The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Solar Industry: 1603 Extension Would Add 37,000 Jobs

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
October 12, 2011  |  67 Comments

The solar industry on Wednesday launched its opening salvo to build support for an extension of a Treasury Department program its says has the potential to add tens of thousands of jobs while continuing to spur billions in private investment.

Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), spoke with the media to discuss the soon-to-expire Section 1603 Treasury Grant program, which allows energy developers in many industries such as solar, wind and biomass to receive a 30 percent grant in lieu of an existing tax credit. This direct payment comes only after a development comes online.

The grant, said Resch, has helped the solar industry become one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. Since its inception in 2009, the program has helped partially fund nearly 20,000 commercial solar projects with a combined capacity of more than 800 megawatts. It was conceived as a tool to combat a sagging tax equity market that developed during the economic downturn in 2008. Since then it has become a vital part of financing for all types of renewable energy projects, giving developers the type of liquidity needed to draw new investment.

Resch warned that allowing the grant to expire could cause the American solar industry to contract. A new report by EuPD Research released by SEIA on Wednesday found that a one-year extension could add more than 37,000 jobs — 18,000 directly in the solar industry and 19,000 in industries affected by industry growth.

“These are electricians, roofers, plumbers, steelworkers, those in sales and accountants,” said Resch. “You can’t outsource these jobs.”

The report also looked at scenarios for two-year and five-year extensions. Under the two-year scenario, more than 50,000 jobs would be added while well over 100,000 jobs would be created under the five-year plan.

The industry has already gone down this avenue in search of an extension. This time, though, the road may not be as well paved. Last December, lawmakers pushed through late legislation that extended the program through the end of 2011. But that was in a much different Washington. Since then, the House has swung firmly under Republican leadership and Democrats now hold a fragile advantage in the Senate. And nearly all legislation geared toward renewable energy must overcome conservative skepticism that has been fueled by the Department of Energy’s loan to now-bankrupt Solyndra.

Still, Resch said getting bipartisan support for a one-year extension is possible if the industry can successfully outline the economic and security benefits of Section 1603. While it’s still too early to tell what kind of broad support there is for an extension, or to which piece of legislation an extension would be attached, solar industry representatives will meet with legislators to explain how the program’s expiration could impact businesses and communities.

More than anything, Resch said an extension would quench a business appetite for a more consistent policy and municipal demands for the increased tax base that is often sparked by energy development. According to Resch, these have been staples of an energy economy that has been built upon subsidies and incentives aimed at the fossil fuel industries for decades.

“What we’re asking for is a level playing field,” said Resch. “It’s difficult to gain investment with an on-again, off-again policy.”

67 Comments

Register To Comment
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 17, 2011
@Clint Eastwood

lol... I couldn't said it better :)
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 17, 2011
@peterlynch

"Does anyone think that nuclear is sustainable and renewable?"

Yes. We currently us just 0.5% of the potential energy in mined uranium. We do not even use thorium at all - and it is four times as abundant as uranium. According to a calculation made by Alvin Weinberg, the world's thorium and uranium resources could sustain an economy that provided a US energy consumption lifestyle for about 7 billion people for about 30 billion years. Here is a video of featuring Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer and current nuclear energy entrepreneur explaining that computation:

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/10/inspiring-vision-of-hope-for-thorium-powered-future.html
Roy Anderson
Roy Anderson
October 17, 2011
at Josey Wales, I keep waiting for you to post, "subsidies ain't much of a living, boy"
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 17, 2011
Josey (jim) OK so you are not going to answer my question - as to what you do.

FYI - I have started over 15 companies and financed many more and have put my own money in each of them. They have been in the solar area, the medical area and the internet area - Of the 15 9 are still in business making money, paying taxes and creating jobs. In the ones that are not in business I put up MY OWN after tax dollars and lost my investment in those companies. It is called putting YOUR money were your mouth is...

So...........what have you done lately for creating jobs, increased USA product development and new products that have made a difference ??
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 17, 2011
@PeterLinch,

"since you seem to have looked up what I do - what do you do for a living ?"

I didn't have to look it up. You self-promoted it here. One click on your name.

Since you advertise yourself an "investor in small emerging technology companies" why don't you take on the risk yourself instead of lobbying or promoting an expectation that govt should back you up?

Why should the American taxpayer have to back up your risks?

Why should I have to back up your risks with my tax dollars?
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 17, 2011
Josey - since you seem to have looked up what I do - what do you do for a living ?
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 17, 2011
From the bio of Peterlinch:

'I have worked, for 33 years as an independent analyst and investor in small emerging technology companies. I have been actively involved in following developments in the renewable energy sector since 1977 and am regarded as an expert in this field.'

Peter,

Try being on the other end of things, creating technology instead of pimping it.

I have no interest in having my tax money routed to cover the losses accrued by people who make the poor decisions to buy the product you're pimping. You can find a sucker somewhere else.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 17, 2011
Josey - OK - You got it.

Get rid of ALL energy subsidies and I will back you.

But if solar comes out cheapest - do not blame me. Also the US does not count the "cost" to the environment ( Germany does) and we, the tax payers will get a FAR bigger bill down the road for that HUGE cost when it comes around.

Once again short term thinking verses longer term thinking placing the welfare of the tax payers first and not just corporate profits....
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 17, 2011
@peterlinch,

re: "Good Point - but not really relevant to get the industry up and running at full speed."

How about trying to get your industry up and running by producing a product that people will want at a price which people can afford - stand on your own feet instead of the backs of taxpayers? That would be relevant!
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 17, 2011
Good Point - but not really relevant to get the industry up and running at full speed.

What kind of word is Renewable ?? Solar, to my knowledge is the only renewable source of energy capable of supplying the necessary amount of energy we will need in the next 100 years or so....
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 17, 2011
@peterlynch,

In reality none of our energy sources are sustainable. All require equipment which must me manufactured, maintained and
eventually scrapped. All require some supporting infrastructure. All require some regular intervention of
resources of energy and material.

'Sustainable' is a marketing buzzword.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 17, 2011
Does anyone think that Nuclear is sustainable and renewable? Just as with oil and coal there is a limited amount of uranium on the earth. The KEY problem with most humans is that they are, for some reason, unable to plan for the longer term (i.e. great than 10-20 years) the problems will only get worse and the likelihood of a major surprise just increase as time goes on....short vs long - that is the problem.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 17, 2011
"Because you are trying to put down everything but nuclear power, demonstrating willful ignorance for the possibility of solutions to obvious problems in the future, and insincerely spinning everything anyone says shows a great deal of dishonesty. You should be ashamed of yourself."

Not at all ashamed to loudly and proudly proclaim the truth that compared to atomic fission, all other energy sources have serious drawbacks. Fission is not perfect, but it is energy dense, produces tiny quantities of waste, and can provide exceedingly reliable heat that can be converted into valuable power.

People who do everything they can to obscure that truth are the ones who should be ashamed because they are trying to prevent their fellow human beings from gaining access to some remarkable capabilities.

I have never once said that we should tax solar or discourage its use. To the contrary, I cheer those who want to invest their life into the challenge of making solar better. All I want to do is to stop paying for their frivolous hobby through my tax and ratepayer dollars. I want to get rid of the mandates and get rid of the subsidies that gift enormous quantities of money to companies like Chevron, BP, GE, and NextEra as well as a whole bunch of Chinese, Spanish, German and Dutch companies who are laughing all the way to the bank.

In China, it is interesting to watch how they build wind and solar systems for export while rapidly buying up as much nuclear expertise as they can find and building nuclear plants at a rate not seen since the nuclear plant boom in the US in the 1960s and 1970s.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 17, 2011
"Do I really need to claim access to a crystal ball to be able to factually point out that the sun sets every day and that the wind blows with a variable velocity nearly everywhere on earth?"
Your answer to my question is absurd. Because you are trying to put down everything but nuclear power, demonstrating willful ignorance for the possibility of solutions to obvious problems in the future, and insincerely spinning everything anyone says shows a great deal of dishonesty. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 16, 2011
@dave-fisher

I am not an "average Joe", but I work with a lot of them in the nuclear field. It is not an exclusive profession. Building our systems employs thousands of construction workers, pipefitters, mechanics, electricians, and chemistry technicians. Producing the parts keeps dozens of factories and fabrication facilities busy. Operating the plants requires large staffs of document technicians, quality assurance inspectors, security guards and licensed operators (many of whom have worked their way up through the ranks and have technical or associate degrees.)

The company I work for, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, is focused on producing the vast majority of the components and essentially all of the construction services here in North America. (We have a large Canadian subsidiary.)

In contrast, much of the value in wind and solar systems is in the turbines or collectors that are largely imported from places like China, Spain or Germany. The primary jobs associated with them are journeymen installers who have to move from place to place. Operating the facilities is often done with relatively small crews. Since they produce very expensive and unreliable power, they generally destroy more jobs in power intensive industries than they produce in those industries associated with the plant construction itself.
Roy Browning
Roy Browning
October 14, 2011
Most of the solar panels are produced in China where the producers receive a 17% rebate on their VAT that they do not actually pay. This kind of government subsidy allows most of the actual production jobs to exist in China, not in America. Installation jobs would be provided but production, no, that is complete fallacy and not something I would want our tax money to pay for.

However, the obvious need for this kind of energy generation is obvious. It is also obvious the production facilities need to be in America.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@prefersolar

This discussion is getting absurd. Do I really need to claim access to a crystal ball to be able to factually point out that the sun sets every day and that the wind blows with a variable velocity nearly everywhere on earth?

The stories that you point to regarding nuclear plant reliability are history stories. The operating record in the early days of the technology was not great, but we have been steadily learning and improving. How do you think that the nuclear generation industry has maintained a 20% market share without building any new plants in 30 years? We are getting more production out of the existing plants through well planned maintenance. The total CAPACITY of the nuclear fleet is about 8.5% of the US generating capacity. Its PRODUCTION is 20% and a measure of it's reliability.

The AVERAGE capacity factor for the US nuclear fleet over the past ten years has hovered aright around 90%. That means that the plants are at or near 100% of their design output for 8,000 out of 8,760 hours per year.

Yes, Progress Energy made a boneheaded mistake when they thought they could cut into their concrete containment themselves without hiring the experts who have done the same job a few dozen times. They thought they were going to save $15 million. It has cost them, their insurance company and their customers about a billion dollars so far with more to come.

The fact is that the technology has the potential to be exceedingly reliable. Every year, a dozen or more nuclear plants achieve a CF in excess of 100%. They produce their full design output for the entire year. Some plants have gone 500 days or more at 100%.

Not perfect, mind you, but at least not subject to the vagaries of the weather or the dreams of a vastly improved storage system.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
How can you say that wind and solar will never provide reliable power? Do you have some crystal ball that magically knows about all future technological advances? And even if solar PV and wind cannot, in the near future, without storage, provide constant reliable power, there is no denying that it can provide a much larger percentage of our power than you are implying. When I first became aware of nuclear plants in the late 70's, early 80's there were constant stories about nuclear power plants going offline for months and years at a time - how reliable is that. The plant at Crystal River, Florida has been offline for over 2 years and may never come back online - how reliable is that? That is such a baloney statement to say that wind and solar have been ignored as power sources.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@prefersolar

You are apparently far younger than I am. My next door neighbor had a government subsidized solar collector installed on his home in 1982, nearly 30 years ago. The famous White House solar panels installed by Jimmy Carter were before that. NASA was doing solar cell research and relatively large scale development in the 1960s.

I do not understand what you are implying about my comment #17. I have no qualms about the government enabling an industry that actually provides a return to the general welfare. Coal, oil and gas have served us well for 180 years; they helped us eliminate human slavery and live far healthier lives than ever possible before. Unreliables like the wind and sun WILL NEVER do that. They have been known - and virtually ignored - as energy sources for thousands of years by some very bright people.

@ SteveNelson

Do you really believe that the DOE budget, which includes managing the entire US nuclear weapons program, the CCS research program, the national renewable energy laboratories, the renewable loan guarantee program, and all of the national laboratory infrastructure should be counted as a subsidy for commercial nuclear power? Gimme a break!

Even the DOE program nominally titled nuclear energy - which is less than $900 million - includes a whole bunch of things that are not related to commercial nuclear power.

http://www.ne.doe.gov/progfactsheets.html

@PeterLynch

When you use Google you have to actually read the web pages that are returned by the search. Go and look through that $36 billion DOE budget to see just how tiny a slice nuclear fission energy programs are.

(Another trick that antinuclear activists use is to include fusion as a nuclear energy spending program. That is one nuclear technology that the oil and gas companies love - it has no hope of denting their sales within my remaining lifetime - and I expect to be on the planet for quite a few more decades.)
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
Aren't we talking apples and oranges in regard to subsidy, considering nuclear began ramping up 50 something years ago and serious investment in solar PV and wind has only begun in this decade? Also, why can't we call implicit insurance of mitigation after a disaster a subsidy. If you have no qualms about government enabling an industry, what was your argument in comment 17 about?
Steve Nelson
Steve Nelson
October 14, 2011
There you go again, Atomic Rod. #45: "The US government stopped doing anything to actually support the development of nuclear energy many years ago." How about DOE's $36 billion budget? Thanks for the facts, peterlynch. And Price-Anderson is still in effect, after 54 years and counting. If it were repealed today (not likely!), much of the nuclear industry in the U.S. would shut down. Well, time for me to shut up and get back to work.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
SteveNelson and PeterLynch: I know that this is not the most important forum for discussion around, but I feel like its morally important for people to be challenged when they come in here and make unfair claims. I don't know about others who read these comment sections, but it does help me to see others stand up for the side that I feel is right.

JoseyWales, thanks for that link to the UCS article.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 14, 2011
Steve

We have GOOGLE now. DOE 2011 budget. $36 BILLION to nuclear energy...

There is no way to solve a problem if we cannot even deal with the true facts.

Nuclear's time has pasted, for financial reasons and safety reasons. We have to, deal with reasonable risk return ratios and Nuclear's is unacceptable.

There are not mulligans, that I am aware of, for a nuclear disaster.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@SteveNelson

I have no qualms about the government enabling an industry. However, the US government stopped doing anything to actually support the development of nuclear energy many years ago. The road to a new plant is strewn with obstacles erected at the request of the established players. Not the least of those obstacles is a horribly expensive and lengthy process to obtain an operating license. The estimated fee to the government for the service of reviewing the license application - which can stretch to 20,000 pages in response to a 4,600 page review guide - is roughly $100 million.

With regard to cost to taxpayers, I think it is absurd to put a loan guarantee or a liability cap in the same category as a direct check that has to be paid from this year's collections (or borrowed with interest from T-bill holders).

In the few weeks after Solyndra walked off with $535 in a loan default, there were another $6 billion in loan guarantees issued. Do you really think that a Southern Company quality borrower is going to fail to pay back their loan like Solyndra did?

It is the difference between issuing a student loan guarantee to the valedictorian of good public high school who already has a work study program lined up and issuing one to a kid who only managed to attend class for 25% of the time - without ever telling anyone which classes he was going to decide to attend.
Steve Nelson
Steve Nelson
October 14, 2011
C'mon, Rod, you're being too clever by half.

1. You say (#40) that "subsidies are things that cost money." The federal government's assuming liability in the event of a nuclear accident is a subsidy, plain and simple, even if the feds have not yet had to pay out anything. In a way it's kind of like a loan guarantee. If the borrower makes his payments to the lender, the guarantor has no costs. But it's the availability of the guarantee that makes the loan happen in the first place. And Obama is pushing massive loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to encourage private-sector investment in nuclear. That's a subsidy, Rod.

2. You also say (#42) that "the vast majority of the destruction and loss of access to the area around Fukushima came as the result of a tsunami, not as the result of a nuclear reactor plant accident." That's a howler. If there had been no nuclear plants in Fukushima, the survivors of the tsunami would all have long ago returned to their villages to rebuild. The great tragedy of Fukushima is that Tokyo Electric Power, the operator of the affected plants, was unprepared for the scope of the natural disaster it was facing, so its plants blew up and a huge area was contaminated.

One more thing about subsidies. People like me in the renewables industry are upfront about the need for subsidies to catalyze a thriving industry which in time will no longer need subsidies. But too often people in the fossil fuel and nuclear power business, like Atomic Rod, pretend they aren't being subsidized (despite decades of government support) and conveniently ignore the external/environmental costs of what they do. Baloney!
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 14, 2011
"Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies"
Union of Concerned Scientists
Feb 2011
http://tinyurl.com/3nlp8e3

A worthwhile read (unless you're of a dismissive mindset and quickly link any UCS analysis as the product of kooks, hippies and Communists).
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@SteveNelson:

One more thing - though the Japanese overreaction to the minor radiation releases are costing a lot of money, please do not forget that the vast majority of the destruction and loss of access to the area around Fukushima came as the result of a tsunami, not as the result of a nuclear reactor plant accident.

There was an interesting article published today about a radioactive hot spot found in Tokyo that was the subject of a lot of hyped fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about nuclear energy. The idea was that the people who found the radiation thought that it indicated a lot more danger from Fukushima than previously thought.

http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/radiation-spots-detected-in-tokyo-1.1157307

The source turns out to be a bunch of radium filled bottles and jars that have been in a basement for at least 50 years. The 90 year old lady who was living in the house above those jars for most of those 50 years did not even know they were there.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20111014x3.html
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 14, 2011
Rod - Steve is correct and you are also correct - it is not a subsidy that the government is currently giving out - but it does enable FINANCING because of the Gov. guarantee. That is HUGE support for the industry, without while, no plants would ever be built.
But if you a truly comfortable for yourself and your family to have an industry where acts of God are NOT permitted. I think you need to reconsider the enormous ramifications of even ONE problem in the US. NOT worth the risk.....
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
Hey SteveNelson

Subsidies are things that cost money. Establishing a suitable framework for the development of an industry that produces 800 billion kilowatt hours of electricity every year (the energy equivalent of 4 million barrels of oil per day) in a way that did not cost any of us any money at all seems like an incredibly smart investment instead of a subsidy.
Steve Nelson
Steve Nelson
October 14, 2011
Hey, Atomic Rod, you say the nuclear industry receives no subsidies from the federal government? Surely you jest! You alluded to the liability issue in your comment #38. But what you didn't explain is how the liability of a nuclear plant operator in the event of an accident is limited to the $12 billion you mentioned. Should a nuclear catastrophe entail damage greater than that (which thankfully has not occurred and we all hope never will, but tell that to the people of Japan), the federal government is on the hook for the rest, under the Price-Anderson Act of 1957. The idea behind Price-Anderson when enacted was that in ten years private insurance would underwrite that risk, after the start-up nuclear industry had a chance to prove itself. But that has never happened, and Price-Anderson has since been extended several times, most recently through 2025. When the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Price-Anderson in 1978, it said that Congress's purpose in enacting it was to remove the economic barriers to and stimulate the growth of private development of nuclear power. Without such a limitation on the liability of the nuclear industry, it's widely accepted that there would have been no commercial nuclear industry in the United States. I'd say that's a pretty damn big subsidy, enabling the industry to exist.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@prefersolar

The possibility of terrorist attacks would imply a need to shut down all vulnerable targets - including proven vulnerabilities like tall buildings, rail stations, airports, and sports stadiums. I think it is a red herring to bring that topic into an energy conversation, especially considering the rather resilient nature of a reactor containment structure.

Even the three that were damaged severely by an attack from mother nature that was roughly the equivalent of several small nuclear bombs (if you compute the energy in a 45 foot tall wave washing across a large swath of shoreline, you will find out why I make that comparison) there was so little radioactive material released that not a single person has been made sick. The very worst was "reddened skin" on the legs of a couple of responders who waded into hot radioactive water.

In the US, every nuclear plant carries private liability insurance of $300 million AND participates in an insurance pooling arrangement that provides an additional $12 BILLION by tapping each operating unit for about $104 million in the case of an accident.

That arrangement has never been stressed and no taxpayer money has been required in the 50+ years that nuclear energy has been in use in the US.

Taxpayers should be much more worried about the liabilities associated with transporting natural gas or spilling coal fly ash. Those are the real competitors to nuclear - unreliables like wind and solar cannot NEVER supply the product that the electricity market demands.
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 14, 2011
'JoseyWales, if you want to have a 'rational discussion', you shouldn't come on here...' - prefersolar

Finally, something we can agree on.

I think we've arrived at a point where rational discussion of solar power is no longer possible. The subject has become as emotionally charged as religion and as deeply rooted in faith and muddled thinking.

Maybe PV proponents should go the final step, form a church to some sun god, and apply for IRS 501c3 tax-exempt status as a religious organization.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
JoseyWales, if you want to have a "rational discussion", you shouldn't come on here making blanket statements writing off government subsidy for solar like it is obviously the right thing to do. I agree with you, that having subsidies for everything is not the healthiest way to manage the economy, but it is an important tool to guide development in the direction that at least some of us think is important and right. I appreciate your sentiment that we should not be wasteful and we do need people monitoring our government for fraud.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
Rod - thanks for that. Who will pay for a Fukushima-like disaster? I'm sure shareholders will be in for a some, but isn't government implicitly obligated to cover a large share of relief for something like that? And as we've seen from other energy related disasters - Chernobyl, Deep Horizon, Exxon Valdez, even after tons of money is spent to clean up afterwards, there is still a huge amount of damage done that is not mitigated. What if a terrorist blew up one of these plants, then we could have a much larger disaster and the federal government would be completely liable for the damage?
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@prefersolar

I know all about the promised loan guarantees. Not a single dime has flowed from them so far, despite the fact that they were first authorized more than 6 years ago.

The Vogtle project received a promise to much political fanfare over a year ago, but that promise is contingent upon getting a construction and operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That license keeps getting delayed. It was also contingent upon accepting the terms and conditions that will include a not yet determined Credit Subsidy Cost payment to the government.

When Constellation Energy received their loan package offer from the government, it included a bill for a CSC fee of $880 million for a loan guarantee total of $7.9 billion. The company walked away - that is very expensive money to BORROW.

Renewable projects do not have to pay the CSC - money was appropriated for them by the Congress.

Though there were admittedly some bankruptcies during the first nuclear age, the vast majority of those came because pressure groups convinced the government to impose so many barriers that the project could not get completed and begin generating revenue. The most infamous instance was at Shoreham were, after spending nearly $6 billion, obtaining an operating license and doing low power testing the local governments decided not to sign off on the evacuation plans. The facility was never allowed to operate commercially and generate any income.

Long Island residents are still paying off the loans and have some of the most expensive electricity in the country thanks to the efforts of people like Cuomo's dad and Alfonse D'Amato.

See the recently produced documentary titled Shoreham - which is available in chapters at Atomic Insights -

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/09/shoreham-chapter-9-concluding-thoughts-one-battle-in-long-war-over-nuclear-energy.html

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
But JoseyWales the "competitive marketplace" that you imagine is a fantasy, an idealistic reality that doesn't exist. The most up and coming competitor in the world is a communist country. Europe is semi-socialist. Even the United States is no where near a purely capitalistic economy. It seems to me that for our lifetimes, if things don't take some huge nasty turn (which may be a foolish assumption), that we will never become purely one way or another. I agree that competitiveness is a hugely important principle, but so is nurturing, for how else would we grow anything from human babies to food to businesses without having faith that one day our efforts will be fruitful. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that renewables are getting an unfair advantage over fossil fuels due to this government subsidy and that this is unhealthy in some way, but I think you are wrong to place your emphasis here.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
Rod-Adams, thank you for what appears to be sincerity (it's sometimes hard to tell, I'm sure you'll agree). I have to admit to not being an expert on nuclear, but I found this first paragraph from a New York Times article in 10 seconds in a google search:

In an effort to encourage nuclear power, Congress voted in 2005 to authorize $17.5 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors. Now, six years later, with the industry stalled by poor market conditions and the Fukushima disaster, nearly half of the fund remains unclaimed. And yet Congress, at the request of the Obama administration, is preparing to add $36 billion in nuclear loan guarantees to next year's budget.

Another paragraph:

If the builders default, as happened on some nuclear construction projects in the 1980s, the taxpayer liabilities could run into the billions of dollars.
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 14, 2011
"Yet, what SEIA touts in this article is a lobbying effort to extend the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program and its supposed creation of 37,000 jobs. Lobbying for govt perks is hardly a sustainable business model and conducive to a competitive market place." - JoseyWales' first comment

"JoseyWales, in regard to your first comment, how can you say that the 1603 program reduces competition?" - prefersolar

prefersolar, read more carefully what I said, particularly the words "conducive to a competitive market place."
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@prefersolar

Please name me a single program that provides cash to the nuclear industry.

Instead, we have the privilege of paying $273 per bureaucrat per hour to review license applications for new nuclear facilities. As of the summer of 2009, the last time I had the opportunity to do the detailed research, the total amount given to the government for that service was in excess of $500 million. As of now, not one single license has been issued, even though the spending has continued.

Every nuclear plant pays an annual license fee of $4.7 million. In addition, they pay a fee that averages about $7.8 million per plant per year to the federal government for the service of taking title to used nuclear fuel - a service that was supposed to start being provided by 1998. It is now 2011 and not one fuel assembly has been moved from a nuclear plant, even though the industry has paid more than $12 Billion more since the deadline passed.

Once again, please tell me where the largess for the commercial nuclear industry may be. My day job employer would probably be interested in knowing how to slow the current burn rate on the new plant design project we are working on. So far, all of the checks are going from us to the government, not the other way around.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Garth Barker
Garth Barker
October 14, 2011
i603 does make a difference even in the small hydro generation business; that said, I would trade that payment in lou of taxes for less stonewalling by the mid level government bureaucrats, a relaxing of the regulations and some clear avenues when dealing with the service and advisory agencies of the federal government. The reduction of those indirect expenditures would more than off set the 30% and we could install more small hydro on existing dams.
ANONYMOUS
October 14, 2011
Ok , how about 44 jobs @ $20.00 per hour
$20.00* 40 hours * 52 weeks = $ 41,600.00 per employee
44 employees = $1,830,400 Payroll per year
20 years of Payroll = $366,080,000.00
25% federal Tax = $9,152,000.00 given back to the Goverment

44 jobs !! I know you would rather give this to the Oil companies so they can continue to feed Benzene to your Children, But personally I think it is time to change that

The fact that you do not understand that you feed benzene Daily to your children showes how good a job they are doing with your tax money
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
Anonymous, at least, was pretty honest about how many jobs his BIOMASS plant would produce. The one that was attempted here last year would have employed about the same number, but claims were inflated up to 1200 by the end of the public snow job.

Dave-Fisher, individuals can get 30% back from the government for PV, but as a tax credit rather than a direct rebate.

It seems pretty hypocritical of anyone from the nuclear industry complaining about government largess.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
@Anonymous (#25)

Let's do the math for your plea:

30,000,000 x 0.30 = 9,000,000 in a gift from the taxpayers.

You claim it will result in 22 jobs (direct) and also claim it may help another 20 people earn a living (in direct).

Lets assume that each job actually does get created as you claim and that they last a full year.

9,000,000 / 44 = $204,545 per job.

Wow! That amount of money can support a pretty nice compensation package. Maybe I should work in the solar industry.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
ANONYMOUS
October 14, 2011
My funding Group has decided to wait and see if the 1603 program will be extended before they will fund my $30,000,000.00 Bio Mass Electric project . Direct employment
of 22 people and indrect of another 20 , This Program can really make a difference , as I keep telling my funding group
they will extend it , This is a Direct Jobs Creation Program
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
JoseyWales, in regard to your first comment, how can you say that the 1603 program reduces competition? Granted, it gives a leg up to renewables in general, but it does nothing to reduce competition among manufacturers, designers and installers within the renewable energy marketplace. In fact, it is injecting enough money into this sector that these companies are able to keep afloat and innovate - improving design and reducing costs. If governments hadn't put out billions over the last 10 years to get people to buy the equipment, there would be very little industry at this point.
If you are so concerned about costs, are you spending as much time trying to eliminate government subsidy of fossil fuels and nuclear as you are renewables?
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
How is it a digression to bring up costs that are not factored into the cost of fossil fuel or nuclear generated electricity when you are complaining about the costs of renewables? Let's talk proportions, here. Since you complain about pollution due to PV, say how much pollution occurs and the relative damage is done to the environment due to manufacturing of PV verses fossil fuels. Given the relatively small amount of PV that is manufactured, I highly doubt that there is any comparison. I admit hypocrisy in regard to the need for mining and use of heavy metals in solar panels. In summary, you are highly negligent of the unaccounted for costs in fossil fuel production and usage and you are making a disproportionate claim about pollution.
Donald Mayfield
Donald Mayfield
October 14, 2011
Thank for the Chevron link. I'm trying to get up to date on what is being done in this regard, anywhere in the world.
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 14, 2011
It's quite a digression to talk about 'all of the cancer causing, asthma inducing, etc., etc., etc' but it does bring up another glossed over issue related to the cleanliness of this so called 'clean' energy: The pollution clean energy generates.

It's easy to wave a finger of shame at fossil fuels and nuclear plants. All you have to do is look at the billowing smoke emanating from the exhaust pipe of an untuned car, or guys in space suits brushing aside seaweed on their way in to play housekeeper at Fukushima.

What's a little more difficult is looking at the vast waste products generated during the manufacture of PV cells and storage batteries: Mining slagheaps, billowing clouds from furnaces, trace metal pollution in the soil and water supplies, not to mention disposal when the systems reach the end of their useful lives or flame out suddenly in a roof fire.

How can PV proponents sleep at night knowing they're going to leave behind such a mess for their children and grandchildren to clean up? I suppose they figure most of that mess will be over in China.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 14, 2011
Why does our federal government subsidize fossil fuel production in the first place? Can't fossil fuels stand on their own? Is it because our country needs energy security? Should we include in the price of fossil fuels the huge amount of resources needed to secure oil in the middle east. Should we include the cost of the Deep Horizon oil disaster, the Exxon Valdez, pipelines that bust all the time that barely makes the news. How about coal and all of the cancer causing, asthma inducing, etc., etc., etc., problems that it causes that are not factored into the cost of electricity.
Nuclear. Doesn't every nuclear project in the pipeline require a government loan guarantee just like Solyndra got? Aren't Florida power companies charging up front for part of the costs of new power plants even though they may not be built, maybe in the range of how much Solyndra cost the Federal Government? Doesn't a rather large percentage of the population think that nuclear is too dangerous - Fukushima disaster. We saw in the late 70's how nuclear power plants were said to cost so many billions each and then cost double that if and when they were completed. We hear every day how funding has been cut for nuclear power oversight and how there are so many potential ways for a disaster to occur at one of these plants and how vulnerable they are. Is it worth the power you get out of one of these plants if you were to ruin an area the size of a county? What will the cost of nuclear be then. None of you proponents will take responsibility for that if it happens. You don't honestly put those things out there, you just say how you've got everything under control.
What about global warming????? Sure nuclear doesn't put out carbon, but see above for drawbacks. All fossil fuels, including natural gas contribute to global warming. You talk about taking away money from your grandchildren, do you think they are going to appreciate us leaving the world completely messed up?
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
Just to back up my previous statement about the recipients of the 1603 largess, here is one example of a Chevron solar project:

http://www.chevron.com/chevron/pressreleases/article/10032011_chevrontechnologyventureslaunchesworldslargestsolarenhancedoilrecoveryproject.news

Please tell me again why I should be happy that my tax dollars are supporting projects like this.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
October 14, 2011
There is a big difference between the kind of subsidies that support fossil fuel and the gifts that the solar industry is demanding.

The fossil fuel industry pays enormous quantities of cash into the federal coffers in the form of taxes on its products and on its corporate income in addition to some royalty payments for the portion of its product extracted from public lands. It probably does not pay as much as it should due to long time lobbying efforts, but the net result is a flow into the government.

With the 1603 grant program, the federal government actually writes a check to the solar developers for 30% of their total project cost. In addition, the solar industry gets set asides, state funds, tax deductions, subsidized "credit subsidy costs" for loan guarantees, and other goodies. The net flow of money is out of taxpayers pockets and into the pockets of politically connected wealthy companies and individuals. Shockingly enough, many of the recipients of the largess have names like Chevron, BP, and FP&L (though now using the alias of NextEra).

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 13, 2011
PeterLinch,

You need to provide a more convincing defense of why you think I should spend my hard earned tax dollars bailing out your industry. Judging by your bio, you have a stake in the game. I'm not in the energy business in general nor the PV business in particular, so I have no stake in the game.

Publishing a 'BTW' list of Top Ten lobbying industries is hardly a defense of lobbying as a means of self-promotion.
Thomas M
Thomas M
October 13, 2011
I agree also that using gov. funding is slowing down RE progress. Yes they can help, but when their help is focused on investing in companies that are subject to failure from the get go, in order to make RE look bad, one has to look at who is doing the investing and why.
If you took all the time and money spent trying to convince gov. to hand out money, and spent that money on installing sytems instead, the technology would spread and catch on much quicker.
Or maybe the the gov. should allow the tax payer to use their tax dollars themselves, to invest in their own system, instead of using their tax dollars for the funding of other's installations.
ANONYMOUS
October 13, 2011
To some, lowering the cost of energy is the only goal of switching to other forms of energy. I'm sure we could lower the cost of energy by openly burning any fossil fuel or wood, etc. and remove the pollution controls and seemingly save a lot of money. We could wholesale dump industrial waste into bodies of water like we did 40 years ago and "save money" also. Your simple formula of something having to be cheaper at the retail counter does not add up to honest moral people.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
October 13, 2011
JoseyWhales you are correct that industries need, in a perfect world to succeed on their own merits. But this is NOT a perfect world. The oil industry has been receiving subsidies since 1894 and in fact their subsidies are actually part of the tax code, unlike solar credits which can change year by year thereby creating more uncertainty and less investment.
BTW below is a list of the top 10 industries listed my amount of money spent doing exactly what you are against - I do not see solar in the top ten or actually in the top 20.

Heath Professionals
Insurance
Public Sector Unions
Construction
Pharmaceuticals
Building Trade Unions
Electric Utilities
Oil & Gas
Consumer Banks
Real Estate
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
October 13, 2011
The clever Chinese are supplying products to an industry essentially created by Western governments, not the marketplace. Unless renewable energy helps lower the cost of energy, its existence is basically a contrivance. Production in Asia helps achieve that goal, just like such similar off-shore activities help lower prices in other areas.

Instead of whining, the renewable energy business needs to get off the federal dole as that sort of addiction invariably goes badly.
Michael Campbell
Michael Campbell
October 13, 2011
This is a meaningful solar incentive that pales compared to the tax dollars we hand Big Oil every year- and- its not a misguided DOE loan- it directly helps people go Green for Good.
ANONYMOUS
October 13, 2011
Let's tell the Chinese that manufacturing of solar PV and wind turbine equipment need to stand on their own two feet. They are stealing the business through...government subsidy.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 13, 2011
Looks like there is a tag-team of paid bloggers on here attacking renewables.
ANONYMOUS
October 13, 2011
Again, supporters of fossil fuels come on this website to put down solar and other renewables. Petroleum, coal, and natural gas have huge lobbying arms in congress. Only someone who wishes alternatives to fail would suggest that renewables be denied the advantages that destructive fossil fuels receive. Therefore, you wish renewables to fail.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
October 13, 2011
Renewable energy needs to stand on its own two feet and compete. The poorly conceived, massive overreliance on the federal government has created large-scale corruption while wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money (or more accurately, billions of dollars of our children's and their children's money). Times up: sink-or-swim in the marketplace using your own money.
Donald Mayfield
Donald Mayfield
October 13, 2011
Agrees with JoseyWales (comment 5), mostly. High tech industry, which I started to follow, but not find employment in, in the late 1970 has succeeded, but was there govt help. Someone let us know. I'm not sure. I was employed in the 1970's at a Fed govt facility and used and learned on a computer that few could own but govt institutions and large companies.
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 13, 2011
If solar is to succeed then it should succeed on its merits and not by having to rely on government lobbying. Solyndra should be used as an object lesson.
ANONYMOUS
October 13, 2011
JoseyWhales, why are you on this website if you are not interested in promoting renewable energy. If you're real intent is to stop government subsidies for energy, work against fossil fuels. You are on the wrong side.
ANONYMOUS
October 13, 2011
This program definitely made the difference between investing in my farm's 10kw system and not doing it as we didn't have enough tax liability to make it doable. I calculated it out, at $5000 per kilowatt, the feds have only paid out $1.2 billion for the program. Even at 100 times that, our country would really benefit in cleaner air, an improved environment for non-human nature and energy independence for our country. It seems like a much better investment than war, weapons, or real estate. People, instead of buying an expensive new car or an oversize house, buy solar.
Josey Wales
Josey Wales
October 13, 2011
The SEIA recently released a statement

'Behind the Solyndra Headlines - America's Solar Energy Boom' -

http://www.seia.org/galleries/pdf/Behind_The_Solyndra_Headlines.pdf

From that statement:

'The Solyndra bankruptcy is not indicative of the health of the U.S. solar industry and, as with any competitive and dynamic market, some companies will prosper and others will fail.'

'Despite support from the federal government, Solyndra failed due to an unsustainable business model, as the company faced pressure from cheaper solar panels and simply could not compete in a high-tech, dynamic market.'

Yet, what SEIA touts in this article is a lobbying effort to extend the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program and its supposed creation of 37,000 jobs. Lobbying for govt perks is hardly a sustainable business model and conducive to a competitive market place.
ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2011
Inefficient information from SEIA

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • EU PVSEC (European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition)
  • Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc.
  • Westinghouse Solar
  • Sunetric
  • Apricus, Inc.
  • GoGreenSolar.com
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • Motech Industries, Inc.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information