Our Magazines Article Archives
 

What Happens When the Incentives Expire?

By Bruce Hamilton, Director of Energy, Navigant Consulting, Inc.
May 17, 2011   |   16 Comments

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
May 17, 2011
These prices are all significantly inflated.

There are VERY few wind projects that cost $2/W anymore, and none go up without significant state incentives. Modern costs are closer to installed $1.6/W, or 80% of your projections.

Furthermore, you didn't specify the projected capacity factor that was used here... but it's clearly pretty low. Capacity factors are increasing with hub height, so if you are using a 25% capacity factor then that is unsupportable. Capacity factors of 32-35% are more probable - at least before curtailment is considered.

Otherwise, this was a very informative discussion. Thank you.
Comment
2 of 16
We need to do what UK just did, set a goal of 50% reduction in GHG by 2025.
Comment
3 of 16
May 18, 2011
Take the tax benefits and incentives given to the Oil industry and give it to renewables

Obama called for cutting over $4 billion in yearly in tax breaks for big oil companies.

'We need to get behind this innovation,' Obama said during his speech. 'And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own.'

It's true that the oil companies are doing quite well on their own. In 2010 Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), BP (BP), Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) and ConocoPhillips (COP, Fortune 500) made a combined profit of $76 billion.

And that was a so-so year. In 2007 they made $124 billion.

'It's a mature, extremely profitable industry,' said Seth Hanlon, director of fiscal reform at the Center for American Progress, the left-leaning think tank. Putting those tax breaks into renewables is 'a much smarter way of using the resources we dedicate to our energy future.'

There are nine tax breaks the administration is targeting, according to a Center paper, but four account for the lion's share of the money.

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: This is the largest single tax break, and would save over $1.7 billion a year if eliminated.

The percentage depletion allowance: This lets oil companies deduct about 15% of the money generated from a well from its taxes. Eliminating it would save about $1 billion a year.

The foreign tax credit: This provision gives companies a credit for any taxes they pay to other countries. Altering this tax credit would save about $850 million a year.

Intangible drilling costs: This lets the industry write off about $780 million a year for things like wages, fuel, repairs and hauling costs.

A royalty would be deducted as a cost of doing business, and would likely shave about 30% off a company's tax bill. Categorized as income tax, it is 100% deductible.
Comment
4 of 16
May 18, 2011
A very good question. Please let me add another one here:
Have you ever heard of incentives for cellular phones?
Here you can see the sales figures from NOKIA
from 1984 through 2009:
http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/background/nokia-mobile-phone-sales.php
Please compare them with the Implemenation of any Renewable Energie of your choice. Thank you
Comment
5 of 16
May 18, 2011
Who knows what will happen. Either necessity of current oil prices will incur private investment (slowly), or they will sputter and go into a hold pattern.

I agree with EnergySavers2. Why are we, in light of Gulf Oil spill and Japan crisis, still funding conventional technologies while cutting funds for renewables. Makes absolutely no common sense. It certainly is not as though Exxon Mobil is suffering from poor profits.

It burns me that so many people, without knowing facts, emphatically state numerous reasons why renewables are not feasible and that they "only" are around in their existing forms due to subsidies. Far from it. I am also disappointed that the homeowners and business incentive programs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are being scaled back.

Given, the federal budget and many state budgets are in a sorry shape. However, again: why are we cutting back on what I see to be sound investments in the future while still handing out cash to super-profitable oil companies. (Rhetorical answer, I know the answer, still aggravating.)

I wrote this article just before they announced cutbacks to homeowners program, and had to rewrite it. I just wish people would realize that if ALL people had the gumption to contact their senators and congressmen/women, that the total group of "regular folks" would be seen as a bloc to be dealt with on an equal footing with the special interests. Too many people blog and Beatch and Moan instead of shooting an email to their representatives.

http://www.solarflairlighting.com/concerned-about-rising-energy-costs/
Comment
6 of 16
May 18, 2011
Renewable energy sources

What people fail to understand is. As renewable energy systems matures and progress, mass produced, it will become more competitive and more efficient.
Look at the advancement that has been accomplished the past 8 years.

Incentive must apply only to products totally manufactured in the United States.

This will also create more jobs and bring additional revenues.

We also must realize.

"It is cheaper to save energy than make energy".


ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPLEMENTATION IS CRUCIAL TO OUR ECONOMY.

YJ Draiman, Energy/Utility Auditor
Comment
7 of 16
May 19, 2011
To my understanding, everything must be designed and produced clever enough, that "it" will find it`s own market on it`s own. This applies also to the utilization of renewable energies of all kinds. There is in fact much more to come, however, it will look much different from what we see and know today! This is a global challenge, with a great perspective. I am thankful to everybody, who is taking up the lead here. Power to the People.
Comment
8 of 16
May 19, 2011
We have also be rather careful with goal setting. If you hear a percentage of 20% or 30% or 50%, you should immediate ask three questions:
Of what? What are the 100%? And in which timespan have the goals be reached? In the case of renewable energies you have also to ask: Which lobby is behind the goals, who are driving them?
Comment
9 of 16
May 19, 2011
Whenever the magic money for PV, CSP and Wind dry up the attention shifts back toward the more prosaic SWH, multiple benefit systems and daylighting. The hoopla is always about the magic money.

Meanwhile, SWH, multiple benefit systems and daylighting toil away in the vineyard, getting better and better with each passing day. PV/Thermal is one such system as is building integrated PV. Futura Solar has them both beat with 4.2 benefits for low profile buildings that have no siting issues, collector surface and a ready customer on the other side of the roof.
Comment
10 of 16
May 20, 2011
There always seems to be a convenient reason why the U.S. can't agressively and methodically pursure fossil fuel independence (foreign at least); relative low cost of fossil fuels - excuse when times are good, and a loss of traditional fossil fuel jobs and/or the pursuit of more pressing priorities - when times are not so good. All the while, China's wind industry (one example of many) has uncermoniously overtaken ours. We need a real, effective and sustainable energy policy based on facts and not political jargon - ASAP.
Comment
11 of 16
May 21, 2011
WEllison, the facts are already there:
Today`s efficiency in ALL productions of electricty is at 31%
Today`s efficiency in ALL transport services is at 25%.
What more do we want and need.
All figures from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
(DOE), related to the energy balance in the US in 2009, here:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/
Once, these facts and figures are understood, we all should know, wehere to start now:
Commit ourselves to a truly genuine, decentralized, dedicated and small-scale energy system.

With this, I mean that the energy is only to be converted where it is actually needed. Not even a single (old or new) nuclear, coal or gas power plant would be needed to supply the energy actually required globally. But all this is achievable only if the renewable sources are used "by their nature", depending on local existing renewable sources of energy.

They have to be used locally within a maximum radius of 15 kilometers. Requiring only small storage capacity, these autonomous units can therefore also be utilized to cover all transportation services, too. The necessary facilities should in each case be used and operated locally and above all, they have be owned by the consumers.

This structure would changes the consumer behavior in households, SME`s industry and transport automatically in the right direction. The savings will be based on the close relationship of converting and using power independently.

That`s what I also wrote to then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and all members of the Ethics Comittee Secure Energy Supply, see here:
http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/aae/open-letter.html
Comment
12 of 16
May 21, 2011
Dave, that is true, more education on renewables in indeed need.
Many people have not the slightest idea, and they are discussing things they don`t really know.
Why not sart here, at our independend and unbisased information graphics on energy, which we have all reserched ourselves over years:
http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/energy-images.html
Also our fifty EnergyIdeas my be food for thought:
http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/background/arnos-energy-ideas.php
Comment
13 of 16
May 21, 2011
Dave, maybe you can get access here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=B0t-ode0he8C&dq=hydrogen+society&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Comment
14 of 16
May 29, 2011
Great response to an OK article. Let's thank our European friends for being the early adaptors of PV and utility scale wind, and jump on board. Ask your state and local representatives why they haven't done more to enact legislation to ; A) Waive building permit fees for solar (and renewables) installations. B) Installation of solar and other renewables on municipally owned buildings. C) Hopefully enactment of Feed-In-Tariffs D)anything else that pushes the green agenda.
Comment
15 of 16
May 30, 2011
Bruce,

Is it not true the real driver is a meaningful compliance penalty?

Barry
Comment
16 of 16
May 31, 2011
Arno,I fully agree with you - the facts are there, but the general public is not "there". Our leaders don't help when they provide superficial, unrealistic policy talking points that don't go deep enough.

There is a reason why the renewable metric is often in terms of "Barrels of oil equivalent". When that $5/gallon gasoline pays a visit and stays, it will probably be a different story. People listen, think and vote with their pocketbook.
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
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
 

Advertise With Us

Total Energy USA US Solar Institute GreenBrilliance Delta Rigging & Tools Alpha Technologies Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Unirac, Inc.
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