The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 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? ×

California Approves Solar Contract Despite High Cost

Ucilia Wang, Contributing Editor
November 11, 2011  |  41 Comments

Should consumers pay more for renewable energy in order to promote a certain technology? That's an interesting question raised by California regulators on Thursday, when they approved what they acknowledged to be a pricey contract for Abengoa Solar to sell power to Pacific Gas & Electric.

The California Public Utilities Commission voted 4-1 to approve the 25-year contract, which will allow Abengoa to build the 280-megawatt solar farm called Mojave Solar in southern California. The company already has secured construction permits from state and federal regulators, as well as a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy to help pay up to 80 percent of the project’s cost.

The commission staff recommended against approving the contract, saying it was way too expensive. Utilities can recoup the cost of buying renewable energy by raising rates. Contract price and terms are confidential, however, so it’s difficult to compare all those contracts that the three big utilities have signed over the years. Commissioner Mike Florio, who casted the lone “no” vote, said during the meeting that the contract will cost $1.25 billion over 25 years.

But commissioners who voted for the contract said price shouldn’t be the only deciding factor. They said the technology Abengoa will be using can produce power more consistently than, say, solar panels, and that consistency is valuable even if it isn’t reflected in the contract price. They also suggested that the state has a responsibility to support a variety of renewable energy technologies.

Abengoa plans to install rows of curved mirrors that will concentrate and direct the sunlight to create steam, which will then be piped to run a turbine to produce electricity. It’s not alone in using concentrating solar power or CSP (solar thermal) to generate power; other developers such as BrightSource Energy and SolarReserve are doing something similar.

“It’s worthwhile to spend a little more on projects like the Mojave Solar so the (state’s) renewable portfolio doesn’t rely heavily on a single technology. In other words it’ll be more balanced,” said Michael Peevey, the commission president who led the effort to approve the Mojave Solar contract.

California has had a renewable energy mandate for nearly a decade now, and the most recent change requires utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The state mandate doesn’t say utilities have to choose solar or any type of solar technology. The eligible types of renewable energy include wind, geothermal and ocean power.

One of the commission’s responsibilities is to make sure the price of a renewable energy contract is reasonable and won’t saddle consumers will a big rate hike.

But several commissioners also believe that California should support different technologies. They noted that most of the recent proposed projects use solar photovoltaics (PV) instead. The price of solar panels has fallen more than 50 percent in the past few years, and an oversupply problem has caused many solar companies to close factories or even file bankruptcies. Energy Conversion Devices announced this week that it would suspend manufacturing all together and furlough 400 workers, and it plans to lay off 500 people by the end of this year.

The price decline has prompted some CSP plant developers, such as Solar Trusts of America, to switch to using PV.

The commission certainly has said "no" to expensive contracts before: they didn’t support a contract from a Canadian company to sell power from an ocean energy farm to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Ocean power remains elusive because developing equipment that will work well in salty water is tough and has taken longer than some of its supporters have anticipated. PG&E once devoted time and money to develop ocean power projects along the California coast, but it abandoned them mostly because they were too expensive. 

Ultimately, the commissioners voted for Abengoa’s contract mainly because Abengoa already has spent five years and $70 million to develop Mojave Solar and has gotten all the permits and financing to start construction. They noted that getting permits and financing are so tough that many other renewable energy projects had floundered as a result. 

“Mojave Solar is one of the utility-scale projects and is fully permitted. That in itself should be given a strong weight,” said Commissioner Timothy Simon.

41 Comments

Register To Comment
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
November 20, 2011
@fireofenergy
If robotics replaces the worker, where do you earn your income?
Especially if you are replaced via low-skilled/educated employment
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
November 19, 2011
@fireofenergy
You can still buy the imposed duty panels They would just cost more. Also, feel free to work at a panel factory that doesn't markup enough. Then you'd know how the chinese factory workers experience poverty.
Norm Rhett
Norm Rhett
November 19, 2011
How often do people regret having squandered good fortune? Well, maybe not that often, but they should. The present good fortune is that natural gas has become a financially and environmentally attractive coal replacement. That blessing should not become an excuse to squander the little time we have to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. As the great Wayne Gretzky advised, "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." and "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
November 19, 2011
There's not a website to my knowledge that shows historical and current rates. But here's the draft 2011 MPR resolution (which will put in place the new rate when approved soon by the CPUC):

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/COMMENT_RESOLUTION/146587.htm
D Rees
D Rees
November 19, 2011
@Tam_Hunt - Is there a site that shows current and historical MPR rates?

Edit: Fount this URL: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/Feed-in+Tariff+Price.htm Looks like it's around $0.10 / kWh currently depending on length of contract.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
November 19, 2011
As for your statement about the utilities not being strong price hawks, you're simply wrong. I know from direct experience how hawkish the utilities are on prices for renewables. Yes, contract prices are passed through to ratepayers, but utilities hate to have their rates go up more than they deem necessary for their own investments ("rate-base") because rate increases inevitably draw ratepayer complaints and increased regulatory scrutiny. So when utilities are trying to convince the CPUC to allow them to make their own billions of dollars in investments in improved transmission infrastrucuture, they hate to have renewables further increase prices. Many renewable energy contracts are in fact below the market price referent, including many solar projects from 5-20 MW in size forwarded to the CPUC by SCE for approval earlier this year. The recent trend in CA is for auction programs (like the RPS and the new RAM program) to lead to prices well below the MPR. This is a bit of a problem b/c I think it's very likely symptomatic of a "race to the bottom" rather than real ability to build projects at the prices I'm hearing (well below the MPR). But time will tell.

My feeling is that even if ratepayers are on the hook for a small premium for renewables they are still getting a very good deal overall because of the environmental and economic benefits that result from renewables. Germany has led the way on solar, wind and biomass and has been highly successful with its feed-in tariff program in bringing these global industries to scale. We are now reaping the rewards of Germany's labors with dramatically reduced solar prices, among other things (and of course many other nations' efforts, including the US, with feed-in tariffs and other support policies).

The future looks bright and it's not been because of a strict adherence to a narrowly economistic approach. Rather, policymakers in many nations have recognized the broader benefits of renewables and acted accordingly.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
November 19, 2011
Keller, the market price referent is regularly adjusted to reflect current natural gas prices. The 2011 MPR is about 15% lower than the previous one because of the dramatic natural gas price declines. But keep in mind that NG prices are highly volatile so projecting NG prices is bound to fail. NYMEX values are used for this purpose by the CPUC in crafting its MPR, but the market is also bound to be wrong. It is what it is.

This problem with forecasts is relevant to judging whether renewables are cost-effective. The most recent CA renewable portfolio standard recognized this problem and eliminates the MPR as a means for judging cost-effectiveness.

Moreover, the Abengoa contract was proposed in 2009 and its cost-effectiveness is judged in relation to the 2009 MPR. So you are right that current natural gas electricity can be produced substantially cheaper than when the Abengoa project was accepted by PG&E. But, again, this is an unfortunate consequence of judging cost-effectiveness by highly volatile fossil fuel prices.

One of the many benefits of renewables is that the prices is locked for the entire contract length. In other words, there is no volatility in price because there is no fuel cost. So renewables are a strong hedge against volatility and this value has long been recognized by the CA Energy Commission but not yet by the CPUC.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
November 19, 2011
With natural gas sitting at around $4/mmBTU, I seriously doubt the cost of power from the Abengoa plant is even remotely close to that from a new combined-cycle plant. I have the financial Pro Formas that prove it.

Utilities in California are not "strong price hawks"; this whole renewable energy exercise is a pass through for them; that come from high placed individuals in the firms. The only people on the short end of the stick are the consumers.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
November 19, 2011
@Freemarketer
On your fourth point, it is a misnomer to call discounted labor and hypersubsidies "Vast Wealth". Perhaps on the surface, the lure of lowest costs appear worth taking on. Maybe where you stand financially, there is no threat to your economic stability. Additionally, some may forcast that their current earnings will be sustained or increase and justify buying such products. But that is what alot of Real Estate investors thought when they believed prices will continue to go up.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
November 18, 2011
FreeMarketeer, this is not a case of private investors refusing to invest in a bad deal. Rather, every developer seeks a loan guarantee if available because this reduces the cost of money by a point or two. That can translate to a big improvement in the bottom line. Loan guarantees are not loans. They're a guarantee that the US government will act as payer of last resort if required. So private investments are still made, but the US government is on the hook if the developer fails (as Solyndra did).

I agree that contract prices should be made public in CA and elsewhere, and I've been working on this at the CPUC. However, I do have faith that the contract price is not too far above the "market price referent," which is the average cost of power from a new natural gas plant, because the utility in this case sent the Abengoa contract to the CPUC for approval. The utilities are strong price hawks and generally hate to accept any contract above the market price. If they are fine with this contract, it seems to me that it's very unlikely this contract is receiving much of a premium. We'll know in three years, however, because that's how long it takes for contract prices to be made public (they are kept confidential under the rationale that if they are made public other developers would simply make bids at the same level rather than submit lower priced bids).
D Rees
D Rees
November 18, 2011
@Free-Marketeer A "Free Market" can not exist with electricity distribution as long as utilities maintain a monopoly. You get once choice and that's decided by where you live. Otherwise, you live off the grid, in which case solar with storage is a bargain compared to bringing the grid to your house or gas/diesel generator power.

Your utility does not want your solar is not because it's variable - distributed solar is no less "reliable" than any other power plant - utilities must maintain spare capacity at all times to deal with the sudden loss of 1GW or more at a fraction's notice. With distributed solar you don't have this issue, especially if you utilize any type of weather forecasting at all. The real reason is that because distributed generation cuts into their profits by reducing the cost of distributing electricity - most utilities are regulated such that they can not profit on energy costs, only distribution costs.
jim douglas
jim douglas
November 18, 2011
Reminds me of a sinking ship (California) and nobody has the guts to be the first one to jump off.
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 18, 2011
I know something about this; I operate the largest residential grid-tied Solar PV system in Central Georgia: https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/55KWHDayANewRecord

It's performing above spec. But the local utility does NOT want my excess power (too variable to be of any value to it). It's FORCED to buy it by greenie-legislation. Conversely, it got turf-protecting legislation passed (I can't erect a system on a local elementary school and sell it that power).

That's 3 levels of Big Government: (1) subsidization of my purchase (65% tax credits); (2) forced purchase by my utility; and (3) market-turf protection for the utility. The free market cannot possibly function to sift/sort winners from losers (I know what's the best smart phone to buy, touchpad, PC, etc. because I've got a plenitude of buyers and user reviews to consult, and the best products naturally rise to the top; I simply don't and won't have that presented to me in the Solar PV market, so long as the Politicians and Bureaucrats keep obtruding the natural sorting process).

Add a fourth level: Erecting trade barriers against Asians willing to transfer vast wealth to us (severely discounted labor, hyper-subsidized production) via "predatorily priced" Solar PV panels (bring it on! we'll get more jobs and free electricity installing/servicing PV systems then we'll ever reap producing Solar panels).

Were PC's that subsidized and government-entangled when they came along? No. Look at the prosperity and quality of life they brought. Do the same for Solar PV. More here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 18, 2011
To those who'd justify subsidizing green power because crony capitalism has done the same for brown power -- you cannot deny that two wrongs don't make a right.

I've got no problem taxing brown power, and de-subsidizing it. In fact, I'm in favor of taxing 'bad behavior' in general, as explained here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/taxation-policy

It galls me that solar fanboys mindlessly yahoo anything that has the word 'solar' in it, whether it makes technological/market sense or not. That only empowers politicians, who've recently (and repeatedly) demonstrated that they're the LAST people we want picking energy market winners and losers.

And it saddens me that greenies rationalize subsidy-mongering without even asking basic questions like whether the local and national grid can even handle all the variable power solar produces (it cannot, got a couple trillion to fix that problem?) and whether cost-feasible electricity storage exists for it (it does not).

These deal-killer obstacles simply go unaddressed in the daily slew of pro-Solar articles found in the Solar Trade press, which drumbeats for more subsidy dollars (OUR money) at any cost.

(Cont’d next post)
Everett Williams
Everett Williams
November 16, 2011
My personal opinion is that orbital solar power is the only reliable and scalable base load generator that we have available to us that does not involve nuclear power. Beaming down solar power from photovoltaic cells in geosynchronous orbit via microwave to approximately 6x8 mile receiving zones in some of those same desert areas marked for solar arrays of one variety or another is both practical and doable. What we cannot do is provide all the raw materials for such an effort by sending up rockets from Earth. Of course, we can build a demonstration unit that way, but materials need to come from some external source that does not require us to pollute our atmosphere by firing up thousands of rockets. We can do that by hauling small asteroids into Earth orbit. The materials in such bodies is highly pure and will need minimal processing before it can be used to produce power arrays. In addition, such asteroids will provide highly protected bases for construction and maintenance of solar power satellites and possibly many other types of satellites. Solar cells in space have access to a much broader spectrum of wavelengths, and a much higher concentration of power per square meter than can be found here on Earth, in addition to being available full time instead of for far less than 12 hours a day. Such units are also not subject to weather blocking or weather damage, though they are subject to solar mass ejections which can be compensated for. The reason why this is not being done is not because the technology is unavailable, but because the upfront capital cost is high enough to make it a government only project, at least in the beginning. As long as the only projects that we can undertake are those small enough to be managed by corporations, the really big things that need doing on this Earth will go begging and we will all pay for that.
Everett Williams
Everett Williams
November 16, 2011
Many years ago, when I worked in the corporate world, I was losing a $20,000 item once a month because the company would not make a one time purchase of a $15,000 item that would prevent the loss. The reason they would not make the $15,000 purchase was that it had to come out of the fixed assets budget instead of the operating budget. Rather than watch $240,000 disappear out of my operating budget over the next year, I just authorized the purchase, thus saving $225,000. That is what we have going on here. The free market cannot properly handle many decisions because it does not have access to all the costs of decisions on a subject. The fact that "brown" fuels cause hundreds of billions in damages to life, health, our infrastructure, our economy, and our national security is only marginally within the decision making purview of any competitor in a marketplace. That competitor only sees his profits for the next quarter or two. If we want rational decision making, the government that is supposed to represent all of us has to make regulatory or tax decisions that express those other factors. This is where we are on the "green vs. brown" question. Power companies want to produce the most watts for the least dollars so that they can compete and the companies want the most watts they can get for the least dollars with only minor consideration for the other factors that I have noted above. If we don't want governments to choose the winners in such a field of competition, we need to level the playing field by providing those taxes or regulations that will properly include all or most of the actual costs of energy production.

Right now, the biggest problem with solar and wind power production is that they are not good candidates for base load power production that represents the 24x7x365 load ever present on our power production system. Any use of them for base load requires storage of some kind, which is always expensive.

continued
Norm Rhett
Norm Rhett
November 15, 2011
The hundreds of billions of dollars spent protecting Middle East oil is obviously a subsidy borne by taxpayers. Not only is the private sector paying very little of those costs (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/), it is making enormous profits from them. And all this for a dwindling and increasingly expensive resource.

What was your point in "This verbiage of sure ..."?
Ronald Thomas
Ronald Thomas
November 15, 2011
What B.S. You can list all the progress you want from the internal combustion engine to the computer to the microwave and then list all the Government subsidies that helped these poor "Start-Ups" and of course where were the government subsidies for the buggy whip manufactures and the builders of the spoked wheels for covered wagons. Get real. Let the private sector do it. This verbiage of sure your electric bills are going up because you did not conserve enough.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
November 15, 2011
Once in place, upgrading newer technologies to the existing system will not endure the same expense and wait.
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
November 15, 2011
Ah yes, what stunning logic.
"Ultimately, the commissioners voted for Abengoa's contract mainly because Abengoa already has spent five years and $70 million to develop Mojave Solar and has gotten all the permits and financing to start construction." Translation: the company can not obtain private investment, has spent a lot of money and made a bad investment, so lets make sure the consumer does the same.

Four out of five of the commissioners could care less about the hard pressed ratepayers and businesses. Must have been bought by the green energy "mafia".
Marvin Hamon, P.E.
Marvin Hamon, P.E.
November 15, 2011
This shows the problem with long lead time projects in an industry with rapidly changing prices. Five years ago the Mojave Solar project looked like the cheapest way to go and the cost was reasonable compared to the alternatives at the time. Today after 5 years of falling prices it looks expensive, and it is. But that's what you get when you have a system where it takes 5 years to get a project permitted.

If this project was rejected and a similar project started with todays cheaper technology what would it look like in 5 years when it was through the permitting process and ready to build? At some point we either have to decide we are going to build these large long lead time projects even if by the time they are ready there are cheaper technologies or just not build these types of projects.
Will Deliver
Will Deliver
November 15, 2011
Abengoa's concentrated solar power has heat storage designed to give the facility 'dispatchable power'. Which means they can generate power even when the sun has set. They can deliver more power when it is demanded by the grid. Photvoltaic panels only generate when the sun is shining on them, and at a lower rate on cloudy days. PV installations can store energy in batteries, but batteries are a more expensive storage medium.
Californians use more electricity during summer afternoons and into th evening, mostly for air conditioning. The electrical utilities charge higher rates at those times.(Peak Power)PV power will help, until sundown, then the heat storage of the CSP plant will generate electricity, from the stored heat energy. Free fuel (energy) from the sun! Zero pollution! Plant maintenance will cost money, as will labor to run the plant, but that is providing JOBS for more people than just work at the CSP plant. I am also in favor of more distributed generation, such as PV on rooftops. Th advantage is no transmission or distribution use and no line loss of electricity. Rooftops can also power your electric vehicle...http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/11/solar-powered-electric-vehicle-charging-stations-sprout-up-nationally?cmpid=SolarNL-Tuesday-November15-2011
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
November 15, 2011
Probably makes more sense to have used the funds to support grid connected residential/commercial systems where costs would DECREASE for end users, yet still providing the same carbon reducing effects. Unfortunately, that requires some thinking about allocation of funds and is likely over the heads of most administrators. So what we end up with is what we have.
Chris Mason
Chris Mason
November 15, 2011
All desirable technologies in their infancy require some help to get adopted, Once mainstream, they will not need any help and the benefits will outweigh any initial costs. You can't expect a fledgling technology with no track record to be held to the same investment standard as blowing up mountains and burning what you dig up.
How do you take into account the cost of destroying mountains, blocking rivers, poor air quality, lung cancer, spilling oil in the ocean? Even closer to the nub, how do you apportion the cost of insuring the nuclear industry, there is no cost for that until there is, and then it could bankrupt the country.
There is a need for some perspective. Giving grants to pioneers who may solve the problems we face is a good investment. It does not always work out, i.e. Solyndra, but that is the risk of new technologies. Otherwise, just be a consumer nation with no technical advantage and watch all the jobs leave.
Norm Rhett
Norm Rhett
November 14, 2011
Rising electricity rates for renewable or carbon-reduced fossil energy sources should be no surprise. It's known as a price signal and addresses the biggest single way to reduce user cost and emissions - energy conservation. Even after renewable generation reaches grid parity there will be plenty of homes and businesses that can add insulation and replace or discard wasteful and redundant appliances. And energy conservation products and practices will continue to improve. With the many government and utility incentives such capital investments are readily recoverable.

For those who have already taken reasonable conservation steps and are appropriately situated, home collection of solar energy can offset most or all consumption. Utility rate increases become a source of mild interest and, if one is so inclined, smugness.
Ronald Thomas
Ronald Thomas
November 14, 2011
aligatorhardt I will agree with you if you will help me here in Washington State where we are being forced to close our only Coal fired power plant. The operator under great pressure agrees to convert to Gas and wants to ship the coal to China. Of course this is being met with resistance from The Sierra Club sponsored by Mayor Bloomberg.

Help me in my proposal to: Not export Montana Coal from a Washington State Port and like-wise not import any Petroleum products into Washington State. As you must know Petrolueum and its related products kill and maim far more people than Coal ever will. Thanks for your support.

Oh! And by the way this requirement that we here buy a set amount of re-newable energy is proving to be Costly!

We are buying the required amount now; 3%; and it is so costly the Utility sold it to California as it was too expensive to pass on to we rate payers. Guess what. Even with California's high power rates we had to sell that power at a lose and Sooooo..... we rate payers here in my small town/County only had to pay $3.2 million for power we had to buy but did not use.
Dennis Houghton
Dennis Houghton
November 12, 2011
It is too bad when businesses fail and capital is lost. Whether private or taxpayer funded the market determines eventual winners and losers. Investors, public or private, are just betting on the outcome. Whether government money should be used to "determine winners and losers" is someone elses rhetorical question.

It seems that the "free-market" (whatever that is?) worked as expected with Solyndra and Evergreen. Both were clever technological solutions to the high price/limited supply of Solar Grade Silicon early to mid decade. The strategy was to use less SGS for lower cost modules. The other way to reduce price is to increase supply. Duh! In less than 10 years,@20GW annual capacity SGS refineries have sprung up world wide, Evergreen and Solyndra no longer have any advantage. They were good ideas which were based on short-term niche market conditions and destined to fail. Yes some smart executive should have known better and there may have even been some scam/fraud; after all they were large US corporations. Is somebody guilty of something other than over-enthusiasm and technical ignorance? Probably not.
Norm Rhett
Norm Rhett
November 12, 2011
Free-Marketeer,

1. How does the free market account for hundreds of billion spent on military protection of Middle East oil?

2. Why do political conservatives so often resort to name calling?
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
November 11, 2011
Speaking of the Keystone pipeline, this is a complete corruption of the proper use of eminent domain laws, to force a pipeline across private land with no value to the majority of the landowners and no value to the country as a whole. Only a few special interests will gain from this pipeline, while the vast majority of citizens will suffer high pollution, increased costs and more air pollution than any other source of petroleum that we might employ. the tar sands oil is the dirtiest of all petroleum sources, uses the most water to get it separated from the soils, and uses natural gas to heat the water to wash the tar out. This is a very poor return on resource. Only with taxpayer subsidy is it worth doing. Of all the subsidies that should be denied, the tar sands oil projects should be denied first. All environmental groups are against tar sands oil production, and if Canada insists on supporting it, they can build their own refinery to deal with it. The citizens of the US have no business supporting tar sands oil production, and certainly should not pipe it 1000 miles to a refinery. If the tar sands are fully developed, all our other CO2 reductions will have been in vain.

http://www.economist.com/node/17959688
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
November 11, 2011
Now we are being asked to have faith in the "free market", the fantasy that ignores collusion, monopolization, favoritism and all the many ways markets are manipulated by various groups and governments? Any time someone asks for "faith" one can be sure the con is about to begin. Save your faith for church; energy is science and faith has nothing to do with it. systems that run without fuel for decades are the sustainable option. The costs of wind power on land are already lower than any fossil fuel energy. the cost of even PV solar is better than new nuclear power, and is expected to equal fossil fuel power within 5 years.
Solar power and wind enable decentralized power generation that allows freedom from extortion by monopolized large central electric suppliers. Owners can pay off solar in ten years and less and enjoy free power for much longer, while the utility never stops charging no matter when the equipment is paid for. No one has ever seen lower electric bills after installation of nuclear power. The default rate on nuclear loans is near 50%; consider that when complaining of 2 or 3 bankrupt solar companies in the last few years. There is no chance of major disaster from wind and solar power, and no contamination of land and water. CSP with storage is able to extend operating hours of electric production beyond peak sunlight hours, and that is also worth a bit more money. Just looking at a price tag while ignoring cost of use over time is never a wise way to choose equipment. External costs of power are being avoided by dirty power now, but that situation will change, and clean power will always be the better choice for long term economic health. Once dirty power has to pay it's own negative costs, it will not be competitive with fuel free and cleaner power.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
November 11, 2011
Getting back to the specific content of the article, this project's solar energy is our own energy that cannnot be taken away by geopolitics. Even better, it is California's energy that California will be able to retain ultimate control over as it sees fit, even if folks in Texas think differently. I am glad that California approved this project, specifically because it was not PV. PV is on a China-inflated bubble right now that just might be about to pop. CSP with thermal storage still has intrinsic value that PV does not.
D Rees
D Rees
November 11, 2011
Free-Marketeer - let me know when fossil fuels start paying for all their negative externalities - then you might have a good argument.

If we truly let the "free market" run as you suggest, pollution would run rampant as there are too many short-term profiteers out there who will readily pollute in exchange for short term profits.
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 11, 2011
You did notice, by the way, that Obama's put off the Keystone decision "for further study" (read: kick it past the election cycle).
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 11, 2011
All I'm asking is for folks to stop and think and actually do some economic and market analysis before Yahoo-ing anything green. That includes The Church of Ethanol (including Range Fuels in Soperton, Georgia) travesty.

It's simply childish to stand on the two-wrongs-make-a-right assertion that, because brown power corrupts our politicians into swindling us, somehow green should be free to do the same.

Ironically, the Chinese, with whom we are now about to trade-war against, are doing us a favor: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/china-watch
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
November 11, 2011
Let the Keystone XL pipeline developers REALLY comply with the free market and be forced to pay them Nebraska farmers what them farmers think access to THEIR private property is worth! Take away the government eminent domain mechanism. I dare ya!
Jeff Kelly
Jeff Kelly
November 11, 2011
Seems a good time to talk about the Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline developers get a government(FERC)granted license and right-of-way, which means that they have the right to use Eminent Domain if they are unable to get a property owner to agree to their financial terms where the pipeline corsses their land. In point of fact the entire fossil fuel distribution system is built upon the fiat of government. Without Eminent Domain for pipeline routing the industry as we know it wouldn't exist. That is the single biggest government subsidy the fossil fuel industry receives.
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 11, 2011
Here's another boondoggle in the making:

http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.8807
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 11, 2011
How sad. You basically have no faith at all in simple, free-market forces coming up with products people want. Solyndra, Evergreen and (soon) Abengoa boondoggles just don't prove it to you that Politicians and their bureaucrats (as greased by solar-vendor lobbyists) are the LAST people we want to decide how to spend our money, huh?

It's just plain silly to reason that brown power's bad, but it's been subsidized, so let's just give billions of our tax dollars away to anyone who touts a product with the word 'solar' (or some other green-fav) in it. And it's pure fantasy to rationalize that, because the 'fuel is free,' somehow the cost comes down over time. That only works if the up-front and operating costs of a renewable energy project are non-astronomical/non-absurd.

Rarely do I find a greenie with the patience to even ASK basic questions like what will that project cost to install and how much electricity (dollar-per-watt, levelized cost) will it produce? Cruise Facebook pages for Corporate Solar Welfare Queen pages and scores of yahoos 'Like' whatever they announce whether the project makes ecologic/economic sense or not. Photo-opp pandering politicians then jump on it and the Queens feed at the federal trough. Sad....
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
November 11, 2011
Well, when nuclear, and fossil fuel power operate on their own dollars, then we can talk about what we want to subsidize. I for one do not want my tax money spent on power systems that make me and my family sick, ruin air and water, and turn my descendants into frail mutants. Genetic damage is permanent. The cost of coal related health damage is $500 billion a year just in the USA. Look to Japan for the cost of nuclear power. Do we want the government to pick winners and losers? Hell yes we do! The winners are renewable and clean solar, wind, tidal, hydro, wave, hydrogen, biofuel, geothermal, and the losers are petroleum, coal and nuclear power. The cost of wind and solar goes down over time, as the "fuel" is free. The cost of health care improves when we are not poisoning our air and water continuously with dirty, or brown power. Brown power smells like it looks, and that is all bad.
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 11, 2011
I urge the solar fanboys out there (those who "Like" stuff like this on Facebook simply because it's "solar," hence, "any solar's good solar," no matter the price or inefficiency) to think more critically and analytically about what they do. Imagine if the Pol-Crats were this involved in the PC market when it took off. We'd have blown hundreds of billions on "Boondoggle Brand" PCs about as useful to computing as Yugos were to personal transportation.

More here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home
James Desmond
James Desmond
November 11, 2011
This only hurts green power and rewards brown power. This project is doubly-subsidized -- first through federal loan guarantees (see Solyndra debacle) and second thru inflated rate-payer rates locked in for a quarter century, with details hidden from the public ("Contract price and terms are confidential").

And the fact that these developers couldn't find enough private investors to invest tells us that folks minding their own money scrutinized this and decided it will NEVER make economic sense.
Solyndra, Evergreen, and now Abengoa -- that's three "green power" efforts chosen by politicians and their bureaucrats ("Pol-Crats"), not the free market, with two now bankrupt and a third "rate-jacking" rate-payers for 25 years -- in a state LOSING population due to record taxes, debt and a business-unfriendly environment.

It is sad that greenies must back government interference for green power (Pol-Crats picking winners and losers, and the subsidies and mandates that come with them) to counteract 100+ years of same for brown power. If greenies want to use the power of the state to force green's victory over brown power, then it would be far more efficient to simply tax carbon at its source (hence, tax coal, natural gas and petroleum) and eliminate all brown-power subsidies, but at the same time eliminate all green mandates/subsidies, then let green power show its true worth through electricity production at a lower price (because its fuel source, the sun, is free).

(Cont'd next post)

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff writer covering the semiconductor industry at Red Herring. In addition to Renewable...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 12
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 4
    China Solar Update: Trina Improves, Suntech Scores Extension, Beijing Awaits EU Tariff Decision

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • Kipp & Zonen
  • Festo
  • Upsolar
  • SunHedge
  • Creotecc Solar Mounting Systems
  • Solar Electric Power Association
  • OnGrid Solar
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