solar (perhaps he will write back with the exact value...). In 2007 about 0.57% of electricity was generated by solar power in Germany, so I'd have to say this was a poor investment....

One of the good things about free markets is that good products tend to gain market share and poor ones tend to get discontinued (or the companies that make them go out of business). This forces competitors to innovate and leads to improvements in performance/price metrics. Under current market conditions silicon shortages limit solar panel production and high FITs virtually guarantee each panel gets sold and that solar panels get sited inefficiently. This removes much of the selection pressure on the industry and decreases the need for innovation. It also ensures the continued production of inefficient products. I don't see the upside in this except for inferior vendors. If similar sums of money were instead put into research and development we might see useful products produced sooner. I don't mind spending some money to promote renewable energy but I dislike wasting it; FITs seem wasteful to me....
Comment
16 of 16
December 5, 2008
Why can't FIT's be set at spot prices? The point to setting a FIT price, to me, is to get power fed in near where it will be used, without utilities having to build some huge remote plant, from which power could be interrupted by acts of Whomever. Infrastructure and transmission costs, over time, can be reduced.

If oil, gas, or coal deliveries are interrupted, cities with some small-scale solar or wind will at least have something. If the new POTUS carries through on conservation rhetoric, we will be better prepared for change with a combination of FIT's and credits for conservation.

FIT's could also contribute to cleaning air and water and reducing health costs over time, especially in cities, where bad air wreaks much chronic, obstructive, pulmonary disease (COPD).

Can't the argument about FIT's being set too high be solved by putting them at market, if not on a monthly basis, then maybe on a yearly basis?

Some enlightened CEO has got to like this idea. Surely meter-makers like it. Maybe many CEO's have generators to get around the inconvenience of interruption, but generators require maintenance and are maybe not quite as happening as a solar array, in some subcultures. Nancy Reagan didn't like how they looked, but times change.

As conditions are now, the people who can afford to add solar may be sophisticated enough to do some research about whose stuff is most efficient and whose customers are happy.

Advanced adopters are a market segment traditional utilities overlook at their long-term peril. Keen interest in long-term return on equity, with a broad definition of equity, drives behavior in some parts of the market. Politicians and CEO's seem unused to putting this market in their equations. Sneaker waves are going to hit some who underestimate culture change in their computations.

FIT's can be set anywhere from under market to way above, but dead-on seems right to me.
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

paul gipe

View paul gipe's Profile
About: Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize it... more »

Advertise With Us

Solar Energy International (SEI) Solar Power International 2011 Magnum Energy Inc. MaRS 3TIER BEES - BioEnergy Events & Services Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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