Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The 12-step Solar Program: Toward an Incentive-less Future

By Paula Mints, Navigant Consulting
January 24, 2011   |   77 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
77 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 77
January 24, 2011
"Delight the customer. That's just Marketing 101."

And something that is often overlooked. We have to move past the "go solar" message and marketing the systems via images and descriptions of the technology. The value of the result of installing PV is what we should be marketing, not the technology that makes it happen. That is a secondary value to the savings and ROI.
Comment
2 of 77
January 24, 2011
Why not phase out all incentives and phase in stiff carbon taxes and let the marketplace figure out how we can survive without carbon.
Comment
3 of 77
awb
January 24, 2011
Not unlike most experts in renewable energy Ms. Mints doesn't seem to know much about the fossil fuel industry. The costs curves of the solar industry and the fossil fuel industry laid upon each other basically look like an X. The intersection of the X, where fossil fuels become forever more expensive than solar, is a near term certainty. Given that Big Fossil will never be forced to give up its own monstrous incentives (Mints is right about that), it's up to all of us to insist that our politicians and government fund renewable incentives for this last hard mile, even as Big Fossil beats them upside head, scared for their own business models.

And please, no BS about the miracle of cheap shale gas killing renewables. Shale gas is a hysterical gold rush, an asset play more resembling the sub-prime mortgage market of the 2000's than the panacea for cheap, secure energy.

Of course there is one agonizing caveat. And that is what will happen if the price of fossil fuels rises too far too fast, in which case we will endure another round(s) of recession and demand destruction and fossil price decrease(s). And renewables will be hurt again, short term. No one, not even Big Fossil, should hope for that. But one never knows.
Comment
4 of 77
January 24, 2011
I think its unfair to denigrate the solar industry over incentives. The industry is struggling to just get its foot in the door. If the solar industry received the dollar equivalent in savings that big oil gets as tax breaks and free mineral rights, we would be the 80 % consumer that you see in the pie chart. I am ashamed at our countries mindlessness. One of the best new lending programs PACE has been almost completely shut down by bogus lawsuits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If you give people a reasonable and fair chance to borrow money with property assessed bonds you could start thinking about weaning the industry from subsidies. OH well, stupid is as stupid does.
Comment
5 of 77
January 25, 2011
Frost & Sullivan predict that North Americans will use 23% of the world's energy by 2020; down from the 32% used now. That means each American will use 70 MMBtu less energy annually in 10 years; equal to foregoing 14,000 miles of driving, space heating in the Northeast, or flying one person around the world. China, India, Latin America, and the Middle East as a group will almost triple their current per capita use in the same period. 23 square meters of solar collector per person would make up for the American drop. Incentive programs will be very costly at that scale. Only price increases will sway Americans to use less; $8 per gallon of oil in ten years would accomplish that.
Comment
6 of 77
January 25, 2011
I'm not so sure that incentive-less parity is not coming in the relatively near future.

I'd like to know from Paula if her analysis factored in increasing fossil fuel costs and increasing generation costs due to replacement of an aging coal-fired generation fleet.

I tend to believe that parity is coming. Solar and wind generation costs are steadily decreasing as Paula noted in a recent Vote Solar Initiative webinar, Global PV Demand 2011 and Beyond". Solar PV panel manufacturing costs are dropping at an annual average of 5%.

In a remarkable and methodologically rigorous study, "GLOBAL OVERVIEW ON GRID-PARITY EVENT DYNAMICS", Ch. Breyer and A. Gerlach analyze global grid parity for solar PV minus any incentives. They predict that the 2010's will be characterized by ongoing grid-parity events throughout the most regions in the world, reaching an addressable market of about 75% up to 90% of total global electricity market by the end of the decade.

http://qcells.de/medien/presse/publikationen/downloads/6CV.4.11_Breyer_GlobalGrid-Parity_paper_25thPVSEC_final.pdf

Key to their projections is an analysis of conventional power generation costs now and over the next decade coupled with intensity of solar resources (high insolation), and projected continued reductions in solar manufacturing/ installation costs. Parity exists now in some regions (high insolation, high conventional generation costs) and will steadily advance around the world as fossil fuel prices rise, costly new conventional power plants are brought on-line, and solar costs continue to drop.
Comment
7 of 77
January 25, 2011
Excellent article and very good remarks from others.
Few factors which may swing game in favor of renewable energy-
1) With increasing effects of global warming visible day by day, human has choice between two- expensive new energy or disastrous old energy.
Once environment movement reaches to masses from government,UN, public opinion will be in favor of new energy. We are not far from the days where national election will be fight on ecological issues.
New energy will take it's place not as an chip energy source but as an clean, non-polluting and safe energy source
2) With growing demand for coal in India, China coupled with ever increasing environmental law will make coal more expensive.
3)Process heating consume between 30% to 50% of energy which can be easily replaced by solar thermal.
Comment
8 of 77
January 25, 2011
On the near horizon may be an "energy multiplier" which, utilizing a jumpstart from solar, will enhance the energy produced by a factor or 7 to 10. Readers are invited to peruse the website of Wind & Star Energy's new vertical-axis, wind energy generator. (www.windandstarenergy.com) Encouraging CFD modeling data produced by an independent consulting aeronautical and acoustic engineering company data warrants the construction of a 50kWh demonstration unit scheduled to be completed within 60 days. Immediately following will be construction of a 500kWh unit expandable to 1 MW. Sun and wind holding hands can lead to mutual ehancement of both technologies.
Comment
9 of 77
January 25, 2011
Mrs. Mints,
For years you're relentlessly spreading the message: Americans, do not worry about making solar cells and modules, let Asia do it for you! Probably, it is time to shut-up.
Respectfully, Nick
Comment
10 of 77
January 25, 2011
Great insights, though some odd criticisms.

Pretty sure that Paula is familiar with the fossil fuel industry and would almost certainly agree that the 'X' that awb describes is near at hand. This underpins the reality that solar's incentives are endangered.

The focus on FIT has created a financial return driven market. When all installations simply export to the grid, however, the 'customer' may not yet recognize all the benefits.

The situation in the US is arguably somewhat different where the credits, grants and rebates make solar more accessible and allow the system owner to look to benefits such as peak offset for Time of Use pricing.

I agree with Paula that deriving market benefits is the key and that these are available. In fact, another article published today appears to speak to a 'product' fit for 'customer benefit' in the Residential market: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/clarian-lowering-the-entry-price-to-solar/.

Regards, David (http://d-bits.com)
Comment
11 of 77
January 25, 2011
From Nick Dalacu :" Mrs. Mints, probably, it is time to shut-up. "

Well, the Germans think Mr Dalacu is wrong.

http://international.pv-tech.org/news/german_government_solar_industry_association_conclude_fit_cut_conundrum5478?utm_source=PV-Tech&utm_campaign=4982367dbf-PV_Tech_Newsletter_24_01_2011&utm_medium=email

20 January 2011 - Federal Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen and the German Solar Industry Association have agreed to bring forward the reductions of financial support for solar power in order to facilitate the further expansion of photovoltaics in Germany. This early reduction could amount to between 3 and 15%, depending on market growth. The basis for calculating this early reduction will be the development of domestic photovoltaic demand from March to May 2011. "We welcome this clear political commitment to expanding photovoltaics, to Germany as a production site and to the more than 130 000 jobs created so far by photovoltaic technology," said Günther Cramer, president of BSW-Solar. The objective in expanding photovoltaics is to increase the proportion of Germany's power supplied by solar energy from around 2% now to at least 10% by 2020, while simultaneously cutting costs by at least half during the same period. "Flexible adjustments to the feed-in tariff contribute significantly to attaining our goal of expanding installed photovoltaic capacity from 52-70GW by 2020, while limiting the cost of solar power to around two cents/kWh."
The solar industry is also expected to expand module production and upstream production steps in Germany from 3.2 GW to more than 8 GW by 2020, shaping the global move toward a renewable energy supply, with a substantial proportion of 'made in Germany' photovoltaics.
Cramer states, "Our objective in this is to become capable of competing with conventional energy sources as quickly as possible. Thanks to great successes in cost reduction, first market segments will be independent of financial support by 2017."
Comment
12 of 77
January 25, 2011
From Nick Dalacu :" Mrs. Mints, probably, it is time to shut-up. "

Well, the French think Mr Dalacu is wrong.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/new_solar_projects_put_on_hold_in_france/?utm_source=PV-Tech&utm_campaign=21bfc8982a-PV_Tech_Newsletter_06_12_2010&utm_medium=email

03 December 2010 - The French Government is to halt all plans for new solar projects, except residential systems less than 3kW, in a bid to end a "veritable speculative bubble" that has emerged in the industry, said Prime Minister, Francois Fillon. According to Fillon, if things continued at the current rate, solar development targets for 2012 will be reached "within weeks."
The new rules aim to balance a target of 500MW of new solar projects a year, protecting consumers by keeping power prices down. These prices are at risk of rising at an unmanageable rate as the cost of the feed-in tariff is passed on by the electricity companies to the consumer.
EDF currently pays more for solar power than for the nuclear power it produces at 58 written off reactors, and almost as as much as what it can buy on European spot electricity markets. The electricity provider is anticipated to pay an average of EUR 54,6 (US$72,2) cents a kWh for solar power in 2011. This compares with estimated spot market power prices of EUR 55 (US$73) cents a kWh.
Comment
13 of 77
January 25, 2011
I do not care if I am right or wrong (asking Mrs. Minds to shut-up), I care that the representatives of large multinational companies, including plenty of industry analysts, instead of encouraging entrepreneurs to manufacture photovoltaics in USA, confuse the issues and make almost impossible for a healthy assessment of proper development paths.
Already three persons (aliases?) are telling me that I am wrong or odd. Wait for another few comments and you can see me portrayed as stupid and ridiculous.
Sincerely, Nick
Comment
14 of 77
January 25, 2011
Nick, I am curious to hear more about how what would create incentives to spur manufacturing of PV in the United States in such a way that it could compete with Chinese manufacturing?
Comment
15 of 77
January 25, 2011
DearPamela,
I am not sure you are sarcastic or really curious to see how I think. Judging from your first comment, I may say that we see the PV industry differently. Just to give you an opportunity to say: "shut-up Nick" I suggest to encourage Americans of technical persuasion, interested in solar energy and of all ages, to build with their own hands "solar staff". Soon, some will become proficient and for sure those ones will say: with a minute; we can do this here, chip, efficient and have fun in the process! I do not have time for a serious argument (here) but maybe you can trigger such a discussion.
Sincerely, Nick
Comment
16 of 77
January 25, 2011
It would be good to remember the elderly and disabled community in the long range plans. The baby boomers coming to retirement age presents new challenges for America.
Now is the time to develop the infrastructure for solar charging of mobility means for this age group.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/solar-powered-wheelchair/

The persons in this age group will also benefit from a "fixed price" for power usage (via rooftop solar), as thier incomes will be fixed too.
No image available
Comment
17 of 77
Anonymous
January 25, 2011
Too right -- you're never going to win the parity argument anyway. There's just to many complications. First, there's the 'who's subsidy is biggest competition', then there's the cost of delivery and so on. Then the system can play with revenue streams many ways: the current doddle seems to include huge regulatory burdens, high structural costs and fees, long waits for approvals, etc. Small producers also bear the burden of inordinate connection and regulatory fees, revenue caps and other mechanisms which drive up their costs. Larger producers are subjected to curtailments which bite into their revenue stream and are often forced to pay for grid infrastructure that traditional producers get for free. In my home market, the power authority pays anywhere between -$0.02 to +$0.62 for a kWh depending on supply and demand pressures, so: parity to what?

A better place to play is the net benefit to the customer i.e. "delight the customer". Make it easy for the customer to realize appreciable value from investing in renewable capacity. There are many who actually prefer a good solution to the cheapest possible solution - even quite a few commercial enterprises.

The emphasis on system solutions is well taken. It's time to stop shipping solar arrays one panel at a time, especially when commercial installations run to hundreds of panels and utility installations run to 10's and 100's of thousands of panels. The reasonable unit commodity is whatever will fit on a semi trailer. This approach at least leads to an aggregation of value adds as well as efficiencies which readily leads to a substantially reduced selling cost and installation cost. It's time to start shipping preconfigured, certified and tested installations as a package, not piece parts and a bag of bolts. At least one player must be doing this: my neigbor put 10kW into a corn field - installation took 1 hour from truck to ready to run.
No image available
Comment
18 of 77
Anonymous
January 26, 2011
I believe "clean energy financing programs" should be on the top 10 list. We need to provide access to these markets, tax credits, and rebates so the average American can afford to participate and benefit from the clean energy economy.

With Property Assessment for Clean Energy (PACE) programs shackled by FHFA, it's time to pursue other financing strategies, such as the Solar and Energy Loan Fund (SELF)developed in St. Lucie County, FL.

This innovatieve new clean energy financing program provides no money down, low-interest (4%) loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy (most notably distributed solar). The program is available to RES and COM customers, with a maximum loan amount of $50,000.

The SELF program is a not a hand-out or subsidy. The County developed the program in partnership with private banks that pledged $20 million toward the program. The County also secured one of the highly competitive energy block grants from DOE. It's one of the few programs in the country that is sucessfully navigating around PACE and moving forward.
Comment
19 of 77
January 26, 2011
This is an excellent article and very thoughtfully constructed.

I am preparing my company to operate efficiently, be efficient in design, and always aware of cost management. If you remove the government grants, the customer becomes very focused on the cost of the system.

Finally, with respect to Chinese manufacturing, the United States has allowed the Chinese to operate using unfair trade practices and we have given our market away to them without demanding economic value in return. Buying cheap goods is not enough economic value.

I am in favor of free trade where there is fair trade but the Chinese practice a zero-sum version of economic warfare. They want free access to our markets yet they would consistently deny import access to the Chinese market for any number of high-value products. They are happy to take what they can but they will never give to anyone. This is not a comment specific to the renewable industry but renewable technology is the latest example of their zero-sum trade policies.

The Chinese have no intention of ever being a trading "partner" with the United States in the sense that they are willing to share the mutual benefits of a free trading relationship. When the United States opens our eyes to this reality we have a better chance of holding out for a more balanced and reasonable trade relationship.

Ken Stadlin
Comment
20 of 77
January 26, 2011
It is amusing to see wind and solar promoters discouraging the search for a real solution or breakthrough. They make money with their marginal, highly subsidized schemes and would hate to see that end. But, the truth is solar and wind will NOT solve our need for "clean, affordable electricity."

We need a breakthrough, not more over-priced and under-performing development deals.
Comment
21 of 77
January 26, 2011
"the truth is solar and wind will NOT solve our need for "clean, affordable electricity"
Andrew, how can you, so emphatically, assert something like the above. Al our energy comes from the sun! A 100/100 miles area, somewhere in a desert, if covered with solar modules, should provide for all energy needs. Many details have to be resolved. Breakthroughs will occur and, sooner or later, humanity will have the deserved paradise. The question is who will be there first; America or others.
Old pal, Nick
Comment
22 of 77
January 26, 2011
Ever hear "Business is War"
We are at war with China.
China takes advantage of the fact America can not or will not do anything to stop them.
We are at war and we are not defending ourselves.
We try to provide incentives to spur American job creation only to see American distributors of solar products buy from low cost Chinese manufactures instead of spending those funds here buying American made products.
We are sending billions of tax dollars earmarked to make jobs here to China. What do we get as taxpayers subsidizing this mass movement of our money overseas?
To stop the madness solar and windpower installers must take the first step and not offer foreign made components and use the energy tax credits for what they where designed to do and that is make American jobs. You see it everywhere alternative energy installers sending American tax dollar overseas making jobs there instead of here. We need to stop this. A quick fix would be make a law that insures the use of energy tax credits or American borne incentives, that 100% of the components used must be made in America. Another would be put a tax or disallow energy credits on foreign components thus making American products more appealing. Here is a point to ponder as well, Americans are the best when it come to industrialization and Americans when pushed hard enough will dig deep to find solutions. American ingenuity is at work! Already 100% USA made products that will make Solar and Windpower obsolete are in testing. These fantastic products cost less and are 3000% more productive eliminating the need for any incentives what so ever. Preliminary testing shows a Cost of Energy index of less then $0.0001 per kwH VS Solar power cost of $0.10 per kwH. Just this alone would make anyone take a second look at subsidizing an obsolete product like solar or wind power.
read more about this product here
www.electric-energy-today.com
Comment
23 of 77
January 26, 2011
You can pretend we are in in a war with China, but it misses the point. Wind and solar are not (yet) clean, affordable electricity. We need to KEEP LOOKING.
Comment
24 of 77
January 26, 2011
Eliminating subsidies is a long-term goal, not an overnight policy. Better in the short run to transfer more of the incentives to purchasers to build demand for renewable energy, not to manufacturers and project developers (though we still need R&D support for the emerging PV technologies and STORAGE). So far, am a bit disappointed that Obama Admin has not whacked FMHA over its barriers to PACE financing, which is good for solar, for efficiency and for cities/counties. However, some of the biggest opponents of PACE financing are the solar installers who rely on PPA models and tax incentives. Go figure.
Comment
25 of 77
January 26, 2011
"Progress isn't cheap. Renewable energy and solar is the future getting to it will be expensive." The examples cited from the past (railroads, telegraph, toilets) required massive investments, but the value delivered was large and so clear that politicians did not need to do much more than get out of the way because these were profitable businesses. (Opening the west by building railroads where there were no customers yet was a different proposition.) If solar is a good business proposition without subsidies then politicians are superfluous to the industry.

A comment on marketing 101 and a desire for reliability. Today's inverters do not deliver reliability to the owners of non-utility solar installations. Added value would be created by building in islanding capability. We can island Honda generators, but not solar. Silly. Living in earth quake country I will wait for islanding solar before making the investment.
Comment
26 of 77
January 26, 2011
It would be nice to think solar and wind can genuinely take the place of burning fossil fuels but there is a world of difference. A dollar invested in an oil well in Saudi Arabia or Iraq now will generate about $20 per month in oil. A dollar invested in wind or solar may produce 2 cents per month if we exceed our expectations. Oil (fossil fuels) not only powers our economy, it is (was) our economy.

Oil was a lot more of our economy when it poured out of the ground in the USA but now we must focus on Wall Street to capture some of that value. It is no wonder that both sides of the isle allow wildcatters on Wall Street free reign.

Solar and wind will be our future, but only by necessity. Oil is like crystal meth, once tried, reality will never be the same.
Comment
27 of 77
January 27, 2011
rrogers says oil was the past, but is not the future. But we now know we have enough natural gas in the US to feed our expected uses for about 100 years. Natural gas can be used in cars, trains, buses, power plants, etc. And it is cheaper than oil and will stay that way unless we begin exporting it on a large scale. It may well become the new, clean oil of the 21st century. It is rapidly becoming the standard by which the economics of all other types of generation are measured. Few who are alive today will live to see that change.
Comment
28 of 77
January 27, 2011
This is wonderful; we all see a civilized future. The problem is that 100 years pass very fast and the guys that now make $20/month/$1 sucking oil from the ground are hard at work setting up schemes by which will make as much selling the sun or wind or what ever the future will bring to us. The nightmare is that a few Wall Marts and Home Depots (not to mention the monopolistic solar companies), without too much imagination, will be able to screw us all: half the profits will go to Asia, a quarter to the multinationals, a quarter to the Government and we, the people, will be left with the agony.
Comment
29 of 77
January 27, 2011
Before accepting any forecast on finite fuels, it is best to do the math yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY. Or look backward and find one forecaster who has been consistently accurate; that person might be worth a listen.

The 7% US energy growth rate of the 1950s and 1960s denotes that during the 1950s, the US used more energy that decade than it had used prior to that decade. The same is true for the 1960s. When we are on the other side of the bell curve of finite resource depletion, the same holds true. A negative 7% energy growth means that the energy used one decade is equal to all energy to be used beyond that decade. The only way to impede that is to convert finite fuels into sustainable energy infrastructure. The US take on that is to sink money into converting corn into ethanol; on a one to one basis, finite to "sustainable"fuel. The vision of a one hundred year gas estimate is probably driven by that same US logic.
Comment
30 of 77
January 27, 2011
Lots of humans can't seem to think more efficiently or creatively than to use corn, but there is still some diversity among humans.

Other fuelstocks make sense, e.g., the Brazilians figured this out to get free of the IMF and the oiligarchs, somewhat.

The Brazilians even got U.S. car companies to make flex-fuel cars for them. Somebody ought to organize a field trip to Brazil. Oh wait, some people already have. Apparently, a good-time, low-military-cost culture has some advantages.

We will have diversity in energy production and use. But for some time, we will mostly only hear about big fancy things done by guys with the latest hair-dos and business-casual get-ups, if we only listen to media designed for most of us.

That's just the way things have come to work.

Hail Renewable Energy World. I like to be able to read things from guys who might be wearing flannel shirts.
Comment
31 of 77
awb
January 27, 2011
Thank you rrogers for linking to that video explanation of exponential growth. It was just like being back in math class with a great teacher.

It also gives the absolute lie to the folks who say that renewables could never account for most of our energy need. Well, the growth of solar over the last 3 - 5 years has been ~30-40% per year. Do the math.

Renewable energy is indeed our future as soon as Big Fossil and Utility stop trying to crush it.
Comment
32 of 77
January 27, 2011
@awb: Do the math? Okay. Solar costs 3-5 times as much as current electricity generation methods. To have solar become even half of our electric energy we will need to spend $5 trillion.

Where is THAT money?

Solar does not solve our energy problem. Maybe it enriches some promoters and developers, but we can afford it.

Instead of pretending that Solar or wind are real alternatives, we need to invest in breakthroughs. We need to find a SOLUTION.
Comment
33 of 77
awb
January 27, 2011
Andrew_W. You're not doing your math Andrew. The cost of solar has been coming down at least 5-10% per year over the last 5 years.

Obviously there will be some balance struck between the exponential growth of solar and the exponential decline in the cost of solar.

I repeat, solar and other renewables are the future as soon as Big Fossil and Utility stop trying to crush it.
Comment
34 of 77
January 27, 2011
There's more than one cost for electricity. Baseload tends to be priced low because fixed costs are spread over 8,000 hours of production. Peaking is high for the opposite reason.

Traditional $9/watt PV systems take about 40 years to pay back their costs in the Northeast at $.17 per kwh, a reasonable peaking price. It takes 2 or more years to pay back the energy invested to make them. When the price drops below $3/watt, they compete well in most markets. Concentrating PV can easily meet the $3/watt cost.
Comment
35 of 77
January 27, 2011
5KW Residential Kit
Item Description Qty
Solar Panel 185W mono-Si PV Module. UL & CEC certified. Power output tolerance 0% to +10%. 27
Inverter 4600W residential inverter. High Frequency Isolated. NEMA4, Double MPPT Channels. Integrated DC Switch. 240VAC. 10-Year Warranty. 1
Racking
System Complete roof-mount racking system. 1
Grand Total $13,936.10 ($2.79/W)
An offer to purchase a complete solar system received 2 weeks ago form a West coast bridge head for a Chinese manufacturer.
NB: $2,79/W
Similar price structure can be reached with products made in USA
Comment
36 of 77
January 27, 2011
@Bob_Wallace:

OF COURSE we should be seeking a SOLUTION. We haven't found it yet.

It's perfectly okay for you and others to suggest that wind and solar schemes can solve the problem, but where the $5 trillion to implement? Aside from that problem how do you make them reliable and dispatchable?

It's okay to be a cheerleader because that's how you make a living, but cut the shit - we need a solution. We need "clean, affordable electricity" and we haven't found it yet.

The world needs to keep looking. We need to put our resources into solving the problem. America can do this. Cheerleaders cannot.
Comment
37 of 77
awb
January 27, 2011
Andrew_W, maybe you should look into "cold fusion."
Comment
38 of 77
January 27, 2011
Solar prices have plunged in the last year. NickDalacu's roof top system will be closer to $4 / watt installed as he does not suggest that $2.79 includes installation. But $4 / watt is way down from last year. On pure economics (not subsidies) it is approaching a price that is competitive with other resources. If it included islanding capability at that price it might actually be a worthwhile investment.

It is interesting that when Germany and Spain yanked their big subsidies prices for solar plunged. If we are lucky there will be no more subsidies, forcing solar equipment manufacturers to continue reducing prices. It appears that some can continue at these prices, or even lower. As to others, bye bye is their natural destiny.

The renewable challenge comes from natural gas as there really are numerous engineering estimates of a 100 year supply at current levels of use due to the development of technology recently to tap shale gas. And the argument among natural gas companies and price forecasters is whether ongoing improvements in technology will fully offset higher costs of the next set or shale wells or not. So natural gas may slide below $5 per mmbtu over the next several years or rise to the levels producers hope for, around $7 per mmbtu. By the way, in real $ this is a return to the low prices of the late 1980s and early 1990s. All of the facts indicate natural gas is a "transition" fuel that will set the bar for all others for the next 2, 3, 4 or more human generations. Some transition. Coal & nuclear are designate losers (unless we reach a point where we import low cost nuclear from China, just as we import our solar from China today). Wind and solar are "merely" challenged.
Comment
39 of 77
January 28, 2011
Excellent Dick Mackay! In three short paragraph, a crystal clear picture of the challenges of energy in the future. The question is who will tell to my four grandsons that they will run out of gas?
A few days ago BP Solar's plant in Frederick for producing wafers, cells and modules was liquidated by auction. http://www.hgpauction.com/?auctionid=89. I bet most of the assets were sold for 5 cents at the dollar and will be in production in a few months somewhere in Asia. Meanwhile, a few large multinationals, lobby insidiously for the acceptance of their new dominant status. Usually, I would say this is fine, this is business. Not today; not anymore! Because my four grandsons will run out of gas.
Comment
40 of 77
January 28, 2011
Hydraulic fracturing uses materials under high pressure to fracture shale and open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the life of an existing well and horizontal fracking uses a mixture of 596 chemicals and millions of gallons of water per frack in new wells. Water used becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of. In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used, essentially taking the EPA off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole.

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress to ensure clean drinking water is free from both natural and man-made contaminates. The average gas well is up to 8,000 feet deep while drinking water aquifers are about 1,000 feet. Problems arise when poor cement and well casings leak natural gas and fracking fluids into the water table. Generally 1-8 million gallons of water may be used to frack a well and a well may be fracked up to 18 times. For each frack, 80-300 tons of chemicals may be used. Presently, the natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but they include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

The gas is separated from wastewater on the surface; only 30-50% is typically recovered, and it can be highly toxic. Evaporators take off VOCs and condensate tanks steam off VOCs, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The wastewater is then trucked to water treatment facilities. As the VOCs are evaporated and come into contact with diesel exhaust from trucks and generators at the well site, ground level ozone is produced. Ozone plumes can travel up to 250 miles. http://www.gaslandthemovie.

Gas from fracking might be $4/MMBtu but the cost to the country's water and air might be $10/MMBtu. Profits will be made by frackers at $4 but the public will pay the $10.
Comment
41 of 77
January 28, 2011
@ Dick: $4/Watt is not competitive. Let us know when it is below $2/Watt. That will make solar economically viable.

What do you think? 10, maybe 20 years?
Comment
42 of 77
January 28, 2011
Thank You rrogers. Another revealing piece; this time about hydraulic fracturing. I feel like paraphrasing Mrs. Mints and say: Hey ladies and gentlemen who have something to say about the future of American energy! Say it here. Make a competent, simple, clear, unbiased comment with the future American generations at heart. Forget (for a short while) about business. We may generate a momentum here. Wouldn't this be nice, to say the least?
Andrew: Why are you negative? What does accomlish?
Comment
43 of 77
January 28, 2011
@Nick: Don't confuse being ACCURATE with being negative.

If you think solar and wind schemes are a solution to our energy needs, please provide some evidence. They are not affordable, reliable or cost-effective.
Comment
44 of 77
January 28, 2011
Andrew states what is competitive from his point of view.

Some markets come at the equation from different points of view, in particular markets with specific operational needs, e.g., the military (where tethered or ported-in power has challenges), music on-the-road operations, remote monitoring stations, etc.

These sorts of markets are pioneering portable solar. If a remote station stops sending information, someone knows to go out to see what is up. But a remote station may function efficiently from a labor standpoint because solar is available. Without solar, it might not be sited.

A lot of the reason fixed solar is so expensive has to do with permits and legalities. This factor, among others, will drive innovation in unplugged, which could bleed over to affect plugged, over time.

Andrew appears to dismiss externalities and side effects of the kinds of energy that compete with solar. Many of us do not.
Comment
45 of 77
awb
January 28, 2011
To expand on rroger's explanation of horizontal fracking, the net effect of water contamination is not clear yet, but it is not promising for the extractors.

Another important issue is the total life-cycle emissions of methane from the entire process, which seem to be massive. Methane is 20 times more damaging in the climate change atmosphere as CO2, and while it dissipates more quickly than CO2, we're still looking at 10-20 years. Not good.

Finally, there is virtually no horizontal ng fracking well that is profitable at $4. Some have suggested that $5 is the number, but guys who do it for a business, like Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake, say it doesn't pencil out until $6-7. The cost of these plays are are amortized over ~20 years, when it has become abundantly clear that the initial flow rates decline dramatically over the first year or two, requiring numerous refrackings or shut-in, neither of which has been properly addressed in the cost analysis.

Don't go betting the ranch on ng quite yet.
Comment
46 of 77
January 28, 2011
@ mary-saunders-73470:

DOE says Solar isn't competitive. Take your pom-poms and go complain at them. It's NOT affordable or dispatchable. Until then, it's an over-priced, under-performing scheme.

We shouldn't invest in Solar until it is competitive. We should invest in a breakthrough. We need clean, affordable electricity - solar isn't.

DOE Analysis ($.25-$.39 per kWh in 2016):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2010.pdf
Comment
47 of 77
awb
January 28, 2011
OMG, Andrew_W, you've heard the expression "Get a horse." That was coined in the early days of the automobile when they were just being introduced and before Henry Ford conceived the mass production line.

I'll leave it at that.
Comment
48 of 77
January 28, 2011
I thought we are trying to see through the smoke and greediness, manipulation and deceive and contribute a little bit to finding the "true North"! We can not leave it here with Andrew saying:" We shouldn't invest in Solar until it is competitive. We should invest in a breakthrough" Wait until when? Invest in what breakthrough? Andrew's "instincts" appear to be right; we need to run, but run where; strait into the fire?
Comment
49 of 77
January 29, 2011
I checked your "proof" Andrew: the 400 (2008$/MWhour) levelized cost of solar. The report you mentioned was probably produced by the Bush era DOE, and consider average cost of solar modules at $2.5/Wp. Not the under $0.7/Wp that some PV can be produced today. Unfortunately, the companies that can produce cheap, does not intend to sell cheap and to be able to do this, they let the public know only the stories that will not adversely affect their financial interest. Make sense, no? Nooooo; when crisis looms just across the corner!!!
When I mentioned the $2.79/W complete system (no installation) that was an example of what this days can be found on the retail market.
The dialog here was a good exercise. By necessity more and more people will see through the fog. I apologize to Mrs. Mints for my insulting remarks. She may be perfectly right…if we would not run out of conventional energy when our grand sons will be ready to start their productive life.
Old pal, Nick
Comment
50 of 77
January 29, 2011
President Obama called for an end to oil subsidies and set a national goal of reaching 80 percent clean energy by 2035. For electricity that means all coal plants more than 30 years old now will be closed and not replaced. That would cut coal consumption by 600 million tons (MT)/yr. It would require $1T worth of solar equipment to replace the energy in that coal but that investment for 30 years would reduce CO2 by 2,000, SO2 by 7.5 and NOx by 3 MT/yr. Solar is only available for peaking so storage is required for other times.6.5 hours of storage would cost about $1T today. That price should drop.

The only way to get solar to compete with fossils is to have consumers drive the industry. When the fossil fuel dollars fund innovation, products are optimized to keep things the same. A tech revolution only works if merit is rewarded. For the Internet, personal computers, cell phones, etc. m(b)illions of consumers picked the winners. When incentives drive an industry, who do you think decides the nature and duration of those incentives?
Comment
51 of 77
January 29, 2011
"A tech revolution only works if merit is rewarded… When incentives drive an industry, who do you think decides the nature and duration of those incentives?"
China learn to handle both concerns. This is why "they" are going so fast ahead in PV. Do not take me wrong, I spent my most creative years in a Communist country, trust me, prison is only slightly worse (I guess). This is why we have this discussion here. What has to be done? Each time I am looking for an answer from industry or government representative, I get something for public consumption, not a true assessment.
Maybe somebody in this discussion group should take the initiative and organize an on line think-tank on clean energy. Not to go in circles for ever, but slowly and collectively to understand more and more. It should be just fun and improved comprehension; nothing else.
Comment
52 of 77
January 29, 2011
@Nick: The problem is many in the Solar and Wind industries continue to act like they are a SOLUTION and they are NOT.

We are not seeking a breakthrough. DOE spent $30 billion in 2010 and none was directed at a potential breakthrough. In fact, most of the money went to "development deals," underwriting politically connected developers.

I have advocated for a simple incentive: offer a $1 billion PRIZE for "clean, affordable electricity." Call a National Energy Summit and invite EVERYONE to present their ideas and plans. Judge those ideas with a panel of experts and for the first time in 40 years, find out if there is a SOLUTION available. If so, award the prize and share the intellectual property with the World. If not, keep looking. At the very least we'll have a better understanding of where we are technologically.

I'm disappointed in DOE, but we're all disappointed in 40 years without a PLAN. How long do we continue to ignore than reality? We may be the only country in the world WITHOUT and energy plan.

America was built on competition and reward. A $1 billion prize will produce results, not only for us, but for the rest of world.
Comment
53 of 77
January 29, 2011
Bob:
I am talking about solar because this is the only thing I know. But I read with interest things written here about natural gas and fracturing. We all should know the essence of everything that might be in the picture of energies for the future. This would be the minimum- minimorum for building a grown up mentality for understanding the future of American energy resources.
Comment
54 of 77
January 30, 2011
Consumers cannot do much with wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, biogas/mass; however, solar can empower. CPV should be able to realize $2,500/kWe fairly quickly. In sunny areas that yields $.10 per kWh electricity (assuming 2,500 kW of sunlight /m2/yr, ten year life) plus lots of thermal energy if captured. A desiccant cooler should be able to cost effectively provide air conditioning with the thermal output, leaving electric power for air/water handling, lights, and other loads. In less sunny areas, it would take twice the equipment and the match with winter heating is not great. Using biomass might be needed but pollution becomes an issue with wide scale use. If converted into liquid fuels biomass could be be used in our gas appliances with pollution regulated in central plants but that investment competes with that dollar investment that now produces $20 per month.

Offering $1B for innovation assumes innovators are driven by money. They are more often motivated by challenge and merely need simple access to new markets, not ones already configured for others. Fossil fuels are so cheap that consumers can't bother much with them unless there is a crisis. That crisis is on its way, hence the $B from fossil fuel industry profits is not needed.
Comment
55 of 77
January 30, 2011
1. Solar can empower (the consumer). A desiccant cooler should be able to cost effectively provide air conditioning with the thermal output, leaving electric power for air/water handling, lights, and other loads.
2. Innovators are motivated by challenge and merely need simple access to new markets
#1 should become a commandment
Regarding #2, so well said here! I might add that humanity (most of the time) reward true innovators royally. The problem is that opportunists and scam bags with huge egos sneaks through and mess-up things. In the case of renewable this is ridiculously prevalent. Just look at the number of companies managing to cut a substantial piece of pie for themselves without having anything to offer. Worse, how much of the pie is stolen?
Comment
56 of 77
January 30, 2011
@rrogers: If innovators are simply motivated by "challenge" then they have failed. It isn't about "money," it is about reward.

The only ones making any money in wind and solar are those doing development deals and getting paid "up-front." THAT is a scam.

If we truly want to solve our energy problem we need to focus attention and get as many people involved as possible. $1 billion will do that and if successful free up the resulting intellectual property.

For forty years we have supposedly been seeking a breakthrough, but I see no evidence of that. If we are serious, we can pay for it.
Comment
57 of 77
January 30, 2011
@Bob_Wallace: That's a bit arrogant. You're a cheerleader, I don't expect any depth, just your repeated cheers for "renewables."

Here's one of your fantastic solar deals that cost $173 million, yet it will only generate about $5 million in annual income. How about you put some lipstick on that "pig?"

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/solar/second-largest-solar-pv-installation-us-east-coast-fully-operational
Comment
58 of 77
January 30, 2011
rrogers, I concur about consumers.

Ordinary consumers can do little to stop boondoggles and improper subsidies, but they are familiar with back-pack-scale solar and solar-powered calculators.

I have an ancient calculator that still works. I don't have to fire up a grid-powered computer to do some simple tasks.

In addition, some who put solar on their homes in the 70's are now pleased with themselves. Their installations are paid off and still working, giving them cost-efficient power and resilience if the grid transformer gets hit by a car or adverse weather or geological events.

Lobbyists for other kinds of power cannot easily counter these stories. Some of those who installed then have impeccable scientific credentials.

It was a risky thing to do in the 70's. Solar thermal in particular got a bad rap from some kinds of designs.

Nonetheless, some of those who put high-quality PV in then have been more than willing to talk about it in public now, and their anecdotes are of interest.

I rather like being called a cheerleader. It beats gloom-caller, if I have to get labeled.
Comment
59 of 77
January 31, 2011
Andrew, I think Bob is teasing you. I would not worry! Remember Dear Leader and his cultural revolution? What a disaster but in the end, look what it did for the Chinese people. To give a billion dollars to all the people interested in tinkering with renewable energy could have great results although it is somehow homeopathic (to me) and very expensive.
For a week, a few of us, renewable energy fanatics (if you do not mind me calling us so), tried to find a common denominator on a healthy program for developing energies for next Americans. I propose to let each other know who we are, take a break to think about what we learned in this exercise and continue our brainstorming in private (for a short while).
My email is ndalacu@ca.inter.net.
I apologize, once more, to Mrs. Mints for my rude initial comment. It is for a good cause Mrs. Mints, maybe you feel like participating.
Sincerely, Nick
Comment
60 of 77
January 31, 2011
A $173M solar deal that generates $5M income ($1 to produce $.0024/mo.) might look like foolishness but one environmentalist could put lipstick on that "pig".

The Power Monopoly, It's Make-Up and Its Menace, By GIFIFORD PINCHOT, Milford, Pa. 1928
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/9978/Pow_Mon.pdf?sequence=1

The electric power monopoly organized and financed, not for fair and efficient public service, but for ruthless exploitation, uninterrupted and unrestrained by anything approaching effective Government intervention or control. The study covered 4,362 corporations, including big holding companies, the smaller holding companies, companies owned or controlled by the holding companies, and what few independent companies remained. The records of corporations in this report are given as nearly as possible as of June 30, 1927, with the nearest applicable and available financial and statistical figures-for the most part as of December 31, 1926. 41 big holding companies-alone accounted for 82 percent of the electric energy produced in the United States. The records further showed that almost 83 percent of the country's population depends upon the 41 power giants for the electric energy they need. The holding companies controlled coal, coke, gas, water, street railways, bus lines, bridges, lumber, real estate, amusement parks, and other interests contributing to their monopoly. General Electric-Insull-Morgan-Mellon-Byllesby-Doherty six-sided power monopoly controlled a little less than two-thirds of the entire country's electrical power, and had a little more than two-thirds of the country's population at its mercy for its electric energy and service…..

A study of utility assets in the light of facts available about their acquisition by pyramid capitalization indicates a capital inflation of not less than $3,000,000,000, which at the 7 per cent limit would authorize extortionate rates to the tune of $210,000,000 a year.…
Comment
61 of 77
January 31, 2011
Pinchot's accounting analysis:
….Suppose a small independent company is struggling along on a $100,000 capitalization with a small $90,000 plant and a balance sheet as follows:
ASSETS - Plant $90,000
LIABILITIES - 10,000
Capital stock $100,000
Along comes one of the big holding Companies of the power monopoly and takes over the little company…. The balance sheet then changes as follows:
ASSETS - Plant $200,000
LIABILITIES - 0
Capital stock - $100,000
SURPLUS – $100,000
This statement, however, still makes it plain that there never was a $200,000 capital investment in plant, equipment, and franchise, and that the $100,000 surplus is inflation pure and simple.
The next step, therefore, is for the board of directors to declare a 100% stock dividend which wipes out the surplus and which balances a $200,000 plant, equipment and franchise entry with an apparent $200,000 capital investment as follows:
ASSETS - Plant, equipment and franchise $200,000
Capital stock - $200,000
On the balance sheet of the big holding company the little $90,000 plant of the absorbed company also appears at the inflated valuation of $200,000. The monopolists justify this on the ground that it is a well-established rule of accountancy that plant and equipment should be carried in the balance sheet at "cost."
….. by inflating its plant and equipment entry with … price of monopoly, the corporation …. made it possible to-use it for rate-making purposes and collect 7 percent annually on it from the public for all time to come.

Gifford Pinchot would probably find the $173M solar project as part of the struggling company asset. That is doubled through Wall St. transactions to make the real money, the "lipstick". Today, regulators don't even understand the game anymore, with derivatives, foreign ownership of utilities, lobbyist funding of elections, oil wars "to protect American lives" and other aberrations.
Comment
62 of 77
January 31, 2011
@rrogers: the $173 million solar plant will NEVER pay for it self. It doesn't make ANY financial sense.

DOE has done more than 40 similar deals in the last 2 years for a total waste of almost $20 billion. It isn't changing anything about our energy needs or our environment, it is simply enriching the developers and promoters of solar and wind.
Comment
63 of 77
awb
January 31, 2011
Actually, Andrew_W, if you include the Federal Grant in lieu of ITC, the RECs and MACRS, the project would pay back between 8-9 years. And then your electricity is pretty much free for the next 20 years.

BTW, these calcs obviously take into account the various incentives provided to renewable energy projects, which unfortunately are only a small fraction of the incentives provided to the fossil fuel industries.
Comment
64 of 77
January 31, 2011
@awb: Please explain your math. The project costs $173 million and will generate only $5 million in annual income. How much actual debt is there? Even if we applied ALL of the income to debt service, it could only handle about $50 million for a 20-year payout.

Explain how this deal makes any financial sense.
Comment
65 of 77
January 31, 2011
Fantastic Mr. Rogers! Nobody shown me something like that… and I never understood what is going on. In five minutes it become clear and I am grateful to you for that. Unfortunately, what I also understood now is that "The electric power monopoly organized and financed, not for fair and efficient public service, but for ruthless exploitation, uninterrupted and unrestrained by anything approaching effective Government intervention or control." will have their ways until will take us all into the ground.
There should be another Commandment: The electric power utilities are organized and financed, not for fair and efficient public service, but for ruthless exploitation
Bob: thanks for pointing to "# 6 figure". So; there are people that have the audacity to believe that California can be 75% electrified with renewable in 2014.
Comment
66 of 77
February 1, 2011
Working in solar R&D for more than 30 years, all the time at my own initiative, was a blessing. It wasn't easy; financially I always struggled, but I lived my dreams. Trying to succeed, to excel, time passed very fast and hope always was there. However, the nagging feeling that something is not right and the agony related with: "probably is my fault" kept me restless. And here come Mr. Rogers, probably feels my pain, and brings clarifications.
Truly enlightening to me were the very basic, and in way obvious, two things:
#1 Solar can empower the consumer. A desiccant cooler should be able to cost effectively provide air conditioning with the thermal output, leaving electric power for air/water handling, lights, and other loads.
#2 The electric power utilities are organized and financed, not for fair and efficient public service, but for ruthless exploitation.
We should put together a concoction of statements that points for the practices that will bring clean energy sufficiency fast, equitable and reliable. A road map, as Governmental agencies calls it, but without the BS and corporate propaganda. An educated consumer perspective. Any ideas? What else should be on this list related with climate change, nuclear, NG, coal, wind, solar, transmission, etc?
Comment
67 of 77
February 1, 2011
Greentech Media has been having a discussion of power companies putting mini-solar on power poles because they already have right of way and they don't have to fiddle with lots of paper to do this.

The guys were counting up the costs of the trucks and technicians and figuring this was going to end up costing the consumer (ratepayer) in rate hikes, but the companies like to do rate hikes, if they can get them past regulators.

The guys who make the decisions can afford hikes. It may not be mean-spirited, they just don't know that many modest-income people.

What could end up happening though is breaking up the bigs as we move to micro-grids. This also would make people in neighborhoods smarter, on average, because they would have to understand operations and maintenance to keep costs down.

It would be like parting out the big financial companies to neighborhood credit unions. Some localities are going to be advanced adopters on this sort of thing.

Anyway, that's my take on it.
Comment
68 of 77
February 1, 2011
On average, each American annually uses about 7,100 lbs oil, 3,400 lbs natural gas, and 7,500 lbs coal, the weight of 5 Cadillacs, which loads the atmosphere with enough CO2 to produce and dump 2.5 Olympic swimming pools/person of soda water into the sea. China and India nearly match America now.
The two core principles of AA recovery: 1) admit the problem, 2) open up to a solution, a "Higher Power". Americans see the government as the "higher power" to solve its fossil addiction, but government is equally addicted. Behind an 88 quad drop from a 1973 186 quad energy growth forecast was OPEC and greed. OPEC wanted to prolong their economic life by trickling production over more years and greed in other energy sectors benefited opulently when prices rose. Sharp prices dropped demand as energy users (especially industry) conserved.

Americans want low prices; not so good for renewables, where a $30K PV system reduces a person's fossil footprint by 5%; requiring a half million $ for a "full" solution. It would be better if fossil solutions cost that half million.

The US will probably stumble around with energy reform as it did health reform, with everyone going in different directions. Not until fossil fuels rise in price, though, will anything actually happen. When prices rise, people find real solutions. Europe had wind technology to sell in this country because they made commitments early to tax fossil fuels as if they actually belonged to future generations. China can demand renewable use because their masses are always one incident away from revolt and leaders don't need to tempt oil producers to trigger that incident. For 30 years the US has been talking about sustainability as energy use went from 70 to nearly 100 quads in 2008. Per capita use has gone up too. I can't imagine the scenario that changes perceptions about energy in this country but Egypt changed "overnight" when a smaller neighbor succeeded with a similar systemic problem.
Comment
69 of 77
February 1, 2011
@rrogers: Well said.

I don't think we'll change our energy future without a Plan. We've NEVER had a plan. I think everyone is waiting for the "clean, affordable electricity" breakthrough to actually create a Plan. That's why I'd like our government to offer a $1 billion prize for that breakthrough solution. It would inspire more attention and a more imagination. It would also give us a better picture of where we are technologically.

I don't think anyone has ever offered a $1 billion prize for anything. Clean, affordable energy would certainly be worth that small price. We've already wasted $400 billion on energy R+D during the last 20 years.

it's time for our government to put their money where their mouth is - especially DOE bureaucrats.
Comment
70 of 77
February 1, 2011
rrogers, I read your comment with great interest. You would think U.S. people are as next-great-thing fad-oriented as the Chinese, but structural dysfunctions interfere with that on substantive matters.

Chinese experts can sit where they are, and experts from everywhere else come to see what is going on there. They can then pick and choose the best things to pilot-project, and have at it with well-educated employees from all over the world. It still works to pay salaries in dollars.

While we host a competition on the Mall in D.C., somehow we don't seem to be as good at getting things from competition win to practice as some other places. If I recall, Germany tends to do well in competitions and in pilot-projecting micro-grid and de-centralized efficiency practices.

No one Plan/Solution will apply to every micro-climate. Micro-climates of weather and culture affect so much the patterns of usage.

Giving one person a billion dollars would just be more of the same old practice of making a celebrity out of some individual while so much of the rest of the community flutters forgotten in the wind.
Comment
71 of 77
February 1, 2011
@mary-saunders-73470: You seem jealous of people that are rewarded for their ideas. $1 billion is a small price to pay for a clean, affordable solution. The status-quo hasn't found a solution.

It's not about celebrity, either - it's about paying for results. Real, viable results. Wind and solar won't solve our problem.
No image available
Comment
72 of 77
Anonymous
February 1, 2011
Not sure I buy the entire argument. She is saying that aggressive pricing is one of two things that created the demand. But look at Figure 3: low pricing is the opposite of what happened in the 2004-2008 period. Two things can explain that rise: the rising price of substitutes, and subsidies. Toward the first, oil tracked almost the same trajectory in 2004-2005, but after that, it's all subsidy. Much of that was Germany and Spain. So, if anything, the subsidies backfired: they got a lot of expensive solar that (in Germany) may never pay off the total cost. Meanwhile, solar prices had been declining pretty reliably for everyone, but have now stagnated for small users and have returned to the former path for large users. That's too bad, because one of the benefits of solar could have been the fact that small holders could have had their own, leading to decentralization.

So it's time to admit it: interventions like this create problems for the future. Our interventionist politicians, supported by the largish companies (Sharp, BPSolar, etc.) that stand to benefit, have convinced the public that we need solar incentives. Just like oil & car companies once benefited from the Good Roads movement that supported investment in roads. And railroads one benefited from investment in transcontinental roads. And the phone and power companies once benefited from the creation of "regulated monopolies" (Mr. Pinchot was wrong: all of those holding companies benefited tremendously from government regulation that guaranteed their safety from competition, from municipal franchises to federal patents). Everyone who tries to stand in the way of the inevitable will be accused of being in the pocket of Big Oil, or anti-environmentalist. Then, one day when we realize that some "natural" monopolist or cartel has somehow gotten too big, we'll condemn the "laissez faire" economic theories that led to the problem, and start the cycle over again.
Comment
73 of 77
February 2, 2011
Mary: I had to be fresh to understand what you are saying (how refreshing) and I am not sure that I got it right.
"You would think U.S. people are as next-great-thing fad-oriented as the Chinese, but structural dysfunctions interfere with that on substantive matters." Where are the dysfunctions: here, there or in both places? I may argue anyway.

"Chinese experts can sit where they are, and experts from everywhere else come to see what is going on there. They can then pick and choose the best things to pilot-project" Who is picking who's brain (stealing intellectual propriety): the visitors or the Chinese? Why not the other way?

"Germany tends to do well in competitions and in pilot-projecting micro-grid and de-centralized efficiency practices." Luckily (for us) they have a cloudy sky!

"Micro-climates of weather and culture affect so much the patterns of usage" So funny but so true (to me)

"Giving one person a billion dollars would just be more of the same old practice of making a celebrity out of some individual while so much of the rest of the community flutters forgotten in the wind" Andrew, Mary just convinced me that your theory will not work!!!
Old pal, Nick
No image available
Comment
74 of 77
Anonymous
February 2, 2011
@ Nick: I can't follow your thoughts(?). Very strange babble.
Comment
75 of 77
February 2, 2011
Paula, sorry I mean anonymous: I am trying to understand Mary's post. To me Mary's understanding of renewable energy is complex and intriguing. I cited her and than I ask for clarification. My 70 years old brain may play some tricks on me. However, I do not think it happens this time. Frankly, I think you just want to ridicule me. Go ahead, I am immune to this. I will babble (to use your word) as long as I think I have something to say! I sincerely apologize, to all of you, if my thoughts came out as babble.
Comment
76 of 77
February 2, 2011
Nick, China has a huge tourism industry, including many people coming to see what they are doing in industry and writing their trips off on their taxes as research and development.

The learning does go both ways. When I went there with an Oregon delegation, I learned things about practices here from fellow travelers that I did not know were being used here.

The Chinese come here as well. Oregon's governor just had a mutual-admiration press conference with Chinese visitors.

Many here assert that paperwork obstacles are more difficult in the U.S. than in China. Having tried to get in on a group solar buy in Portland, with a chance to look at the 3/4 of an inch of paperwork, X'd about, I have personal experience with that.

The competition of hopefully net-zero or net-negative houses on the mall in D.C. are there for anybody in the world to see. The German house used SunPower panels. SunPower is headquartered in the U.S., but has done most of its manufacturing in the Phillipines.

One of my son's professors at MIT has done research on how energy can be efficient in the Caribbean. It requires different ways there from the Pacific NW. Lifestyle matters, e.g., what time of day people choose to blast over-sized stereos, a lifestyle choice that would not go over well where I live.

Efficiency and wise-use practices will have to be tinkered with for different locations.

Giving prizes to kids in science fairs appeals to me. I am impressed with the things sixth-graders do in the classroom of a local teacher of great Oregon fame, Michael Becker, of Hood River.

My pitch is that we need to look in many places for many kinds of innovation. I find great fascination in small-scale projects that multi-task by asking accountability and responsibility of local people.

Thank you for your encouragement. I aim to reach a diverse audience.
Comment
77 of 77
February 2, 2011
I meant to say the information got Fed X'd about, from Oregon to the California site of Solar City, the contractor in my neighborhood.
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

Paula Mints

View Paula Mints's Profile
About: Paula Mints is principal analyst, PV Services Program, and associate director in the energy practice at Navigant Consulting. more »

Advertise With Us

Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency AEG Power Solutions Idaho Department of Commerce The Interstate Renewable Energy Council Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters