French Solar PV Installations Now Rival Those in California

Once a laggard in renewable energy, France now rivals California in total installed capacity of solar photovoltaics (solar PV).

Paul Gipe, Contributor
November 02, 2011 | 34 Comments

France, on a per capita basis, has installed more than twice the solar PV as the United States through mid year. The United States remains a major world market for solar PV though it continues to fall further behind Germany and Italy.

California is currently North America's leader in solar PV development, followed by New Jersey and Ontario, Canada.

France, like its European counterparts in Germany and Italy, use a differentiated system of feed-in tariffs to pay generators for their solar electricity. California and the United States use a complex mix of tax credits, grants, and net-metering.

The mid-year report by Soler, the French association of solar professionals, found 1,473 MW of solar PV operating in Metropolitan France, and another 200 MW in former French colonies.

The population of California is fast approaching 40 million people. France has a population of about 60 million inhabitants. The population of the US now exceeds 300 million.

The California Public Utility Commission calculates that there is about 1,000 MW_AC through September. This is equivalent to 1,176 MW_DC.

The Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that the US will install about 2,000 MW in 2011. Assuming the installations are equally distributed throughout the year, by the end of June there was about 3,150 MW operating in the country.

Soler's recent report Etat des lieux du parc photovoltaïque français au 30 juin 2011 summarized installations by size class comparable to the differing feed-in tariff tranches used in France.

One-third of total capacity has been installed on home rooftops. Nearly half of all solar PV capacity operating in France has been installed by farmers and homeowners. Three-fourths of all solar PV capacity in France has been installed in distributed applications, mostly on rooftops.

There are 1,800 MW of new solar PV projects awaiting grid connection in a market that until recently was controlled by the state-owned utility Electricité de France (EdF). This backlog is down substantially from more than 3,500 MW last year.

At the current rate, France will install 1,300 MW of solar PV in 2011. This is in line with a projection by Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, France's Minister for Ecology, Sustainability, and Transport. She estimated that France would install from 1,000 MW to 1,500 MW of new solar PV in both 2011 and in 2012.

France now has the seventh-largest installed solar PV capacity in the world, after Germany, Spain, Japan, Italy, the USA, and the Czech Republic.

Soler: Etat des lieux du parc photovoltaïque français au 30 juin 2011

Flexible French FITs: Higher Biogas--Lower PV Tariffs Coming

34 Comments

Bob Wallace
November 7, 2011

Well, I look at how solar used to be >$50/watt and how it's now being produced for less than $1/watt and I give subsidies a lot of credit for creating enough market to make that happen.

And I look at the hundred year history of fossil fuel subsidies and realize that renewables deserve some help as well.

I'm not going to use data blips such as what happened in Spain to create some narrative about how subsidies don't work. That's just an example of a plan not working out as expected and having to be redesigned. That's just how the world works, no one operates with crystal ball foresight.

And I'm uninterested in damning solar because the Sun doesn't shine at night. The future grid will utilize input from a variety of sources. The Sun is on track to be a major daytime input, wind will play a large role at night, geothermal and tidal will be more 24/7 sources. If someone figures out how to produce power from geothermal and tidal cheaper than wind and solar then the latter will be forced off the grid. Personally I don't see that happening.

Fusion - still twenty years off into the future. And most likely a lot more than twenty years. We don't have that much time to waste, we need to keep cutting coal use now and cut oil and natural gas next. If fusion develops 20, 40, 60 years from now we can install it then. (Of course, it will need massive subsidies at first.... ;o)

ANONYMOUS
November 7, 2011

Continuation of 33:
My objection to solar subsidizes has little to do with my own utility bills (I live in the north, where PV installs are limited). I object partly because the strategy is ineffective and arguably harmful to the PV industry. For example, the Spanish subsidies caused a hugely overheated market and then were promptly removed leading to a near collapse for PV in that country. If we subsidized residential installs at the same rate as larger installs (or not at all) we would still see some market because some enthusiasts would self-fund even if they didn't turn a profit. For a given amount of funding, you would get the biggest effect by supporting utility scale installs. Furthermore, if you only want a 500 MW/year capacity addition rate the large initial FIT rates are going to overstimulate the market. Who does that help? I also think that governments have too shortsighted a perspective on the funding of renewables. Arguably we should be investing in geothermal, wave, and fusion technologies that have a capacity to provide reliable power. You would get much more bang for your subsidy funds by supporting R&D in some of these areas. Finally, I note that while in the short term solar may play a role in addressing peak electricity demand occurring from A/C needs on hot summer days, ultimately the demand peak is likely to shift to winter nights as heating shifts from fossil fuels to renewables.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
November 7, 2011

Bob:
The distinction, or at least the utility of the distinction, you seem to want to draw between wear on solar panels and wind turbines alludes me. Sure, there is wear from moving parts but also from mechanical stresses when braked, from exposure to the elements, etc. I don't think you will get meaningful savings in O&M costs from curtailment of wind during periods of excess demand. By contrast, the solar PV degradation, while small, is something you just have to live with, so it seems to be a more significant factor than for wind turbines, where you can just swap in replacement parts.

Continued

Bob Wallace
November 7, 2011

As far as I known the decline in solar panel output happens whether they are producing power or not. It's an exposure to sunlight issue.

Obviously spinning a wind turbine (or any other type of turbine) wears it out sooner than leaving it sitting still. Drive your car a thousand miles a year rather than 12,000 miles a year and it will last much longer. Moving parts wear out.

The reason to rush pell-mell to install solar is to create economies of scale. The larger the market the harder the industry will try to find ways to produce the product more efficiently.

You seem to be worried that because we are subsidizing solar that your personal utility bills will be higher. Do some math. Look up the amount being spent to subsidize solar and compare that to the overall size of the electricity industry.

And, consider how much you spending in tax dollars and health insurance premiums because we are burning coal for electricity. That number is extremely higher than any subsidy for solar when you look at the overall number.

ANONYMOUS
November 7, 2011

Bob writes in comment #30: "Solar has a bottom cost advantage over wind. Using solar panels does not wear them out."
The performance of solar PV cells tends to degrade with time. 0.5-1% per year seems like a ballpark figure if we exclude organic photovoltaics (which mainly serve niche markets and which have much higher degradation rates). Wind turbines sometimes require replacement parts but I don't believe their performance degrades with age.

Bob also writes: "The current price of solar should not be used as an indicator of the future price of solar. Solar is on track to be a low cost provider of electricity."

This is likely true, but it will likely be a decade or so before this is true. In the meantime, a pell-mell rush to install solar is just increasing electricity costs. Furthermore, the haphazard nature of the European FITs is causing boom and bust cycles in the PV markets especially because several countries are targeting constant yearly additions, which is not typically the rate at which new technology enters a marketplace. We saw rapid expansion in production to meet the initially high FITs but there is now a supply glut and the FITs will surely have to fall if the constant capacity addition targets are to be met. This is an insane way to promote a market as its most likely effect is to promote bankruptcies.
Steven

Bob Wallace
November 7, 2011

The current price of solar should not be used as an indicator of the future price of solar. Solar is on track to be a low cost provider of electricity. Right now the price is higher than wind and combined cycle gas and paid off nuclear. It's cheaper than coal if one does 'all-in' accounting and doesn't ignore private and government subsidies.

Solar on the grid will displace the most expensive dispatchable alternative. Solar has essentially zero production costs. It, like wind, can offer its power for zero cents per kWh and still make operating expenses and a tiny bit of profit via subsidies. That will force the most expensive supply off the grid when the sun is shining. Solar has a bottom cost advantage over wind. Using solar panels does not wear them out.

With merit order pricing utilities will buy all available wind and solar first. Or they will buy zero cost power from coal and nuclear plants which cannot afford to close down for part of the day and will give their power away and take a loss in order to dump it onto the grid. Gas, both peakers and combined cycle will be the ones left out of the mix. Coal, the portion that can be dialed back, as well.

France relies quite highly on nuclear, but the French public is turning against nuclear. France is now launching both wind and solar programs. I would imagine, as I've said before, that France is offering large subsidies because that is what it will take to get solar moving in their country.

Central Europe is turning its back on nuclear. Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium have decided on getting nuclear off their grids. In order to replace nuclear supply Europe is going to need a lot more solar, wind and other renewables along with storage. They're starting to build solar in North Africa and beginning to implement the Desertec plan.

ANONYMOUS
November 7, 2011

Bob,
Solar PV isn't ever going to be sold on the spot market, it will just (at least in the ercot market) displace some natural gas, which costs less that the solarbuzz estimate of PV's cost. There is always going to be some demand variability that needs to be met by purchasing from peaker plants on the spot market. Arguably adding intermittent power to the grid will increase variability and thus increase purchases on the spot market, although this is probably less of an issue for solar than it is for wind. Perhaps, for parts of a few days a year when demand is at its highest, the extra solar capacity will allow cheaper peaking plants to be deployed. For most of the year though there is a huge amount of excess capacity and I would expect the effect of PV on spot prices to be minimal.

Getting back to the French market, they get (at least judging from 2008 data) 76% of generation from nuclear and 12% from hydro (relatively high for European markets), coal is 4.7%, oil and gas 4.9%, and other renewables about 2%. Imports are less than 2% and exports about 10%, suggesting they meet peaker demand mainly by hydro, gas, and slacking off on exports. I doubt the addition of some solar PV at $0.60/kWh is having a favorable effect on their spot market prices.
Steven

Bob Wallace
November 7, 2011

Steven - if you're paying 20-40 cents per kWh during the sunny hours and a lot of <20 cent power comes on line, that's what you'll buy.

15 is less than 20. Solar, without subsidy, in reaching grid parity in some parts of the country.

ANONYMOUS
November 7, 2011

Bob,
Sure, spot prices for electricity are often high and can spike to extraordinary amounts. The relevant issue though is how PV would affect the spot market and it is not at all obvious it would lower costs there. In Nov. in TX there is plenty of excess capacity so these prices indicate costs to smooth out variability. If we had, by magic, added 500 MW of solar PV to the grid on 11/6/11 the result would likely have been that some combined cycle natural gas generation was powered down but that the spot prices were largely unaffected. Certainly, the added solar would not have had any affect on the 10PM-midnight spot prices and these are not substantially different from other times of the day--often running 20-40 cents/kWh. Perhaps back in July or August the daytime spot prices where much higher and you could argue some PV would have ameliorated that situation; it is a pity that data isn't readily at hand. I bet that if such an effect was discernible in the data it still would not make PV cost effective. After all, if solar PV was cost effective subsidies and FITs would be unnecessary. In fact, if we believe the solarbuzz numbers, the cost after the 30% Federal credit would be below $0.11/kWh, yet very little PV is being installed in sunny TX--the big US markets are in CA and NJ where state governments are messing with the markets.

Given the strong likelihood that there will always be a significant cost differential for residential PV compared to large installs, there is no compelling reason to subsidize the creation of a residential installation market. By paying more to place capacity in less efficient locations (and at higher installation costs) the French are merely decreasing renewable generation amounts (they are targeting a specified amount of capacity--not generation) while increasing electricity prices. That is the type of nonsense only a a government would mandate.
Steven

Bob Wallace
November 7, 2011

Take a look at what happened to Texas power prices today (Nov 06). They really got whacked during several time blocks. They were paying over $30/kWh at one point.

http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20111106_real_time_spp

Bet they'd like more nickle wind and fifteen cent solar on their grid....

Bob Wallace
November 7, 2011

SolarBuzz is the source I see used most often when people in the industry talk about solar prices. And when I've checked their panel prices I find them accurate.

EIA is generally behind times and fairly conservative (to a fault). EIA is often using numbers that are many months old and the price of solar panels has been falling extremely rapidly. EIA does a good job of reporting what has happened. I pay little attention to what they say is going to happen. If you look back at their projected costs for wind and solar, they missed badly. I suspect they are reluctant to piss off fossil fuel interests, so they hold back on renewable price drops.

No, solar is not dispatchable. Nor is it usable for frequency regulation. (Those are different tasks.) Solar is affordable power that is generally available during high demand hours.

Gas peakers are dispatchable but they do not have a fast enough on time to be useful for frequency regulation. Hydro (because you can keep the turbine spinning without appreciable load) is extremely fast. Batteries and flywheels are even faster.

Here's the wholesale price of electricity for October 14, 2011. Look at how often the wholesale price during sunny parts of the day are above the $0.15/kWh SolarBuzz price of solar.

http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/20111014_real_time_spp

(And take a look at 11/05/11. I'd like to know what happened to drive the wholesale price well over $2.50/kWh.)

Now, you might not like the idea of paying significant subsidies for residential rooftop solar, but that's how installation infrastructure will get built. Right now the cost of residential is way too high. When we get established installation companies mature they will start competing for business and bring those prices down. It's not about currying favor, it's about building an industry.

ANONYMOUS
November 7, 2011

Bob:
I find the explanation of the solarbuzz methodology very terse and note that they seem more optimistic than say EIA numbers. Do you have any better-documented evidence that solar has dropped to such lows?

There is likely significant overlap between peak demand and solar output but that would not be sufficient to justify such high rates. New peaker plants would have costs less than $0.60/kWh and solar power is still intermittent rather than dispatchable so it cannot serve for frequency regulation. It is probably not a coincidence that solar PV is being installed mainly in places with high FITs and NOT installed in places needing new peaking capacity but lacking high FITs.

I think the policy of providing higher FITs for small residential systems than for more-efficient larger installs is misguided. This amounts to little more than a financial incentive for inefficiency that ratepayers are forced to pay for. I suspect very few ratepayers would willingly pay more than double the cost of utility scale solar just to ensure that their energy came from residential units. This is the type of irrational decision that is only made by a politician trying to spread favors around to best personal advantage.
Steven

Bob Wallace
November 5, 2011

Actually $0.1547/kWh.

Here, you can read the number for yourself....

http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/solar-electricity-prices

Small sized system in a cloudy area - the price is $0.6463/kWh.

It could be that there is value in installing solar even in poor locations because solar might be cheaper than gas peakers. If the last tranche is power for hot, sunny days then solar might be the best solution. Remember, solar is competing against peak hour prices, not average 24/365 hour prices. And, remember, peak-peak supply can be extremely expensive.

ANONYMOUS
November 5, 2011

g-andrews:
Regarding your comments in 20 and 21, if you have inferred from anything I have written here that I am a fan of, and/or an investor in, the fossil fuel industry you have a reading comprehension problem.

In another thread bob_wallace tried to convince me that solar PV cost were now as low as $0.15/kWh; I think this is an optimistic estimate but certainly there are credible estimates for costs below $0.25/kWh. For the sake of this discussion, I'll use the higher value as an upper bound. If France is paying $0.60/kWh for electricity generated by PV, and a fair price is <$0.25/kWh, where is the other $0.35/kWh going to? Waste and inefficiency are the most likely suspects here, although some are probably making windfall profits; certainly NONE of this is going to benefit renewable energy. How is it that you are NOT upset that ratepayers--many of whom are quite poor--are asked to pay for waste, inefficiency, and windfall profits? Furthermore, if wind power can produce electricity for in the ballpark of $0.07/kWh, why is it acceptable to fritter money away building expensive PV panels just BEFORE prices drop to competitive values. How is it that anyone thinks paying subsidies that are well above costs is a rational way to promote a stable market of 500 MW/year of PV installs?

You might want to think about some of the issues pointed out above rather than fixating on the coal industry. If we want to replace coal (and we should), then we should have a long range plan and an efficient strategy; unfortunately, what we are doing is not even close to that.
Steven

Ga So
November 5, 2011

Anonymous,(& all fossil fuel supporters)

But what you are showing, by defending fossil fuel industry, (huge profits yes, but not the real future of energy)by preventing, blocking, misinforming & defending fossil fuels, is you don't care about the United States of America being the leader in smart, clean energy sources!

But what you are, trying to do, is hold back the U.S. toward the ultimate best sources of energy for all(true sustainables) while most of the world gets ahead of US.

Is your loyalty to what's best for US (& really all the world) or just keeping most of us(not me & many less daily!) dependent on finite fuel(controlling the flow for money) to the profits that can be made on dewindling supplies? I'm not against profiting but not for the wrong reasons. Greed will blind you and you may find yourself on a pile of 'gold' alone in the cold.

I believe i can say this fairly, Most of US in Sustainable Energy believe we are doing what best for Americans, long term, not just short term profits. Peace of mind is priceless!

Did you ever place your hand over your heart and feel it when you said the PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE to the RED, WHITE & BLUE?

Stop fighting(most will need your energy until it expires), join us for survival of our great country and help the U.S. become a respected leader for good & what will be the future, & not just profits, as we once shined the light to the world, we can be again!

Let's work together to lead the world to a brighter future!

Ga So
November 5, 2011

Anonymous,(& all fossil fuel junkies)

Take back the trillons spent 'subsidizing' coal(since 1918), nuclear, oil & gas, then TRUELY level the playing field...you may be deeply invested in fossil fuel industry but RE will WIN (not greed but meaning best for ALL peoples to live using free & clean) & before your fuels run out...

Most of you(fossil fuel supporters) are very intellegent, that's why you own/rule the U.S. energy markets and make gazillions in profits for yourself & your investors,
but is it your only goal in life to profit from controlling limited resources so you can profit at the expense of mankind.

Do you want your legacy to be "I made $XXX million/year"?
while the world is burning and fighting to exist.

ANONYMOUS
November 3, 2011

Regarding comment #18,
It is disingenuous to include only part of a quote in the way that was done in #18. The minimum that should have been cited was: "This is nonsense. Solar panel prices fell largely because people figured out how to make them more efficiently. Certainly there are economies of scale that occur with a larger market, and there is also a learning curve for manufacturing issues, but it is just naive to assume that overpaying for a product will eventually lead to better pricing."

Notice the clear admission that economies of scale play a role; however, they are NOT what dropped the price from $50/W--R&D played the larger role.

This post also included a grain of truth: "And then you can do bodacious amounts of R&D with a small slice of the margin on the revenue." I agree research is a small slice of the margin (which these days is a small slice of the unit cost because the market is flooded with overcapacity spurred on by European subsidy policies)--funding R&D directly is vastly more efficient. Paying 6-10 times as much, compared to the wholesale price of power by standard technologies, for intermittent electricity is a bad investment.

Furthermore the French and Germans claim to be targeting constant (500 MW and 3500 MW) increases in capacity each year, which is a recipe for a boom and bust cycle--the industry has been growing as if exponential increases in demand are in the offing. Now solar companies are dropping like flies and even the survivors are seeing their stock prices tank. This is just another sad lesson in the consequences of attempting top down control of a marketplace.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
November 3, 2011

This is nonsense 'Solar panel prices fell largely because people figured out how to make them more efficiently.'! Economy of scale .. look it up. Either Henry Ford was wrong or you are.

People figured out how to make them more cheaply because there was volume. Much of what we people have done is to implement batch processes, high automation, continuous flows etc that can only be cost justified on large volumes. For example, I can design a cost efficient backend highly automated manufacturing but the minimum capacity for 72 cell modules works out to >170 MW/year. If you can't find a place to sell at least that much, you have to settle for a less efficient / more expensive / more labor intensive process. And ideally, you shouldn't run at the low end of the tac: you should really aim at 300+ MW/y. The only figuring out to be done is how to move 4+ GW of product in 10 years and be pretty damn sure that you can. And then you can do bodacious amounts of R&D with a small slice of the margin on the revenue. Talk to any supply chain guy: quantity --> price breaks --> lower cost of manufacture --> lower selling price. Talk to any shipper: bulk == lowest cost. Etc., etc. etc.

Ralph Perez
November 3, 2011

200,000 people's homes getting free energy (after ROI) from sunshine is very good news. Bet they can hardly wait to plug in an electric vehicle.

Herve MINGAM
November 3, 2011

Hi
Coming back to the situation in France :
The market in France is going worse and worse. Due to very fast decrease of the FIT every quater, 10 000 jobs among 25 000 jobs have been destroyed.
There is no doubt that the situation will be awfull in Q4 2011 and will be worse in 2012.
The post sounds very optimistic, but the situation is terrible.
Regards

Bob Wallace
November 2, 2011

Just something interesting I ran across...

"A nationwide poll conducted by Kelton Research showed that just shy of 9 out of 10 Americans (89 percent) think it's important for the United States to develop and use solar energy.

Breaking the results out along voting lines, 80 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Independents and 94 percent of Democrats agreed with the above. This is the fourth straight year Kelton's survey results showed nearly 90% of Americans support developing solar energy.

Results also showed that Americans support federal incentives to do so. More than eight of ten (82 percent) support federal tax credits and grants for the solar industry, just like those that continue to benefit companies in the all too well established oil & gas and coal industries. Seventy-one percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Independents and 87 percent of Democrats responding to the poll agreed."

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/13HEn)

Bob Wallace
November 2, 2011

Google "hidden cost of coal" and get yourself up to speed.

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

In comment #9 Bob writes: "The reason that solar panel prices fell was because someone was buying them. At first the buyers were almost 100% governments and they created the market. Later, when prices fell, individuals started buying and subsidies helped make the market larger. That, in turn, attracted more R&D money. That $0.60/kwh is a market driver."

This is nonsense. Solar panel prices fell largely because people figured out how to make them more efficiently. Certainly there are economies of scale that occur with a larger market, and there is also a learning curve for manufacturing issues, but it is just naive to assume that overpaying for a product will eventually lead to better pricing. Paying $0.60/kWh certainly drives a market but this is not the same as driving technological innovation.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

Bob:
In comment #10 you engage in several baseless assumptions. In particular, you assume you can guess party loyalty based in a few lines of commentary; I bet you don't do well at that game though. You assume I favor subsidizing coal, which is entirely untrue, I merely object to inaccurate estimates of how much coal subsidies are and to conflating subsidies and externalities. You also assume I have a problem with subsidizing solar PV; here again you are much mistaken. My problem is with inefficient subsidies such as FITs and payments for premature production and inefficient placement. R&D funding would be a far more efficient means of promoting progress. If France had to indulge some penchant for actually building solar PV cells, it would be far better off placing them in French foreign territories, which have costly subsidized electricity generated by fossil fuels rather than clearer nuclear power. I also object to the baseless and dangerous notion that paying extra for something will eventually lead to better pricing.

You end with this claim: "We spend over $300 billion a year to subsidize coal last year and yet you object to the $1.13 billion we spent in 2010 on solar."
I can only assume you come from some other planet because nowhere on earth is coal subsidized to the tune of $300 billion a year. The other other possibility is that you are just making these numbers up. Note carefully that I object to ratepayer financing and to inefficient financing of PV, not to some specific dollar amount. I also note that I object to the short sighted nature of funding for renewables. We should be giving greater attention to technologies that can provide base load and dispatchable power and to promising technologies that are not nearly as well developed as solar PV (e.g., geothermal).
Steven

Bob Wallace
November 2, 2011

We haven't had to pay anything for a nuclear accident yet. But we are giving the nuclear industry a free liability insurance policy. We are accepting that risk and risk has a cost.

You have a problem with subsidizing solar power, but no problem subsidizing coal or nuclear. It's such an interesting stance.

How does someone justify that position? Does it simply come from being a Republican and it's what one does out of party loyalty?

It's so interesting. We spend over $300 billion a year to subsidize coal last year and yet you object to the $1.13 billion we spent in 2010 on solar.

Bob Wallace
November 2, 2011

Geez, I'm not going to wade through all that. Let me hit a couple of points.

The reason that solar panel prices fell was because someone was buying them. At first the buyers were almost 100% governments and they created the market. Later, when prices fell, individuals started buying and subsidies helped make the market larger. That, in turn, attracted more R&D money. That $0.60/kwh is a market driver.

Prices fall, generally, because there is a large enough market to create competition and economy of scale.

You can call it a toMAto or you can call it a toMHAto. It all comes down to the fact that we are spending money because are burning coal to get electricity. Whether we shovel it into the coal barron's pocket or spend it cleaning up the mess, we're still spending those dollars. (And we do not need to continue to doing so.

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

CONTINUATION of comment #6 and #7:
Bob also writes: "In the early 1970's Bob spent over $100,000 dollars (today's dollars) for mini-computers that his lab really hadn't thought about using. Same was true of just about every lab in the university."

Well, hopefully Bob actually made good use of this new technology, which was at least funded from the general treasury rather than being billed to users--regardless of their ability to pay--of the technology that was being displaced. Replacing slide rules and typewriters, etc., with computers resulted in a huge increase in productivity--this was the primary benefit of government funding of academic computer usage. This should be contrasted with funding for solar PV, which is currently less effective than alternative technologies because it is intermittent. Bob received a tool that hopefully made him more productive but he presumably didn't line his pockets because of this. If you are giving someone $0.60 / kWh to use solar PV they are making a good deal of money out of the deal and I bet none of these profits go to funding new technology.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

CONTINUATION of comment #6....

Bob also writes: "Do you realize that we are paying around a billion dollars a day to subsidize burning coal for electricity? We do so with tax and health insurance premium dollars which go to pay for the health and environmental damage caused by coal emissions."

Here Bob is conflating a subsidy and an externality--this is sloppy reasoning. Subsidies are direct payments by governments to an industry to foster the use of a product; true subsidies for coal are small in most of the developed world and essentially ZERO in France, which has little or no coal fired generation. No one is denying that coal generation has drawbacks and that it would be good if we stopped using it (at least without carbon sequestration), but massive FITs for solar PV are far from the most efficient means to accomplish that goal.

Bob also writes: "And do you realize that we subsidize nuclear energy roughly $0.06/kWh by spending government money for reactor security and making taxpayers liable for accidents?"

Well, actual subsidies to the nuclear industry are below $0.01/kWh (at least in the US) and nuclear power produces reliable, affordable, energy without CO2 emissions. I'd say this was well worth it. As for taxpayer liability for accidents, this has not cost anything so far--even the ancient designs now in use have proven very safe and future designs would be safer still.

CONTINUED

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

Regarding Bob's comments in comment #4:
He writes:"If you don't think that a tremendous amount of research is being done to further lower PV prices you must be hiding under your bed or something."
Naturally, significant research is being done on PV; what I said was: "Very little of that $0.60 /kWh is going to make it into the R&D budgets that will propel the technology forward. " This also is true! It would be far more effective to directly fund R&D than it is to overpay someone to purchase an inefficient product in the hopes that the company making them invests a small portion of what they receive in R&D. At $0.60 /kWh, unless you installed your solar panels under a tree you are making a windfall profit that is being financed by ratepayers, including many who can barely afford to keep their lights on. Governments love to advantage some grateful special interest at the expense of a diffuse majority, but I question its morality.

Bob also writes: "Not that many years back solar panels were more than $50/watt. Now they are being manufactured for under $1/watt. Solar subsidies have been an incredible investment in a cleaner, cheaper future grid."

Prices for new technology always start high and typically fall rapidly--even for technologies that never received a penny in subsidies. Most of the price drop Bob alludes to occurred before FIT policies were in place and nearly all of it would have occurred without any FIT policy. FIT policies have only perturbed trends in PV pricing slightly; their primary role is to expand manufacturing of an inefficient product and this does very little good for anyone who isn't selling these extra products.

CONTINUED

Nigel Morris
November 2, 2011

FYI Austalua will equal France at around0.023kW / capita in H1 2011.

On a cumulative basis we will reach .053 by end of 2011, almost double France and 5 times the US.

Bob Wallace
November 2, 2011

In the early 1970's Bob spent over $100,000 dollars (today's dollars) for mini-computers that his lab really hadn't thought about using. Same was true of just about every lab in the university.

Reason was, the federal government wanted to support the developing computer industry and did so by making millions of dollars available for labs across the nation to get their first computer.

The mini- led to microprocessors and that development led to the computer you are using right now.

Subsidies come in many forms, not just FiTs.

Do you realize that we are paying around a billion dollars a day to subsidize burning coal for electricity? We do so with tax and health insurance premium dollars which go to pay for the health and environmental damage caused by coal emissions.

And do you realize that we subsidize nuclear energy roughly $0.06/kWh by spending government money for reactor security and making taxpayers liable for accidents?

Now, subsidies and PV. Not that many years back solar panels were more than $50/watt. Now they are being manufactured for under $1/watt. Solar subsidies have been an incredible investment in a cleaner, cheaper future grid.

If you don't think that a tremendous amount of research is being done to further lower PV prices you must be hiding under your bed or something.

Check this out...

http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=1629

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

Regarding Bob's remark in comment #2: I think Bob will have a hard time finding an FIT policy that supported computers in the early years. The truth is that computers once occupied a small market niche and as their performance increased and price declined their market grew naturally. If an equivalent strategy had been followed for PV the technology would be largely restricted to satellites, off-grid needs, and hobbyists while the products improved. The end result of all the subsidies will be a lot of lost money and expensive panels for the early adopters (or those they shift their costs onto) but very little change in the price/performance vs. time curve. Very little of that $0.60 /kWh is going to make it into the R&D budgets that will propel the technology forward.
Steven

Bob Wallace
November 2, 2011

That's why we never developed computers.

The early models were worth less than their cost. So we let typewriters, slide rules, and ledger books have the market.

ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011

With FITs above $0.60 /kWh in some cases it isn't surprising that French PV installations have increased. If one is willing to pay far more than a product is worth, you often capture a significant share of its market--it just isn't wise.
Steven

Add Your Comments

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

Paul Gipe

Paul Gipe has written extensively about renewable energy for both the popular and trade press. He has also lectured widely on wind energy and how to minimize its impact on the environment and the communities of which it is a part. For his...