Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (24) View image gallery Image Gallery (3) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
March 11, 2009

Utility-Scale Thin-Film: Three New Plants in Germany Total Almost 50 MW

Germany has been breaking records with its thin-film developments, and with three developments totalling almost 50 MW of new capacity, this rapidly emerging technology continues to set the bar higher.
London, UK [Renewable Energy World Magazine]

Although still lagging behind crystalline silicon in the maximum efficiency stakes, as costs per Wp fall, thin-film technologies are rapidly taking up a significant share of the PV market. Industry figures give a compound annual growth rate of 60% between 2002 and 2007, and production capacity could reach more than 10 GW in 2010 and 16 GW in 2012. Although uncertainty remains over the timescale, the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) nonetheless expects about 4 GW of thin-film production capacity to be operational in 2010. Based mainly in Europe, China, Taiwan, the USA and Japan, this will represent about 20% of total PV module production, up from 10% in 2007.

'In light of the current capital market crisis, solar energy has now become a safe and sought-after investment.'

-- Jochen Kirmaier, Managing Director, Conergy Deutschland

Consequently, the thin-film sector is considered not only a very dynamic market, but one which also benefits from significant potential for development. Scaling factors, efficiency gains and the new production technologies are expected to reduce thin-film module manufacturing costs to €1/Wp (and below) in the near future, EPIA says. Efficiency is anticipated to rise from a current 6%–12% to 10%–15% in the coming years, with a potential of more than 20% in the longer term. Meanwhile, potential material developments include optimization of different technologies (a-Si, a-Si/µc-Si, CI(G)S and CdTe) in addition to the development of new polymers and other types of organic, dye-sensitive solar cells.

A clear signal of growing confidence in the sector was provided by EPIA’s International Thin Film Conference. Held in November 2008, the event was the first EPIA event to focus on thin-film. With over 350 participants in attendance, the conference, held in Munich, Germany, heard that more than 150 companies had already entered the thin-film business, with some 40 of these already in production.

Winfried Hoffmann, EPIA president, explained that while crystalline silicon module prices have shown a 20% decrease with each doubling of installed capacity, in the case of thin-film modules this digression rate may be higher, especially in the wake of the silicon shortage.

Paula Mints, analyst at Navigant Consulting (and occasional REW contributor), presented analytical data on the evolution of the thin-film PV market, showing a spectacular annual growth rate of 126% in 2007, although she also warned that due to the current global financial environment, growth expectations for the next two to three years need to be reduced slightly.

The subtitle of the conference: ‘Thin Film goes Large!’ seemed particularly appropriate, given that Germany is host to a range of thin-film projects that more than illustrate the technology’s potential. With three new large-scale thin-film PV installations recently commissioned, with a combined capacity of some 50 MW, Germany can provide an excellent insight into the real cut and thrust of the thin-film market.

Pitched Roof installation

Located in Moers, near Duisberg, on the site of a former coalmine, the head office of Riedel Recycling has been home to Germany’s largest pitched-roof thin-film plant since October 2008. (See image, below, which shows the vast PV structure which covers nearly 10,000 square metres.)

The PV system has an output of 837 kW and will deliver around 750 MWh per year. Supplied by the American manufacturer First Solar, the black cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules cover the large south-facing roof, covering nearly 10,000 square metres of the former coal mixing hall. Mining at the site was discontinued in the 1990s, and since 2001 Riedel has used the building for recycling construction materials and storing wood.

Installed at a height of up to 30 metres, and at inclinations of 36°, 55° and 75°, the 11,467 modules could only be fitted with an inclined lift and a ladder. In particular, explains Günter Grandjean from system provider Solaxis GmbH, the inclination of the main roof, at 36°, caused problems ‘for the human body, this angle is very unusual.’ Even so, the installation was completed in three months.

The owners, brothers Ludger and Norbert Riedel, explain their reasoning in installing thin-film: ‘Thin-film modules are a good choice at our latitude, since they deliver a good output, even with weak solar irradiation,’ explains Ludger Riedel. The solar plant cost €3.4 million net, which included a new roof covering – the service technicians replaced asbestos-containing corrugated sheets with steel while they installed the solar modules.

Riedel continues, ‘In the best case, the plant will have already paid for itself after 10 years thanks to the increased feed-in remuneration of 44 eurocent/kWh.’ Placing a lot of emphasis on energy efficiency he adds: ‘We want a sustainable investment that pays off and fits well with our company philosophy.’

This philosophy is evident elsewhere at the site too. The two-storey administration building was once a fair-stand of a Japanese computer manufacturer and uses rescued facade coverings, entrance doors and lamps from a bank building before it was demolished. The flooring of the stairs is made out of recycled glass and brick dust, while the windows of the administration building previously saw service in the pithead baths of the Pattberg coalmine.

Four Sputnik Engineering SolarMax central inverters are installed at the facility, two at 300 kW, together with one at 100 kW and 30 kW respectively. In another example of clever thinking and maximizing efficiency, heat generated by the SolarMax C Series central inverters, which have a maximum efficiency of 96%, is used for space heating. In Moers this amounts to around 45 kW. ‘We transfer the waste heat to the air conditioning system with heat exchangers and into the administration building,’ explains Grandjean of the system which supplys the complete heating needs of about 30 employees.

Further installations are also planned. In addition to the hall roofs, the roof of the former fair-stand could also supply electricity. ‘We are considering installing tracking solar plants on the outer columns,’ reports Norbert Riedel. A further possibility would be to mount solar modules on the old watertower, which lies to the south of the processing hall.

Utility-scale play

On a somewhat larger scale comes one of the world’s largest thin-film solar parks, recently commissioned by Conergy Deutschland GmbH in Trier, near Germany’s border with Luxembourg.

Developed on behalf of local utility group Stadtwerke Trier (SWT), Conergy built the 8.4 MWp thin-film installation over a period of six months. The installation includes more than 112,500 thin-film modules, again supplied by First Solar, over an area of 250,000 square metres. These modules are mounted on 40,000 Conergy Solar Linea model mounting systems, and are linked to 28 Conergy IPG 300K series inverters. Capital expenditure for the grid-connected project amounted to around €30 million, and the output from the facility is sold at the lucrative feed-in tariff of 35.49 eurocents/kWh – a rate that the operators will enjoy for over 20 years. The plant is expected to produce over 9 GWh annually, enough to supply over 2400 four-person homes all-year around, the company claims.

‘We’re very happy about the project’s quick realization, and we’re proud that our plant is immediately producing environmentally friendly electricity for homes in Trier,’ said Rudolf Schöller, the project manager at SWT responsible for the solar park. ‘Considering the great demand, we hadn’t expected to obtain all the modules by the year’s end,’ added Schöller.

‘The project shows that power supply companies have now discovered photovoltaics for themselves,’ says Conergy Deutschland managing director Jochen Kirmaier. He goes on to explain: ‘In light of the current capital market crisis, solar energy has now become a safe and sought-after investment.’

IPP development

Meanwhile, with its final phase of commissioning, the Waldpolenz energy park in Brandis, near Leipzig, has now become the world’s biggest thin-film solar PV power plant.

The juwi group – based in Bolanden, south-western Germany– built the 40 MW thin-film solar park, completing the installation the end of 2008. The solar power station, located in the eastern German state of Saxony, is expected to generate approximately 40 GWh annually, displacing about 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. (See image of the project, below.)

Construction at the site, a former military airbase, began in February 2007. In August that year the first building phase was completed and the official inauguration of some 6 MW of capacity took place. Built on half of the 220 hectare site, in the townships of Brandis and Bennewitz, the surface area of the installation is approximately one kilometre wide by two kilometres long.

Indeed, one key to the development was the site itself. ‘In Brandis we’re building on an area of more than a million square metres. By contrast, most house roofs are only 40 to 50 square metres,’ says Matthias Willenbacher, co-head of the juwi group, adding: ‘There are very few contiguous areas of this kind and size in Germany.’

Investment in the Waldpolenz solar park amounts to some €130 million and when juwi announced the 40 MW solar project they stated an installed project cost of €3.25/W.

Working jointly with the Sachsen LB Group, the juwi group has structured a professional equity capital and external financing scheme. SachsenFonds GmbH – a subsidiary of the Sachsen LB Group – has been offering to interested investors owner’s equity of the project in the form of closed-end funds since late summer 2007. The move allows inhabitants of the region to have the opportunity to participate in the project with investments starting at €5000.

‘We are proud to have been able to implement such a unique, forward-looking project of this scale together with juwi and SachsenFonds,’ says Sachsen LB board member Werner Eckert.

In addition, Germany’s legislation – the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) – stipulates payment of approximately 35 eurocents/kWh, making installations that use innovative technology, such as thin-film, commercially cost-effective.

‘The Sachsen LB Group’s long track record in project financing renewable energy projects clinched our financing decision,’ says Fred Jung, co-CEO and co-founder of the juwi group.

As general contractor, juwi was in charge of the planning, logistics and construction site management, and says that the project is creating impetus for the regional and national labour market. juwi, whose own employees are responsible for the operational management, service and maintenance of the park, adds that projects such as this one also create jobs in related supplier sectors, such as the module, inverter and metal construction industries. Most of the 550,000 First Solar modules for this project, for instance, are being produced in Frankfurt (Oder) in eastern Germany where one of the world’s biggest and most modern production facility for thin-film modules was opened in July, 2008 – creating 400 jobs. The inverters from SMA and sub-structures are also made in Germany, juwi says.

In addition, juwi solar GmbH, the group’s solar arm, plans to set up a base on the grounds in Brandis and steadily add personnel in the coming years. ‘Particularly with [a] view to more projects in the region,’ says Lars Falck, managing director of juwi solar GmbH.

Willenbacher explains further: ‘At a time when the whole world is discussing climate change we are demonstrating the capabilities of renewable energies. Solar electricity is not only good for the environment, it also builds independence from expensive energy imports and creates new jobs. Freestanding installations are an affordable segment of photovoltaics and contribute greatly to that success.’ Willenbacher points out that, ‘with this installation in Brandis and Bennewitz, we are demonstrating that photovoltaics no longer faces any limits. Very soon everyone will be able to actively contribute towards withdrawal from nuclear energy and a climate-changing, fossil-based power supply – by simply switching to solar energy.’ He adds: ‘That fosters independence, secures local jobs, preserves the environment, and is easy on your wallet.’

Due to its size, which in turn means savings potential across all the system costs, the Brandis plant is a demonstration of the progress being made on cost-cutting in the photovoltaic industry. Thus, with a price of approximately €3250/kW, the installation is around 20%–40% cheaper than the going German market price. ‘Our thin-film modules can be produced cost-effectively, meet the highest quality standards and generate superior energy yields,’ says Stephan Hansen, managing director of the German subsidiary First Solar GmbH. ‘Large-scale projects such as these make a huge contribution to making solar electricity more competitive,’ comments Willenbacher. ‘No other solar power plant in the world is as big and as cost-effective as the juwi project in Brandis,’ he adds, saying: ‘Within just a few years the price of solar electricity produced on your own rooftop will be cheaper than the power supplied by the energy utilities. Photovoltaics will then reach completely new dimensions because everyone will want their own installation. That will launch an unprecedented boom.’ The solar industry anticipates that in just eight to 10 years solar electricity will have achieved wide spread grid parity.

‘Thin-film modules have long since reached series maturity, are cheaper to produce than crystalline modules, are higher-yielding, and above all are not affected by scarcities of and dependency on raw material,’ emphasises Falck.

For example, to supply 10% of Saxony state’s (an 18,000 km2 area of eastern Germany) annual power demand by PV installations, some 2 TWh of solar power a year would have to be produced. The area needed to generate this would be around 4000 hectares. That corresponds to just 2% of the developed and traffic area of Saxony. ‘These figures show that solar power can make a big contribution to generating climate-friendly energy,’ says Falck.

The future for thin-film

Although there has been a rapid ramp up in the number of companies within the thin-film sector, it’s noteworthy that all three of these projects use modules manufactured by First Solar; speaking at the EPIA thin-film event, that company’s Benny Buller argued that their cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules have the lowest module production cost in the sector, allowing for the lowest module price in the current market. This echoes comments from Mike Ahearn, chairman and CEO of First Solar, who in December said: ’Looking ahead to the next 2-4 years, First Solar will be in a position to produce power from the sun at costs competitive with conventional electricity generated from fossil fuels.’

With a strong policy for cost reduction (glass loss reduction, tellurium cadmium oxide (TCO) loss reduction, low cost encapsulants, faster TCO deposition rates and such like), efficiency increases and economies of scale, in its latest earnings announcement, released in late October, First Solar announced a manufacturing cost of $1.08/W, a figure which includes a $0.04/W ramping up cost associated with factories under construction in Malaysia.

It is clear that with a range of large-scale projects already in operation (where the appropriate support mechanisms are in place), thin-film is rapidly establishing itself as a market force to be reckoned with, both in Germany and around the world. Conference chairman Bernhard Dimmler of Würth Solar GmbH & Co KG summed up the prospects for the technology by asking not if thin-film was competitive with crystalline technologies but rather: ‘Will c-Si be able to compete with thin-film PV in 10 years time?’ He argues that if thin-film PV producers are able to reach their targets, the answer is ‘no’.

David Appleyard is associate editor of Renewable Energy World magazine.

With thanks to Iris Krampitz for original research on the Riedel Recycling case study.

Image Gallery (3)
 
Reader Comments (24)
 
No image available
March 11, 2009
35.49 eurocents/kWh = 45.35 US_cents/kWh. This is an enormous price to pay for electricity (and to guarantee to pay for 20 years) and does not even include distribution costs. If I was buying my electricity in Germany I would be reading such articles with great dismay.
Comment 1 of 24
No image available
Germany suinlight is a little more than half of what the US gets in the Southwest. Thus same systems in SW would be about 17 c/kWh - pretty close to peak power price in daytime. Irony is Germany led the way despite sunlight. But what do they pay for their peak power - and how about their natural gas dependence? Sounds worth it. PV has made great progress with the help of the German leadership.
Comment 2 of 24
No image available
March 13, 2009
The point with this feed-in system is that the power producers are guaranteed that high rate of income over a sustained period (which makes installation of a plant a good economic proposition). But cost of the whole 'pot' of feed-in payments is then passed on by the utilities to every single electric power consumer in the country. With every billpayer paying just a few euros a month, (a sum that shows up clearly on the utility bill) it's a very small, shared burden. And as the German renewables industry has been built up on the back of that system - bringing jobs, exports and clean power - the collective benefits are enormous and the system is broadly perceived as well worthwhile.
Comment 3 of 24
No image available
March 13, 2009
You hit it right on, Jackie.
Germany chose to take the lead in green energy and they knew they had to make it profitable, and to guarantee grid access. These "feed-in tarriffs" do in fact decline over time, to reflect expected progress and economies of scale for makers. Thus new projects starting in future years will get somewhat lower rates, but should still be ahead of break-even.
Our provincial government here in Ontario just announced a similar plan, inspired in large part by Germany (and California). We're committed to closing the last coal-fired power plants here by 2014. (Next we have to pressure our neighbours upwind, in Michigan and the Ohio valley, to follow suit!)
Details of the Ontario plan are at http://www.greenenergyact.ca and there is detailed commentary on it at Tyler Hamilton's news/blog site: http://www.cleanbreak.ca including exact $Cdn rates proposed for our new programs.
Comment 4 of 24
No image available
March 13, 2009
I want my company in on this comming exploding new market, Please contact me with any info, at we7hunt@msn.com Thanks, Rick
Comment 5 of 24
No image available
March 13, 2009
The notion that paying more that the market rate for something will eventually lead to producers supplying it cheaply is deeply flawed. Germany would have been far better off if it had put the money squandered on these solar FITs into R&D for designing better methods. They are now on the hook to pay these ghastly high rates for twenty years whereas hopefully the rest of us will eventually develop renewables that cost a small fraction of these prices.
Comment 6 of 24
No image available
March 14, 2009
The cost of coal power plant includes other components:
1. Cost of health care from pollution from mercury in fish, acid rain destroyed forests; smog caused health issues, etc.
2. Coal is a non-renewable resource. Majority of our chemical raw materials come from coal. Burning them up is a tremendous waste of resources.
Comment 7 of 24
No image available
While Steven is basically right from a first sight point of view when calling the guarateed feed-in rates "ghastly high rates for twenty years", Jackie Jones invites broader understanding by adressing the background concept (guaranteed income for the investor into application of new and still risky technology over a sustained period), the shared energy-consumer- billpayer approach for repayment (in fact not subsidies) and the additional public money R&D-support (subsidies) to promote technological innovation and market introduction of new systems in Germany.
This strategy is gradually becoming an effective pathway to promote solar-energy innovation in a country with only half the sunshine of (e.g.) Florida but strong interest to promote sustaibable development based on renewable energies. This may happen through various CO2-mitigation efforts, including ecologically progressive technological solutions and sustaibable development of renewable energies. It would finally be economically rewarding if viable solutions (supported by e.g. ghastly feed-in-pay systems) would find buyers on external markets. Rick Hunton is just in time looking into this potential. Good luck, Rick!
Comment 8 of 24
No image available
March 14, 2009
Hmmm... isnt Cadmium one of the most toxic materials on the EURO ROHS list? Is seems appalling that they would get excited by and remove a little Chrisotile Asbestos from the roof of the admin building and then go plant acre upon acre of CADMIUM (more toxic than Lead) based photovoltaics... just wait till a few panels get cracked by weather or the seals start to leak...

I suppose, when this happens, the 'greenies' will keep their traps shut because, after all, solar is by definition, green.
Comment 9 of 24
No image available
March 14, 2009
An interesting twist on this is that if high inflation happens, the FIT that goes down will be worth much less.

If oil and gas availability get interrupted, the value of the power will go up, but the owners of generating capacity won't have a way to adjust, if these contracts are honored as written.

Advances are being made in cleaning up metals toxicity with plants and fungi. I recall calling poison control when my husband and his brother baby-sat small children who got into cadmium paint. They said it will just go through, don't worry too much. Airborne cadmium would be a different matter, I'm sure.

In general, most of the Europeans seem pretty on top of toxicity issues. Remember the Chinese ships loaded with plastic toys that were not allowed to unload in Europe?

Thanks for the article.
Comment 10 of 24
No image available
March 14, 2009
If we are really serious about combating global warming, we shouldn't let the so-called high cost of solar PV (and other renewables) be a stumbling block. Germany has found a way-out with the encouraging feed-in tariff. And the high electricity cost is still driving a healthy economy in that country. Is this not America's argument against Kyoto?
Comment 11 of 24
No image available
March 14, 2009
In comment #12 Taofeek Ayinde writes: "Germany has found a way-out with the encouraging feed-in tariff. "

True, if by this it is meant that lawmakers have found a way to spend the public's money without taxes via mandated FITs. Wasteful expenditures on inefficient technologies with payment obligations twenty years into the future won't stop global warming; they will only lead to very high energy prices and the loss of energy intensive industries. These solar projects are costing at least a factor of 5 times as much as wind energy projects now and that spread will only increase as wind costs continue to decline. It is a dark irony that much of the world's solar cell production is being sited in cloudy Germany for grid based generation rather than in sunny off-grid areas where it might make sense.
Comment 12 of 24
No image available
March 15, 2009
Perhaps these FIT prices should be viewed as a Prediction of power rates at the Mid-point of the 20-year contracts, as fossil fuels continue to rise from:
- more energy demand from China, India, Brasil, etc
- more scarcity of oil (incl. political uncertainty of source contries)
- more concern to avoid/remove air pollution (see comment 8) and include
health-care costs in the Real cost of fossil-fuel energy
- higher inflation (caused by current anti-depression stimulus pacakges)
Comment 13 of 24
No image available
March 15, 2009
Germany doesn't slack regarding wind energy. There's a lot of installed base in wind. They are diversifying their RE.

The Germans are also ahead in passive design. If China hops on the passive-design train, we will see huge changes in world energy use.

I object to mandated anything. It works poorly. People don't like to be told what to do, and they work around mandates, sometimes squandering energy in rebelliousness.

Initial subsidies are baby boondoggles with the potential to grow too big to fail, by the government's definition.

Tax credits are different from subsidies. The people wanting to do something get to keep some of their own money to try it out. Let a thousand mushrooms fruit is my attitude on these.

Given the heavy burden of taxation and the possibility of serious inflation, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would oppose tax credits designed to increase resiliency of grids in the case of breaks in delivery from distant production.

Installing generating capacity that doesn't spew heavy metals into the air is happening. For now, the logic of it appeals, and the installed base of this kind of generation is increasing.

An event like Bhopal might put a dent in it. I do not know whether RE manufacturing is at risk of that kind of disaster.

We have major industrial disasters, such as massive river pollution, that do not get the attention or coverage they should.

Even if a disaster happens, it may not slow RE very much in economies where it takes off.
Comment 14 of 24
No image available
March 15, 2009
In comment #14 Lorne writes: "Perhaps these FIT prices should be viewed as a Prediction of power rates at the Mid-point of the 20-year contracts..."

If the free market was offering these prices there might be merit to this, but these FIT rates are being set by government and paid for by those with little control over the process. Already there are several methods (wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc.) that produce energy at much lower costs so it would be a disaster if prices in general rise to this level.

FITs end up picking winners in the competition over how to generate energy without a fair competition and in the absence of rational analysis.
Comment 15 of 24
No image available
March 16, 2009
A lot of comments here focus on the cost to the consumer, but I must echo Jackie Jones point: "With every billpayer paying just a few euros a month, it's a very small, shared burden. And as the German renewables industry has been built up on the back of that system - bringing jobs, exports and clean power."

The bottom line for Germany is that they position themselves as a nation in the forefront of a growing renewable energy industry (not just solar), just as they have in many other industries. Unless anyone is arguing that nobody should make ANY solar power, why not be one of the leaders? You can call the higher tarriff a tax if you prefer, but like most taxes there is a payback. It may not be cheap electricity right now or even in the near future, but it is reduced dependency on imported or fossil fuel, more jobs, exports, foreign investment. In this economic climate it sounds pretty sensible and I wish the UK government would do the same.
Comment 16 of 24
No image available
March 16, 2009
Regarding some of Charlie's comments in comment 16:
Virtually every time a large sum of money is spent one gains something (jobs, clean energy, etc., in this case), the relevant question is whether or not one might have gained much more from another investment. Huge solar FITs are an inefficient investment by this crucial measure; in particular, more R&D almost surely would have been a better use for these resources.

The fact that each energy consumer only has to pay a few euros does not make this a good investment. Each US taxpayer only has to finance a small part of the recent AIG bonuses, but you will be hard pressed to find someone happy about it (unless they got a check); spreading the consequences of an unfortunate expenditure among many does does diminish the deficiencies of the decision at all. At these high rates, the German energy user should be grateful that solar PV is so unsuccessful and generates so little energy, otherwise electricity costs would exceed food costs in the average family budget.

As for improving exports, these particular PV cells are being IMPORTED.

As for "reduced dependency of imported fuel", Germany almost certainly produces enough coal for its own needs so this does not displace imports.

I am not arguing solar power never be utilitzed, but merely suggesting it should be used in places when and where it is efficient to do so--the cloudy skies of Germany don't yet seem to be such a place.
Comment 17 of 24
No image available
March 16, 2009
OK, let's do some simple math, (I might need help) If a whopping 20% came from solar, say hear in the U.S., and if the feed in was twice the normal rate, then just 1/5th of your bill (Steven) would be twice as high. Is that really too much to pay for all the market play and innovation that would come as a result? By the time the feed ins expire, good o'l fossils will still be the dominant player thus ensuring that your electricity rate won't go sky high (unless of course fossils take a hike again).
Comment 18 of 24
No image available
March 16, 2009
But really, at the end of that feed in, 1/5th of that bill would be LESS than twice as high due to feed in regression.

However, in ten years, there might not be any thinfilm material left! The indium and tellurium are almost as rare as silver!

Not to despair though, that is what concentrated PV is for!
Comment 19 of 24
No image available
March 16, 2009
Right on to Germany for proving that even in cloudy condition, Solar can be further developed!
Comment 20 of 24
No image available
March 17, 2009
To fireofenergy regarding comment #19: There rates US$0.45/kWh, which do even not include transmission costs, are 5 times as much as one usually pays, and if 20% of my electricity was mandated to come from them my bill would rise at least 80%, and YES that would be way too much to pay. At those increases, I'm sure all the companies smelting Al would go elsewhere and quite a few others would raise prices so I'd get hit from secondary effects as well. As for the "innovation that would come as a result" I don't see the connection between overpaying for something and innovation--if we want innovation it is far more efficient to pay for it directly by R&D funding.
Comment 21 of 24
No image available
March 17, 2009
Steven, Good point, here in America, a "proper" feed in shouldn't be no more than twice (of normal rates). That's what I'm trying to get across. I don't want four or five times rates either cause then the bill would be too high, innovation would be lost to tariff error, and solar would be just for rip offs. But, at say three times at first (just 1% influx), noth'n, then as feed in regresses down to below twice then even at 20%, it should be acceptable.

What other solutions do you suggest? Taxes won't work because you know that any carbontax will ONLY go for paying back stupid interest for stupid banks (for stupid banks).
Comment 22 of 24
No image available
March 17, 2009
Besides, Germany is only paying about $4 more for all their RE (per person)
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/08/20/germany's-key-to-green-energy/

Yet the innovation I talk about is (probably) what spurred the American First Solar company to develop thinfim mass manufacturing. Just imagine how much better it would be in the sunny areas! (Of course, other countries will invest here too)
Comment 23 of 24
No image available
March 18, 2009
Regarding comments in comments 23-24:

A carbon tax (not a cap and trade scheme, which involves bureaucracy) would disadvantage coal (albeit only in the country with the tax) but not select the replacement generation scheme; while not my favorite option, that at least is better than mandating a buildout of one of the least efficient schemes (solar PV) in the naive hope that somehow it would eventually become more efficient. At this time I'd rather see money put into aggressive research programs (in a wide variety of generation methods), a better transmission grid, and--where already efficient--wind and geothermal projects. Perhaps solar PV will one day be cost effective, but it isn't now and mass-producing inefficient cells seems ill advised.
Comment 24 of 24
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Lectrus Universal Energy Financial Research Associates, LLC SCHOTT Solar Inc. American Wire Group Schletter, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo