Making America a 21st Century Solar Power

Stephanie A. Burns, Dow Corning
April 26, 2010 | 46 Comments

Solar Power presents opportunities in the United States that cannot be overstated. It can be part of a renewable energy portfolio to achieve energy independence, it can demonstrate commitment to leadership on controlling climate change and it can be the foundation for thousands of green technology jobs around the country.

Key to continued progress on these goals will be federal leadership; smart, integrated policy prescriptions; and ideas, commitment and investment from private industry.

Dow Corning is deeply committed to advancing solar power, as well as other renewable energies and sustainability technologies. Over the past five years, we have announced investments of $5 billion in solar technology, which includes significant expansion of Hemlock Semiconductor – a joint venture in which we are majority shareholder and one of the world’s largest producers of polycrystalline silicon; groundbreaking for construction on a plant that will manufacture monosilane gas – a key material used to manufacture thin-film solar cells; and a solar panel installation and Solar Discovery Center at our corporate headquarters in Midland, Michigan.

The U.S. government has also demonstrated its commitment to renewable energy. President Obama indicated that his administration will invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the development of a clean energy-based U.S. economy that will create five million new green collar jobs. And in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, $500 million was dedicated to training workers to fill potentially more than 315,000 green-related jobs in construction, engineering, science and skilled trades. Of particular significance to Dow Corning, President Obama in January announced $2.3 billion in Recovery Act Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits for clean energy manufacturing projects across the U.S.

Strong Federal Policy Key to U.S. Renewable Energy Advancement

The progress to-date has been encouraging, but we believe there is still more to be done. In 2009, Dow Corning announced a four point policy plan for 21st century solar leadership that we hope can serve as a useful roadmap for federal decision makers as they address the energy, environmental, security and economic challenges facing the United States through the adoption of public policy. By focusing on these four areas, we are confident that our nation can expand its energy capacity, create jobs and economic growth and move toward energy independence.

Goal #1: Establish a broad federal legislative and regulatory package, designed to encourage the rapid growth of a viable renewable energy industry and encourage consumer adoption. Energy legislation should include:

Permanent advanced manufacturing tax credit;
Renewable Electricity Standards, with solar set-asides;
Federal interconnection and net metering standards; and
A federal feed-in tariff.

In addition, legislation addressing carbon reduction must take care not to inadvertently discourage or penalize growth in the manufacturing and production of renewable energy materials and equipment.

Goal #2: Increase investments in research and development to support innovation in solar energy technologies. Legislation should include:

Incentives to accelerate the development of solar technologies and manufacturing;
Significant funding increases for applied research and development in the solar industry; and
Encouragement for expansion of public-private partnerships to further develop the renewable energy industry as a whole.

Goal #3: Further invest in renewable energy-related education, training and job creation. To ensure the long-term sustainability of an economically vibrant renewable energy sector, the United States needs qualified professionals to fill the renewable energy jobs of the future.

At present, there are too few solar training opportunities available in the country to rapidly develop the tens of thousands of skilled workers needed to support the growing solar industry.

Goal #4: The federal government will “lead by example” in the implementation of clean technologies. From procurement of onsite generation, including solar energy systems, to retrofitting buildings for improved energy efficiency, to establishing new building standards and power purchase agreements, the federal government can lead the way to a new future for energy, focused on clean, sustainable technologies.

Investing in solar and other renewable energy technologies will help regenerate U.S. international competitiveness, while reinvigorating our economy by creating the green jobs needed today that will meet America’s needs tomorrow.

Dow Corning is prepared to do its part to encourage a climate of collaboration, creativity and commitment to realize this important goal. Our nation, our economy, our customers, our employees, and our citizens in the communities we serve deserve nothing less than our best effort.

Dr. Stephanie A. Burns is Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Dow Corning Corporation, headquartered in Midland, Michigan.

46 Comments

mike shurtleff
May 15, 2010

@fireofenergy
"have to kinda agree with the past subsidies for fossils because they helped build a strong energy security needed to build the next {and larger one} based on solar power towers (and other RE). Remember that the fossil ones were cheaper per unit of energy due to the simplicity of non intermittance"

"past subsidies" is correct. You must be smoking something weird if you think that is still ok. Oil companies are making $10s of billions in profit because of higher margin. Why do they need subsidy? What is future pay-off? More scarcity? Deminishing returns!
"WERE cheaper per unit of energy" is becoming increasingly the case. …and continuing trend in this direction is clear.

FITs should be for power delivered. Competing companies figure out how to do it most cost effectively. They are already pursuing robotic manufacturing and several have video clips at their sites showing this.

mike shurtleff
May 15, 2010

@steven
China's PV is mostly Si based. Jury is out on whether it is wise to build out mass infrastructure on this technology. PV plants and building installs we are now doing will be small fraction. Well worth cost to foster more rapid development of technology, build-up of manufacturing, and installation infrastructure. Early investment for a later pay-off.
Why has Japan re-instated their FITs?

ANONYMOUS
May 12, 2010

mds writes in comment #44: "China is already pursuing renewables and I think is now the largest manufacture of solar PV. Nobody would have guessed this would happen a few years ago."

Well, I think quite a few people expected that China would eventually become a leading manufacturer of PV cells no matter how much money Germany, Spain, etc. pumped into their domestic solar market (I certainly did). Chinese installation rates are, however, at trivial levels--they are wisely waiting until we are further along the learning curve before investing scarce resources on buildout.....
Steven

mike shurtleff
May 12, 2010

Well at least that's better than drill-baby-drill. I pretty much agree with you, except I think you greatly underestimate solar PV. …and I'm a real fusion skeptic. It has been just around the corner since ww2.

China is already pursuing renewables and I think is now the largest manufacture of solar PV. Nobody would have guessed this would happen a few years ago. India is beginning to show an interest. Cost of solar is falling and will continue to do so. Cost of coal has been going up. The concept of China and India not using renewables is dated. Getting them to use less dirty coal remains a problem, just like it is for the USA, Australia, and others. Falling cost of solar has the potential to radically change this.

ANONYMOUS
May 11, 2010

Regarding remarks of mds in comment #42:
" 'Meanwhile the fixation with near-term progress is leading to meager funding for other methods where progress could be made with much greater efficiency.'
You keep saying that but never say what else. Steven's mysterious silver bullet power source? …fossil fuel business as usual?"
Mid term: nuclear fission (including thorium), carbon sequestration tech.. Longer term: nuclear fusion, enhanced geothermal, wave power, and advanced biomass schemes (all with R&D underfunded compared to solar PV) (Funding for solar thermal is also too low compared to PV, but that is an example of a tech. that is near to commercialization.)

"Europe is already investing in massive Desertec project for solar in N Africa. "
This is a decision they may come to regret, especially if their system is suddenly destroyed by terrorists or nationalized by some hostile government. A country that does not have decent control over its own electricity supply is overly vulnerable.

"What other option are you suggesting? Hold a tight fist on your dollars and burn coal till the cows keel over?"
China, India, and many other developing nations are going to do just that until economical solutions come along. If 30 years from now the US and European energy generation becomes 100% non-carbon based and the developing world still relies on coal because they cannot afford anything else, this is a losing strategy from an environmental perspective.
Steven

mike shurtleff
May 11, 2010

@Steven
I'm talking about using moderate long term FITs. Germany over did it, Spain way over did it, and I think Japan did a better job. We don't need large FITs, just enough to keep solar cost competitive until it can carry itself. Of course there is always a limit, but early stimulus to growth will have the most impact at the least cost. Now is the time.

"Meanwhile the fixation with near-term progress is leading to meager funding for other methods where progress could be made with much greater efficiency."
You keep saying that but never say what else. Steven's mysterious silver bullet power source? …fossil fuel business as usual?

If hydrogen can work for a short time then a larger tank will allow it to work for a longer time. I'm talking about electrolysis, storage in a tank, and fuel-cell generation. Functionally this would be a large battery with long duration storage capability. (I'm not a big fan of hydrogen distribution. It is too hard to deal with, as you say.) Some progress is being made in synthesizing carbon based fuels using electricity. If enough progress is made this would be easy to store. Again, cost effectiveness remains an issue. Populate the southern USA with solar and by then these long term storage options might be farther along.

"As for HVDC, I think you will find that lots of northern countries (or regions) won't want to rely on purchasing their energy needs from southern regions." Maybe, but will work for S to N in USA and will probably work for Mexico, USA, and Canada. Europe is already investing in massive Desertec project for solar in N Africa. Think you're wrong and HVDC is just one more option anyway.

No, I know there are massive amounts of coal. I just think it will be hard to move it fast enough to keep up with demand. Price will go up some. …and since solar price is coming down… What other option are you suggesting? Hold a tight fist on your dollars and burn coal till the cows keel over?

ANONYMOUS
May 10, 2010

Regarding the remarks of mds in comments 39 and 40:

There is a limit to how rapidly one can accelerate progress in something by increasing its funding. Steady funding over long periods of time is far more successful than binge and bust funding cycles. Solar PV technologies are already experiencing rapid growth and dumping more money into them isn't efficient. You will easily get the high electricity prices seen in Europe where huge FITs (and wild fluctuations in them) have already caused problems, but you won't see a concomitant increase in progress. Meanwhile the fixation with near-term progress is leading to meager funding for other methods where progress could be made with much greater efficiency. Furthermore, buying lots of an inferior product--which is what FITs do--isn't an especially effective way to promote better ones.

Regarding hydrogen storage, mds apparently hopes to use it to store months worth of a regions energy needs, and I am extremely skeptical about the practicality of doing that. For modest amounts of short term storage hydrogen is likely to find a role, but on a massive long term basis this sounds expensive and difficult--hydrogen is, for instance, significantly harder to deal with than natural gas.

As for HVDC, I think you will find that lots of northern countries (or regions) won't want to rely on purchasing their energy needs from southern regions.

Finally, mds seems to think coal prices are going to go up fast enough to contribute to the economic viability of renewables even with expensive storage options. I think he greatly underestimates the amount of coal that is available. We will likely suffer significant environmental problems long before pricing pressures become that significant....
Steven

mike shurtleff
May 10, 2010

CORRECTION:
"but in much of Europe, Canada, the Northern US, etc. it is going to be a niche player, especially when one keeps in mind that peak energy needs for such regions are going to be on winter nights"
Right now, yes I agree, but that's what HVDC is for. Also, distributed thermal storage for winter.
"none of these options allow one to store enough energy to even out seasonal variations"
Hydrogen! Significant advances continue to be made in electrolysis, storage, and H2 fuel-cells. Not economical now, but in future.

mike shurtleff
May 10, 2010

@steven
"Most people would not speak of "a few cents per kWh" as if it is a trifle. This is more than the cost of generation (without distribution costs) for coal."
Not a trifle, but doable & reasonable. Coal is going up in price. If you continue to depend primarily on coal then you'll pay more.
"Solar thermal and PV may eventually be a significant component of the energy mix in the US south west and places with similar climates"
Almost exactly my point, except that it is already happening. It takes time to build.
"but in much of Europe, Canada, the Northern US, etc. it is going to be a niche player, especially when one keeps in mind that peak energy needs for such regions are going to be on winter nights"
Right now, yes I agree, but that's what HVDC is for. Also, distributed thermal storage for winter. Not economical now, but in future.
"none of these options allow one to store enough energy to even out seasonal variations"
Hydrogen! Significant advances continue to be made in electrolysis, storage, and H2 fuel-cells.
"modestly accelerate adoption of solar PV"
PV production has been doubling more than every two years. That is not modest, it's FAST.
"we need to be working on technologies that can be made affordable enough to displace coal use in places such as China and India"
S China and India are prime candidates for solar, it's on cusp of grid parity, and cost will continue down some from there …and it is not exhaustible …and it is by far the single largest source of power available to us.
"also need a mix of technologies"
I total agree, which is why I'm in favor of nuclear, wind, wave, tidal current, geothermal, and bio-gas/electric power development.

ANONYMOUS
May 9, 2010

Mds writes in comment #34: " 'If solar is truly competitive in key markets already why does it need subsidies'…
Answer: For faster adoption in the larger mainland USA market."

and in comment #35: "This is really why you appose (sic) FITs for solar. You don't think solar will work out. I disagree with you. It's already happening."

This suggests he has missed my points entirely. Changing the energy infrastructure sufficiently to address climate change is a daunting task that is going to be much more like a marathon than a sprint. I see no merit and considerable downside to expending vast sums of money to modestly accelerate adoption of solar PV--as would most rate payers if they knew the true cost. Furthermore, we need to be working on technologies that can be made affordable enough to displace coal use in places such as China and India. We also need a mix of technologies that will meet nearly 100% of heating and electricity demands--solar and wind only get you a small part of the way so we should be focusing on accelerating the technologies that might fill the gap and which are not very far along the adoption curve. Arguments for showering PV with money never seem to include an economics analysis--probably because the only ones who benefit from such an approach are PV vendors.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
May 9, 2010

mds writes in comment #35: "There are already several reasonable approaches: compressed air, thermal storage, pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen. I've read the first three can be accomplished for a few cents per kWh. The last two are more expensive, but all of them will come down in price. "

Most people would not speak of "a few cents per kWh" as if it is a trifle. This is more than the cost of generation (without distribution costs) for coal. Thermal storage is also only a reasonable option for solar thermal and none of these options allow one to store enough energy to even out seasonal variations. Solar thermal and PV may eventually be a significant component of the energy mix in the US south west and places with similar climates, but in much of Europe, Canada, the Northern US, etc. it is going to be a niche player, especially when one keeps in mind that peak energy needs for such regions are going to be on winter nights.
Steven

Mary Saunders
May 9, 2010

I just want to go on record as opposing cap-and-game as much as anybody. I oppose taxes as well.

Credits let people keep their own money. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially when they force investors to subsidize the down and out.

Although the big group buy here makes you use certain vendors to get the credit, which seems a little gamey to me, their reasoning is that they are going to deal with warranties and call-backs, so they should get to choose the vendors. We'll see how it works.

If it doesn't work, I will hear. This is not a closed-mouth kind of town, and besides I know a board member from SolarOregon. I can always ask her how it is going on her house.

mike shurtleff
May 9, 2010

@comment #29 steven:
"the huge seasonal variability of solar in most localities (in addition to the daily intermittency) is going to place a significant limit on the utility of solar even if costs plummet"
Answer: Nope, this is a common misconception. Solar (PV in particular) is going to carry a huge part of the load in California. The largest part of the demand, during peak hours of the day, is for air conditioning and PV solar power for AC can be stored cheaply as ice to use during the night. CST solar can be stored in hot salt or sand reservoirs for use at night. The Mohave desert has almost no cloudy days and solar variability due to clouds can be radically reduced by sharing power across the entire Southern USA. Also, you make it sound like storage is outrageously expensive and tough to do. There are already several reasonable approaches: compressed air, thermal storage, pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen. I've read the first three can be accomplished for a few cents per kWh. The last two are more expensive, but all of them will come down in price. All of them, except pumped hydro can be used in distributed form, at business or home sites. You don't need storage for months in the Southern half of the USA. AC loads are reduced and the days are not that much shorter in the winter. In short, the "seasonal variability of solar" is not that great in the Southern USA and the "daily intermittency" is not that big a problem. Solar cannot do everything and we will have still have an energy mix, but it can do a lot and will be.
This is really why you appose FITs for solar. You don't think solar will work out. I disagree with you. It's already happening. Look at what First Solar has accomplished and look at what is already coming out of the lab and into production. Solar is here. Let's get on with it.

mike shurtleff
May 9, 2010

@comment #29 steven:
"If solar is truly competitive in key markets already why does it need subsidies"…
Answer: For faster adoption in the larger mainland USA market.
"payments vary markedly based on the technology"
Answer: I'm talking within the field of solar. There is no differentiation between Crystalline Silicon PV, CdTe, aSi, CIGS, etc. The same is true for different approaches to CST and CPV. This allows the market to pick the most cost effective of those solutions. Yes, you are picking solar over fossil fuels, because the point is to get off fossil fuels before you get to a shortage situation with no alternatives.

mike shurtleff
May 9, 2010

@comment #28 steven:
I'm most apposed to the war in Iraq which is for nothing more than oil. There are obviously other subsidies, read what has already been mentioned above. Why should there be any? This is a fully developed industry and the oil companies are making ten's of billions of dollars profit each year. How hypocritical of you to defend subsidizing fossil fuels and attack subsidies for solar. You are not apposed to subsidies, just subsidies for the forms of power you don't like.

ANONYMOUS
May 9, 2010

Mary:
Regarding some of your remarks in comment #30. Most advocates of FITs use the term to imply European style FITs that guarantee large, and production method specific, payments for decades. Gaineville FL recently adopted a 32 cent/kWh payment guaranteed for 20 years for solar PV, and such FITs have also been adopted in parts of Canada. I don't oppose net metering or a requirement that utilities pay avoided costs for any renewable energy before using other sources but the huge payments most people think of when they hear the term FIT are quite another matter.

Average solar insolation in Portland is 6.64 kWh/ sq. meter/day in July and only 1.1 in December--this is a seasonal variability of a factor of 6. Your home town may not go months without sun, but that sort of seasonal variability is not easily smoothed over if one wants to rely on solar power for a large fraction of energy needs. Energy demand tends to peak in winter if one includes heating needs (which is a larger contributer to greenhouse gases than electricity production), which is just when solar power is weakest. That is going to put a limit of the effectiveness of solar power as an energy source unless you have some long term storage capability (which I don't recommend holding you breath for).

Privately funded R&D is fine for many things, but if you want to research topics that will be beneficial 20+ years from now (the timescale relevant for many possible energy schemes) you will find that public funding is basically the only option. As for cronyism, this is a problem the world over, but I'd say that levels at the DOE or NSF are quite small compared to what we would see arise from FITs, cap and trade policies, and many of the things on the corporate wish list in the article of S. Burns.
Steven

Mary Saunders
May 9, 2010

Michael Becker's motto is, "No child left inside."

Think of the side benefits of that if it went to scale!

These are sixth-graders. Who remembers that age with total fondness?

Mary Saunders
May 9, 2010

Steven seems to be arguing against a kind of FIT that I don't know of in the U.S.

A current scheme is net metering, with generation over a household's use going to a low-income support program. Since most systems seem to produce more than the owners were promised, this helps the utility. If it fairly passes through as the utility says, it helps less advantaged people also.

No one proposing a FIT would use the words feed-in-tariff in Oregon. People would assume it to be a tax, and that would be that.

Renewable-energy payment (REP) would be more palatable, and that is what the lobbying types in the solar industry are lobbing for. REP's would trigger more production.

Even in Oregon, we have never gone months without sun.

Investment in R&D does not reliably produce anything, so far as I know. It depends on who is investing and to whom the investment money is being given. Cronyism is rampant.

I would rather see R&D privately funded by those who believe in what they are doing for the long-term benefit of themselves, their families, and their communities. Broad support and transparency to allow even marginalized populations to weigh in during pilot-project and brainstorming phases could be a great way for those making big bonuses to share in a hands-on way.

Michael Becker, a science teacher in Hood River, Oregon, has been effective in getting his sixth-graders to write proposals and win grants in this manner. He says they get so organized that the only project he ever did with one trip to the hardware store was a kid project.

Cronyism and poor use of resources happens in private, but at least it affects those who have the learning experiences of it. Paul Hawken is good at calling that out and warning start-up people about this, although he and the other natural-capital guys tend to be listened to more by the Chinese than by the Americans, last time I checked.

ANONYMOUS
May 9, 2010

In comment #27 "mho" writes: "Solar is already fully cost competitive in Hawaii, the Caribbean, and some other places...."
and:
"It is also clear the continued drop in price will make solar one of the larger sources of power in the USA in the future. FITs are one form of unbiased (the market picks the winning type) incentive to help that happen faster. imho you have to be slow to argue against this kind of investment. "

If solar is truly competitive in key markets already why does it need subsidies as all no less extremely generous FITs?

FITs are hardly "unbiased" as the payments vary markedly based on the technology, which is a clear bias. Also, FITs for technologies that are near to commercialization compete against funding of R&D for technologies that are not so far along. There latter technologies are the ones that are most in need of assistance.

As for the claim that solar is going to be one of the "larger sources of power," the huge seasonal variability of solar in most localities (in addition to the daily intermittency) is going to place a significant limit on the utility of solar even if costs plummet. Storage for timescales on the order of a day or so might become affordable eventually, but storage of months of energy isn't going to be nearly as easy to achieve.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
May 9, 2010

In comment #27 "mds" includes a nebulous complaint against "subsidies for fossil fuels." Perhaps he would like to give use some very specific examples of the ones he is opposed to. There are far fewer than most people believe, they amount to virtually noting on a per kWh basis, and they are typically in place to encourage development of non-conventional resources (which many people would consider a good thing given the shortages likely to develop in the near future).
Steven

mike shurtleff
May 9, 2010

1. If you are apposed to your tax dollars being spent on FITs for solar, then you should first go and get the subsidies for fossil fuels removed. They are much larger and this is a fully developed and mature industry. (It is telling when individuals argue against subsidies for solar without stating they appose subsidies for fossil fuels. Old gaurd view. Stuck in the fossil fuel paradigm.)

2. FITs have already increased PV production and brought PV prices down, first in Japan and now in Germany. They do allow some producers of less efficient systems to survive, but they allow more efficient producers to thrive and grow faster. This helps bridge the "valley of death" most startup companies experience in the beginning and it is important for bringing developments out of the R&D lab and into commercial production more rapidly. We need R&D AND subsidies for solar. FITs work.

3. Solar is already fully cost competitive in Hawaii, the Caribbean, and some other places in the world. Since electricity is expensive and sun light is plentiful in California, solar is now on the cusp of cost competitiveness there. California is a huge market and this is the first place in the continental USA it will catch on. It is clear the cost of solar can and will continue to drop. (This is true for PV, CST, and CPV.) It is also clear the continued drop in price will make solar one of the larger sources of power in the USA in the future. FITs are one form of unbiased (the market picks the winning type) incentive to help that happen faster. imho you have to be slow to argue against this kind of investment. Solar will happen on its own, but it will happen slower and the USA will own significantly less of the market.

No more money for fossil fuels. More money for solar. Reduce FIT subsidies when solar is less than $0.08/kWh

btw I'm for solar AND nuclear. Clean coal? Show me.

ANONYMOUS
May 8, 2010

In comment #21 Sailrick writes "I agree with you. Deployment is what brings down costs. Wind has proven this. So has the computer industry and related technologies"

I disagree. I particularly disagree with the use of the word "proven" with what is anecdotal information. Certainly having a market for a product provides some incentive for further R&D and certainly economies of scale tend to lead to a gradual reduction in prices. However, major breakthroughs tend to occur in the laboratory and are most readily accelerated by direct R&D funding. Solar thermal and wind may well be relatively mature technologies where the predominant savings will come from economies of scale. The solar PV market is a very different case with many immature and competing technologies. Increasing demand in such a market--beyond the strong demand that already exists--will only provide weak incentives for further innovation but direct R&D expenditures will almost surely lead to advances with much greater efficiency. High FITs that lead to large and guaranteed profits for developers using even inferior technologies is at best merely a waste of money. The extremely high FITs coupled with the temporary scarcity of raw materials kept manufacturing of inferior product lines artificially profitable suppressing the need for innovation, promoting high energy prices, and arguably slowing the rise of better products. FITs also do nothing to advance technologies that are not near to commercialization and this is really where we need to be focusing. If the time at which solar PV becomes widely affordable is slowed a few years but we make good progress on other technologies such as energy storage, enhanced geothermal, wave power, smart energy grids, etc., this would be an excellent tradeoff so we need to be smarter about how we allocate our limited resources. PV alone isn't going to address the climate change threat....
Steven

Richard Mercer
May 6, 2010

"Obama cuts back on subsidies for fossil fuels"

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100201/obama-budget-erases-fossil-fuel-subsidies-ramps-nuclear-spending
"The industry has become so accustomed to those tax breaks and federal incentives (coal started receiving subsidies in 1932) that its leaders quickly condemned today's budget proposal as new taxes on them."

In light of the distinct advantage given to fossil fuels with their absurd subsidies ( The biggest profits in history, of any industry), and the distortion this place on the energy market, not to mention the enormous political clout they enjoy with congress, which they have virutally bought with their enormous capital, it only makes sense to subsidise renewables so they can be deployed and their costs can come down with economies of scale.

To say that handouts to renewables distort the market is disingenuous. The market is already distorted by the incumbent industry.

Richard Mercer
May 6, 2010

Solar thermal and heat storage

Profit Maximization
Energy storage allows the plant operator to maximize profits. During periods of
low hourly power prices, the operator can forgo generation and dump heat into
storage; and at times of high prices, the plant can run at full capacity even
without sun.

Peak Shaving
Solar generating capacity with heat storage can make other capacity in the
market unnecessary. With heat storage the solar plant is able to shave the
peak load.

Reducing Intermittence
The ability of thermal solar plants to use heat energy storage to keep electric
output constant: (1) reduces the cost associated with uncertainty surrounding
power production; and (2) relieves concerns regarding electrical interconnection
fees, regulation service charges, and transmission tariffs.

Increasing Plant Utilization
Solar plants equipped with heat storage have the ability to increase overall
annual generation levels by spreading out solar radiation to better match
plant capacity.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/owens_storage_value.pdf

Subsidies are one of the worst arguments against renewables in my opinion. Why? Because they still don't come close to the subsidies for fossil fuels in the U.S. Nuclear power has received over $100 billion in the past 50 years.
Oil has been subsidized since 1918
Coal has been subsidized since 1932

We are subsidizing fossil fuels in many other ways by not acknowledging the hidden or externalized costs, like health costs, environmental costs, military costs, trade deficits, wars, even damage to buildings and infrastructure from acid rain.

Koplow a leading expert on energy subsidies, estimated total subsidies and various tax credits for oil in 2006 alone, at $39 billion and another $10 billion for coal and gas. He notes how hard it is to dig out all the hidden subsidies fossil fuels get.

Richard Mercer
May 6, 2010

An NREL study for the Western Governors Association projected power prices from CSP at below 10 cents/kWh after about 4 GW was built and online. They futher projected prices of 3.5-7 cents/kWh after the industry gets up to scale. (note there are 6 GW of planned or current projects now)

WGA study of CSP

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf

"Even though some solar generating technologies could benefit from research and development, it was made clear that solar resources are abundant; are located where they are needed; that efficiencies from concentrating solar power (CSP) are good enough to justify deployment; and
cost projections are very promising. All that solar power required, in the opinion of the experts, is an incubation period, where incentives are put in place that allow the transition of this emerging generating technology into the mainstream. It is our view that providing such an incubation period is not a leap of faith, but a proven recipe of success, as the emergence of wind generating technology in Europe has shown."

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/33233.pdf

Richard Mercer
May 6, 2010

There are very strong advantages to solar thermal, most of which come into play when you include molten salt heat storage. Then you have something like baseload power, except its dispatchable power that is load following, something base load nuclear or coal plants can't do. And of course you have power day and night. And dispatchable power can command a higher price, as its more valuable.

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/04/why_csp_should_not_try_to_be_coal.html

The NREL says a parabolic solar trough with heat storage has a capacity factor of 50% and a power tower type plant has capacity factor of up to 72%. If I remember correctly, this is with 6 hours heat storage. More storage is feasable, making it possible to generate power all night.
And storing heat is far more efficient and cost effective than storing electricity in batteries. This is particularly so when you are storing energy in the same form you collected.
Solar thermal is also an excellent combination with natural gas or biogas, as an alternative to the molten salt heat storage. Pilot plants built by NREL in the Mojave Desert about twenty years ago are co-fired with natural gas. The solar thermal provides 95% of peak demand power, with the gas being used mostly in the evening.

Arizona alone has an estimated 285 GW of solar thermal potential, and thats being selective about what land is used. New Mexico has another 220 GW, Nevada 165 GW, Utah 74 GW, California 98 GW, Colorado 38 GW, Oregon 12 GW, Kansas 6.7 GW, and West Texas has large solar recources, for which I don't have the numbers.

Solar thermal can also be CHP, providing hot water and electricity. It can be air cooled, water cooled or closed loop cooled with a Heller type system, using very little water. In addition, it can be used for sea water desalination.

Richard Mercer
May 6, 2010

"Bullshit. When wind turbines where put in place in the 1980's in Europe, they produced power at 60 cents per kWh. 30 years later, the price is around 6-9 cents per kWh. This would not have been achieved without state support in the form of FIT's,"

I agree with you. Deployment is what brings down costs. Wind has proven this. So has the computer industry and related technologies. Remember what a PC used to cost, that wasn't one thousanth as powerful as todays PCs? A Loran for marine navigation could cost $5000 in the early 80s. Now you can by a GPS handheld for under $100 and a reciever for $25, that you can plug into your laptop that has navigation software. I downloaded my charting program for free on the internet and download the charts from NOAA for free.

Solar thermal or concentrated solar power (CSP) is a prime example of a renewable technology that mostly needs deployment to become cost effective. The NREL, for instance, thinks that solar thermal construction costs will come way down when the industry is up to scale. This is not a power source that is in need of some major technological breakthrough. Its pretty low tech and can already produce power cheaper than PV solar, even though its not as far along in commercial development. According to NREL, after an initial learning curve spanning the first few gigawatts development, there will be an initial drop in costs. Further cost effectiveness will come with economy of scale.
Also, the larger the solar farm, the more economical it is to build and run You only need one steam generator and power block and one molten salt heat storage tank , no matter how many solar collectors you want to add. So incremental gains in size only require adding more collection ability.

Aaron Moline
May 3, 2010

Great discussion and great article. Obviously the topic of progressing the energy landscape in this country is full of pro's and con's. Although we do not know what will be our energy future, we cannot ignore what domestic resources mean for this country. Wind, solar, biofuels, nuclear, renewable and conventional: all are part of a complete energy portfolio that America desperately needs! We as a nation need to take the steps to promote a future focused on energy security while keeping America a leading competitive force.
Want to learn more about balanced energy for America? Visit www.consumerenergyalliance.org to get involved, discover CEA's mission and sign up for our informative newsletter.

Thomas Garven
April 29, 2010

Good comments firofenergy.

While I am not a big fan of FIT, I am certainly willing to listen to all suggestions and you have some good points. IF the FIT were used to:

1. Fund further energy research
2. Provide free tutions to junior colleges for the study of renewable energy
3. To build renewable energy manufacturing facilities
4. Reduce the cost of renewable energy products like heat pumps
5. Would reduce our use of coal for electricity generation, and;
6. Were gradually reduced over time or until some type of sunset clause was achieved I might be convinced.

My reasoning is as follows. Let's say that we implement FIT at some level, any level, $.10/kW for example. The law covered a period of 10 years front loaded with decreasing financial levels.

One year after the law is passed some bright mind somewhere finds out how to make solar panels 50% efficient for $.25/watt. Do we now throw all our money at solar or do we stay the course which might include Carbon Capture and Sequestration of coal plants. After venture capitalists invest in one technology it is almost impossible to turn the process around. I just don't know of a whole bunch of taxes we have canceled in the past LOL.

I still of course like my gas tax and carbon tax idea LOL

Tom G.

Thomas Garven
April 28, 2010

Steven: We are on the same page.

I support more R&D
I support more nuclear if the goal is to burn up our existing spent fuel
I support solar hot water but only if it is NOT part of a solar PV installation. Its cheaper to install a few extra panels instead of paying $5-6,000 for a separate system. Yes to all the others.
I support grid modernization as described.
I support oil drilling as described
I support as a minimum Carbon Capture & Sequestration[CC&S] however I consider that a stop gap measure unless we can sequester all of the other junk they pump into our air and water. When we are able to produce enough renewable energy we will no longer need coal.
I will support a carbon tax but not Cap & Trade. It is too easy to game the Cap & Trade system.
I will support hydrogen...

All we have to do now is figure out how to pay for all of our wishes.

Tom G.

ANONYMOUS
April 28, 2010

In comment #12 Tom writes: "I have proposed many solutions in my posts; wind, solar, hydro, nuclear etc. I would now like hear some of your ideas or solutions please."

This would bring us somewhat off topic, but I will hazard a few brief remarks:

I support increased R&D funding for many promising technologies that are not yet cost effective.
I support further investment in nuclear power (as a stopgap until better solutions exist).
I support buildout of cost effective technologies such as solar hot water, geothermal heat pumps, geothermal power stations, and wind power.
I advocate an extensive modernization of the grid especially to enable smart grid applications and to connect remote areas having good wind resources to major cities.
I support--as a stopgap plan--drilling for oil offshore and in the Arctic nature preserves.
I would outlaw the development of any coal-fired power plant that was not carbon-capture ready (i.e., designed for the eventual introduction of carbon sequestration technology).
I might even support a carbon tax on coal-fired generation--if the funds where used for R&D and other efficient purposes.
I support further research into the use of hydrogen as a storage medium, including the use of renewable energy (e.g., wind) to produce hydrogen for the manufacture of fertilizer (which is currently made from methane).

I could go on, but I promised brevity....
Steven

ANONYMOUS
April 28, 2010

In comment #11 a-b-24958 continues his argument that FITs accelerate innovation and eventually lead to efficient technologies. I don't dispute this--I merely state a belief that dollar-for-dollar direct R&D funding does this MUCH more effectively than FITs do. Ten years from now PV will hopefully be much cheaper but the people in Germany will still be paying high and guaranteed FITs on inefficient old technology acquired in a pell-mell rush and often rather poorly sited. I would like to avoid that fate.
Steven

Mary Saunders
April 28, 2010

So, how about what is going on in Bangladesh, empowering women to implement distributed installed base that local people know how to maintain? The paperwork involved for a group-buy in Portland has got to have cost a fortune and a number of sites probably won't come in as practicable because of trees. The main contractor is based out of state, which has sort of perplexed me. If we could reduce paperwork and get more local with what we do, it would help our efficiency, across the board. Governments on all levels are addicted to paper- and digital-fine print. If we busted things down to county level, maybe that would help? I would feel less frustrated about county participation. Theoretically, figuring out accountability could be more transparent and immediate, especially if some cracker-jack science teachers put sixth-graders on the prowl.

ANONYMOUS
April 28, 2010

a-b-24958 writes "You are wrong. Solar power is a distributed generation source, which allow to avoid building a huge distribution grid, compared to the alternatives you propose."

Unless a-b-24958 also has an array of batteries for his system or some other power source he is using the distribution grid when it is dark or cloudy and profiting from another very valuable subsidy in the form of net metering. He may like to forget about this, but the grid is every bit as necessary for him as for everyone else--he just doesn't have to pay for it because his neighbors do.

It is a quant and specious notion to view the typical solar PV installation as sitting on a single homeowner's roof. In the US at least most solar PV is installed in commercial and utility scale sites and the energy produced is distributed over the grid. It is also inaccurate to assume that PV installations always decrease the need for a distribution grid; in Hawaii, which generates most of its electricity with oil so it is one of the few places where PV can easily compete, the utilities are experiencing serious instabilities in the grid as the share of PV rises and this will ultimately lead to the need for augmentation of the grid.

a-b-24958 also remarks on the many places in the world without an established grid. I will agree with him that the best uses for solar PV are in off-grid applications, but the fraction of solar PV going to such applications has been a monotonically decreasing function of time and I don't expect a reversal of that trend.
Steven

Thomas Garven
April 28, 2010

O.K Steven we now know that you would not support even a small FIT or gasoline tax. We also know that you don't like taxes in general and I fully agree with you on that one. So lets see if we can reach agreement on FIT first.

I think America was smart to wait for Europe to try FIT. We leaned enough for us to know that they are not a long term strategy. Many people will argue all day they do have a place in our energy plan but not me. We have a nasty habit in our country when it comes to taxes. If a new tax is developed it rarely if ever goes away.

How about the gasoline tax. Currently the federal gasoline tax is about $.18/gal. In my opinion, this is a very small tax which has been stable for years and years. It however does not seem to be sufficient to maintain our highway system and/or infrastructure. So even though I may not like it, I expect to see about a $.10 increase in the not to distant future. I don't like taxes on gasoline but until we come up with something better I guess I have to support them. We could tax the other end of the oil stream but I don't see that as a much better solution but I am willing to listen to any idea.

So both of us don't seem to like feed-in-tariffs or taxes. Taxes take money from the people who have it and gives it to people who don't. Oh and don't forget about the middle man who takes his 25-40% cut off the top. Taxes wouldn't be so bad if our federal government was as efficient as some of our charitable agencies which only keep about 7-10% of what we give them. Wouldn't it be great if our government was that efficient?

I have proposed many solutions in my posts; wind, solar, hydro, nuclear etc. I would now like hear some of your ideas or solutions please.

tomgarven@hotmail.com

a b
April 28, 2010

"FITs fund the scale up of inferior technologies and funnel money from rate payers to corporations. This is a vast waste of resources and it often works to suppress the competitive pressures that are a source of innovation while creating boom and bust cycles that profit no one."

Bullshit. When wind turbines where put in place in the 1980's in Europe, they produced power at 60 cents per kWh. 30 years later, the price is around 6-9 cents per kWh. This would not have been achieved without state support in the form of FIT's, allowing the most efficient technical design to become mainstream, since it could earn the most FIT's for the least capital investment; spurring competition between various wind turbine manufacturers.

If I use your logic, then we would now have ZERO nuclear power plants, since the military spent Trillions developing compact and safe nuclear power generators for their submarines and aircraft carriers, concepts that then were upgraded and put to civilian use by utilities, without this being seen as a market screwing mechanism by you.

I could go on but you get my point that there is no such thing as a free market when it comes to power production systems. Coal is cheap, but is not clean and is FINITE. The same can be said of Oil&Gas, so if we do not temporarily support renewable to replace this FF infrastructure later on, this RE alternative will NEVER get of the ground. The result will then be that your kids will go back to the stone age in no time somewhere down the road, because you and others had no foresight to get a leveling mechanism in place to allow new RE to compete with their current established competitors that enjoy many hidden subsidies and regulatory advantages, until RE's technology are so pervasive that they become as cheap as the latest portable throwaway mobile phone. By then you will probably be bitching about something else.

a b
April 28, 2010

"These price comparisons are not entirely apt. The solar price quoted of $0.25/kWh is the production price and is being compared to the price for production and distribution for other means. In most of these places the cost of new generation from wind, nuclear power, new hydro power, geothermal energy, etc. would all be well below the price of solar generation (by more than a factor of 2) so we should not be expecting a huge build out of solar power driven purely by market forces even in these locations.
Steven"

You are wrong. Solar power is a distributed generation source, which allow to avoid building a huge distribution grid, compared to the alternatives you propose. A grid is lacking in many under developed parts of the world. The west spent 100 years and trillions developing that grid, and it is still an ongoing work.

When you have the option of buying petrol to crank a $1500 portable generator providing you some home or small business electricity at $0.40 per kWh or install a PV panel installation charging a few car batteries for $0.25 per kWh, thus allowing you to light one lamp and power a fridge, then the choice is rapidly done.

Please get of the idea that the whole world is living like you, there are 2 billion people out there that have NO access to electricity in 2010 !

Even in the west, it makes sense to install PV panels on industrial and home based buildings roofs to compensate for peak power demand, given that the power user is based right under the energy provider, thus diminishing the load factor on the existing grids.

ANONYMOUS
April 28, 2010

Tom,
Regarding your questions in comment 8, I don't see any virtue in bad ideas in moderation; thus I could not support even a small FIT or gasoline tax. I am not a huge fan of taxes either, but a carbon tax would at least be vastly superior to RPSs, cap and trade, and other top down approaches to control of the energy market.
Steven

Thomas Garven
April 27, 2010

Steven:

Thank you for responding. You also offered up some further words of clarification which I appreciate: "I also tend to quite generally oppose ... the idea of Thomas to tax gasoline is a poor policy as oil is rarely used to generate electricity.

I agree, oil is rarely used for power generation. However, our transportation network uses billions of gallons of gasoline and diesel which someday might become electric and we seem headed in that direction. Also any energy strategy should be built on a variety of energy sources like; solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, bio-fuels and maybe even a little nuclear. The only problem with nuclear as I see it is that I don't see anyone picketing yet to have one built in their backyard. When that happens I will reconsider my position if the design is based on burning up our current spent fuel supply.

I also happen to believe that Feed In Tariffs [FIT] are a terrible idea for an energy plan that is going to cover a span of 10-40 years. I put it in the same category as a gasoline tax; neither one may be the best solution however both are solutions. Would you accept maybe both of these in some moderation along with maybe a Carbon Tax? A little tax money from FIT, a little money from a gas tax and a little from a Carbon Tax? We have to start somewhere. Last time I looked we didn't have a whole bunch of free energy options available.

This is exactly the dialog we need to be having and no one at the government level is even seriously talking about it. We get a few Congressmen who support oil, some support nuclear, some solar, some bio-fuels yet NO ONE that I can find is wise enough to support all. The current lack of leadership in Washington scares the heck out of me. We are only about 3 to 5 years away from peak oil and don't even have 2 pages of an energy policy written.

Tom G.

ANONYMOUS
April 27, 2010

In comment #3 a-b-24958 writes: "I live in Belgium, and pay a flat rate of 18 cents per kWh to get grid electricity supplied to my home. Many parts of the world already have electricity rates that are over $0.40/kWh. Solar today averages $0.25/kWh. In almost all of Africa, Pakistan, Hawaii, Italy and large portions of Japan, the price of electricity is already in excess of what the cost of electricity is coming from solar."

These price comparisons are not entirely apt. The solar price quoted of $0.25/kWh is the production price and is being compared to the price for production and distribution for other means. In most of these places the cost of new generation from wind, nuclear power, new hydro power, geothermal energy, etc. would all be well below the price of solar generation (by more than a factor of 2) so we should not be expecting a huge build out of solar power driven purely by market forces even in these locations.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
April 27, 2010

In comment #2 Thomas writes: "I am not quite sure what you expect people to do with your comments? Do you want us to condemn this article or do you have some other agenda you thing we should be working towards? "

FITs fund the scale up of inferior technologies and funnel money from rate payers to corporations. This is a vast waste of resources and it often works to suppress the competitive pressures that are a source of innovation while creating boom and bust cycles that profit no one. Thomas seems confused by my motivations so I will attempt to be unambiguously clear: I oppose FITs and other similar programs that are devoid of sound economic principles. I support sound policies that stand a reasonable chance of addressing climate change concerns, which are likely to be expensive even if we don't squander money on ineffectual policies. One reasonable approach is increased R&D funding, which does spur innovation and which may even eventually lead to solar products that may cost effectively compete with conventional generation methods.

I also tend to quite generally oppose the conflation of distinct issues; thus, I point out that the idea of Thomas to tax gasoline is a poor policy as oil is rarely used to generate electricity and oil prices are already increasing at a rate that is more than sufficient to spur interest in developing alternatives. If you want to alter the electricity generation playing field via taxes you would tax coal. Transportation fuels and fuels used for electricity generation are distinct market segments.
Steven

randy velker
April 27, 2010

The energy plan outlined by thomas garvin would be interesting to think through. For sure the steps in this article are a tiny step in the right direction, but not even close to what needs to be done.

Massive steps need to be made in government priorities (using the US military as the security guards of big oil). I have no idea how to level the playing field as it is currently more like a cliff than a "playing field".

Randy
SimpleEnergyWorks.com

a b
April 27, 2010

" This is a twisted ordering of priorities intended to favor industry. Feed-in tariffs (FITs) naturally appear at the top of the industry wish list because they make virtually any inefficient technology profitable."

2009-2019 US Oil&Gas companies subsidy = $36.5 billion.
ExxonMobil 2009 NET profits = $45 Billion
ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009
2009 USA military spending to protect foreign oil supply routes : $ 650 000 millions

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201

Quad erat demonstrandum.

a b
April 27, 2010

" This is a twisted ordering of priorities intended to favor industry. Feed-in tariffs (FITs) naturally appear at the top of the industry wish list because they make virtually any inefficient technology profitable."

I live in Belgium, and pay a flat rate of 18 cents per kWh to get grid electricity supplied to my home. Many parts of the world already have electricity rates that are over $0.40/kWh. Solar today averages $0.25/kWh. In almost all of Africa, Pakistan, Hawaii, Italy and large portions of Japan, the price of electricity is already in excess of what the cost of electricity is coming from solar.

I just purchased a 4.2kW solar PV installation (Photovoltech cells installed in Bisol 245W panels, 2x SMA 2100TL inverters, yearly sun insulation rates equaling 850kWh per 1000kWh installed capacity).

I paid 15 520 euro to get it all installed, I produce 3540 kWh of power the first year.
If I do account for the yearly 0.008 power production loss factor due to older getting PV cells, then over 20 years, my installation produces 65 674 kWh.

15 520 Euro divided by 65 674 kWh produced = 24 cents per produced kWh for the next decades.

I can get a 40% tax rebate capped at 3600 euro per year. 40% of 15 520 euro = 6 200 euro.

I am allowed to ask for this tax rebate in the following 4 tax returns (2011 till 2015). I therefore have to wait for two tax returns refunds to be able to capitalize the tax rebate on this investment.

Once the tax rebates earned, my capital investment drops to 15 520 – 6 200 = 9 320 euro.

9 320 euro divided by 65 674 kWh produced = 14 cents per kWh !!!!

14 cents per kWh is less than half the current utility peak power price now being paid in California by home owners using fossil fuel generated electrical power. 24 cents per kWh is about 70% of the current utility peak power price now being paid in California by home owners using fossil fuel generated electrical power.

Thomas Garven
April 27, 2010

Steven:

I am not quite sure what you expect people to do with your comments? Do you want us to condemn this article or do you have some other agenda you thing we should be working towards?

First of all let me express my opinion and say that I would be very disappointed if Dr. Burns of Corning DIDN'T do her best to sway public opinion in her favor. That after all is her job as a CEO of a corporation.

Anyway, you are of course perfectly within your rights to express your opinion.

Since I normally post alternatives if I don't fully support or agree with the posted article or paper here is where I believe we need to go. Actually since space is so limited here it will only be a snippet.

We need to put a $1.00/gal. tax on gasoline. That would give us about $135 billion a YEAR to use to stimulate some type of energy strategy. I happen to think that solar and wind are the way to go. Forget about piddling around with feed in tariffs - just give Owens Corning a billion dollars and see what they can do. Also give 10 other solar manufacturers here in the U.S. a billion each. At the end of the first year the manufacturer who is closest to $1.00/watt out-the-door gets a billion the next year. The others get cut to $500 million. And the next year %250 million and etc. Drive innovation with dollars. Also give about $1 million to every Junior College in the U.S. to develop solar and wind courses. Enrollment in the classes would be free. Spend about 2-4 billion to build some silicon plants and just give U.S. manufacturers the silicon for free. We can be competitive when the playing field is level. I don't have the space here to show the whole plan but the level of government funding shown in this article is truly a joke. It is not even close to an energy plan.

Solar and wind are the answer; we just need to fund the research, engineering, training, installation and then get out of the way. Government is never the solution.

ANONYMOUS
April 26, 2010

This is a twisted ordering of priorities intended to favor industry. Feed-in tariffs (FITs) naturally appear at the top of the industry wish list because they make virtually any inefficient technology profitable. I'd be willing to support increased R&D funding (which the author revealingly ranks below FITs in the wish list above) to expedite the creation of affordable technologies but see no reason for corporate pork--funded at rate payer expense--to build out the currently available products that are vastly more expensive than competing technologies. Overly generous FITs in Spain, Germany, and other European nations led to an overheated industry with no serious competitive pressures and then an ensuing bubble; we should not repeat such policy blunders. Paying too much for inferior products is not a good way to spur innovation.
Steven