More

Growing Solar Power Industry Signals Need For Federal And State Support


First Posted: 09/29/11 01:46 PM ET Updated: 11/29/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Clean energy advocates have long looked to solar power as a way to break the country's dependence on foreign oil. However, the cost of obtaining the energy has so far outweighed the economic and environmental benefits. That may now be changing.

During the first six months of 2011, the installed cost -- combined hardware and installation costs -- of solar power dropped 11 percent. This comes after the installed cost fell 17 percent during 2010. The reduction in cost comes from an expanding industry, pushing down economies of scale.

Despite these promising price drops over the past 18 months, renewable energies such as solar continue to receive just one-tenth of the funding that nuclear energy did in its infancy.

An analysis done by DBL Investors, a group that backs clean energy ventures, reported that more than 1 percent of the federal budget went toward nuclear power for the 15 years following World War II. In that same time oil and gas received 0.5 percent of the federal budget. For comparison, all renewable energy sources combined have received around 0.1 percent of the federal budget.

"Our findings suggest that current renewable energy subsidies do not constitute an over-subsidized outlier when compared to the historical norm for emerging sources of energy," said the report.

Clean energy subsides have come under scrutiny in recent weeks with the bankruptcy of the solar company Solyndra.

However, advocates of solar energy say that the declining costs and potential benefits of solar energy mean it should receive more support, not less.

"The more solar we're seeing installed the more we're able to take advantage of other cost reductions," Cai Steiger, an energy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told HuffPost. "As you see more installed, the permitting process gets more efficient, local governments get more familiar with the process and that brings the price down also, so combining that you see all these solar price reductions."

Regarding Solyndra, Steiger noted that a lot has been accomplished with solar energy.

"It's just unfortunate that people are using this one project as political football," he added. "[They are] claiming things that aren't true, ignoring what has already been accomplished with solar and conflating the entire solar industry with this one company."

The Department of Energy is not letting the bankruptcy of Solyndra affect its plans for solar power. The department recently approved two loan guarantees worth more than $1 billion for solar energy projects in Nevada and Arizona.

In a statement on Wednesday, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu defended the loan guarantees, saying, "If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar."

The push for solar energy also extends down to the state level.

This past Monday, during a visit to Aragon High School just outside of San Francisco, California State Superintendent Tom Torlakson touted the school's recently-installed solar panels and announced plans to modernize California's schools by urging legislators to put measure on the November 2012 ballot for the statewide sale of school bonds to raise $3 to $5 billion.

"We believe that all students deserve to have buildings -- school environments -- that are 21st century, not relics of the past," he said. "[Solar energy] creates jobs, saves money, protect the environment and creates tens of thousands of teachable moments."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- Clean energy advocates have long looked to solar power as a way to break the country's dependence on foreign oil. However, the cost of obtaining the energy has so far outweighed the econ...
WASHINGTON -- Clean energy advocates have long looked to solar power as a way to break the country's dependence on foreign oil. However, the cost of obtaining the energy has so far outweighed the econ...
WASHINGTON -- Clean energy advocates have long looked to solar power as a way to break the country's dependence on foreign oil. However, the cost of obtaining the energy has so far outweighed the econ...
WASHINGTON -- Clean energy advocates have long looked to solar power as a way to break the country's dependence on foreign oil. However, the cost of obtaining the energy has so far outweighed the econ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 481
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
04:15 PM on 10/28/2011
I am all for basic research on altenative enrgy sources with the goal of making these sources competitive with existing energy. I am totally against gov't monies doled out to companies that do not have economic business models and are tied to the administation through poltics. That stinks.
12:55 PM on 10/09/2011
Everytime I read misinformation on these sites about energy subsidies I am going to post this info from EIA, July 2011.

Ethanol is the largest single recipient of federal subsidies and it is a tax incentive, not R&D.
Renewables also receive production tax credits and loan guarantees¬. On tax subsidies, in 2010, renewables received over $8.2B, coal, oil gas, nuclear COMBINED $4.1B, efficiency $4 B. Of the $8B for renewables¬, $5.7 B went to ethanol, only $1.5B to a production tax credit. Over the history of the DOE, nuclear is the largest recipient of R&D funds BY FAR, followed by coal and efficiency¬, renewables then oil and gas at a very distant last.

Federal subsidies per unit of energy produced ($ per megawatt hour):

Gas $0.64
Coal $0.64
Nuclear $3.14
Geothermal $12.85
Wind $56.29
Solar $775.64

I make no value judgments on these distributions and think that immature technologies should receive the lion's share of subsidies, mature technologies should only receive subsidies where they cannot be relied on to meet clear public goods. This does not explain nuclear or even wind which is relatively mature. Having said that, if we continue to propagate myths about why renewables do not have larger market share -- because of the huge subsidies for the incumbents -- we will continue to try and solve the wrong problems. Renewables are very expensive and we need to reduce the cost.
09:24 AM on 10/07/2011
What about to create solar panels farms in the art manner near the big factories. At least this could decrease the net cost of the production and if the efficiency percent is low it would like a modern art object!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:45 PM on 10/06/2011
New energy sources need subsidies. Fossil and nukes have 100 times the bribe money, and to sell under market to kill green energy.

Humans spew 200 times as much CO2 into the atmospheric as all the volcanoes in the world combined, changing our climate.

Wars for oil,

Muslim fanatical funding for oil,

Oil spills killing billions of fish, and destroying gulf sized ecosystem for oil.

Mountain top and river system destruction,

Fossil toxic heavy metal pollution,

Nuclear waste, disaster, proliferation and terrorism,

And Green is cheaper or very soon to be cheaper than all the fossil and nukes.

What are we waiting for?

rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels (FT too).

in combination,

Can provide all the fuels, chemicals, energy we need, more than now, forever, 24/7 using the waste bio fuels in existing gas turbines, safe, clean, carbon, land and water negative, ready now to grow by doubling every year or so as it has been, to replace fossil and nukes within 7-15 years.

http://solarcellcentral.com/companies_page.html first solar 2.5$ per Wp installed.

http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 1-2 cents KWH

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/

http://www.sunelec.com/ 75 cents per Wp.
1-2$/Wp http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html 3 months

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio chart.
11:07 AM on 10/02/2011
We're going to hear about the high cost for ANY new technology. Yes, even automobiles when they were first introduced. Here were supposed to be the most `advanced' species on the planet and were STILL digging around in the ground, like bugs, for energy when all we have to do is `look up' to a more `evolved' source - solar.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:44 PM on 10/06/2011
rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio flues are cheaper or soon to be cheaper than nukes and fossil. What better time.
02:47 PM on 10/01/2011
Why does solar need support?

Is it that the current credits and other incentives ala Solyndra cannot make it competitive. That solar that is so costly in comparison to other technologies that we have created efficient distribution and utilization systems over decades, that solar will suck down taxpayer funds endlessly.

The problem with solar is current technology fails to generate enough power in relation to the investment required. Just like wind, huge installations will be required to generate the type and amount of power necessary to make even a representative contribution to our power needs. A good example was the plan by the California State University system to go off the grid.. go completely solar. The plan was abandoned when it was found that covering every square inch of every campus (parking lots, roof tops, green areas, playing fields, walk ways, etc) would not even come close to supplying their power needs.

It is just not cost effective and competitive at this time. Maybe in the future. Maybe not.

Utlimately who will pay for making such huge investments? Rate payers, as electrical utilities are monopolies and are allowed to recover costs in rates, plus profit, and taxpayers that will fund the system with tax credits, meaning someone else is paying more taxes to support the govt, as you or your business is paying less taxes due to the panel cost solar credit.
03:14 PM on 10/01/2011
Why do oil companies get subsidies? They have profits in the billions, their technology is set and their product hazardous. The reason to subsidize an industry is exactly FOR the problems you state. In order to lower cost and improve the technology the government is needed to promote purchase and investment.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:45 PM on 10/06/2011
ever heard of monopolies? Robber barons, buying politicians? or do you live on some nicer planet?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jon Warcup
jon
08:34 AM on 10/01/2011
the problem with having solar in New England is that New England weather always gets in the way. as far as getting alot of sun tot get the power . forget it
09:08 AM on 10/02/2011
Germany which has similar weather to New England, has succeeded in developing huge solar 'farms' and their climate is similar to ours.

One big problem is funding. The utilities must help to pay for residential and commercial solar installations, possibly even owning the installations and taking the rec's themselves.

We are energy misers and our electric bill is less than $30/mo. We live in New England and have a south-facing home. It's not worth investing in a solar electric system for our home, but it's not because we don't get enough sun. If the power company asked to install a system on our roof and use the electricity for the rest of our neighborhood, I'd be thrilled.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:46 PM on 10/06/2011
Agreed. Waste bio char bio fuels and wind are probably a better place to start for New England. so?
07:35 AM on 10/01/2011
The problem with solar & wind comes not from the technology but from the competition that it imposes on the utility companies. They are in business to make MONEY. In our region, dual metering, high investment costs and distribution fees are only a part of the complex costs that the solar investor takes on to compete with a utility.Why not have homeowners lease solar and wind from the utility in place of metered electricity? If a lease is comparable to their normal metered electricity, consumers would jump at being "green." Each home sends power into the grid and pays for it while the utilities own them.If 500,000 homes were carrying 10 kw/hr times a 7 hour day of solar panels leased to each homeowner, everybody wins, a lot! The homeowner would pay the same amount for electricity whether lease or metered. (With a lease they provide energy not use it.)The utility owns the equipment and maintains them while dramatically reducing daytime coal consumption. These homes could produce 35,000,000 kilowatts on a sunny day per hour and demand could be reduced daily on coal requirements.Nominal amounts of coal would then be used only during the night when demand is low. This nighttime usage could be reduced as well with 1.5 kw wind trurbines on each home that could assist day or night. The energy company now becomes a pool of energy paid for by the consumers. Leases could transfer with home ownership. Jobs anyone?
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:47 PM on 10/06/2011
Leased installer owned solar is already common around the world. Have you checked to see if you can get it? http://www.dsireusa.org/
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
06:54 AM on 10/01/2011
No contrast, clean natural gas creates many new, high paying jobs and pays taxes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
10:14 AM on 10/01/2011
While natural gas is cleaner than coal or bunker oil, it is CH4 which, when oxidized becomes CO2 and water. IOW: It produces greenhouse gas. And the move to obtaining natural gas by fracking is also environmentally destructive.
In the long run, we need practical conservation (more efficient engines, better insulation, etc.), wind, geothermal, wave energy, and solar if we want to have a modern lifestyle and an environment that can support us.
02:55 PM on 10/01/2011
good for you, now pay for your own panel.

But no, you won't. You will want me to pay for your panel trough tax credits, govt low interest or no interest financing, through higher energy rates as a result of legislation you and yours promote mandating higher "green" energy content of utility output. So through higher taxes on me, and higher rates paid by me, you will realize your cost inefficient dream.

Once it is cost effective, just watch as people and businesses go solar, go wind, go ? But until that point, only by extraordinary non productive means of feel good legislation, litigation, and massive subsidies will the true believers attempt to shift the costs curves of energy, to make wind and solar ever close to competitive.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
08:49 PM on 10/06/2011
Ngas is dirtier than coal. sorry.,
Contaminants were found released from fracking Know to cause health effects. I don't care what part of fracking causes the contamination, it's dirty, dirtier than coal. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37390/?mod=related ngas dirtier than coal
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38463/?mod=related fracked gas estimate 4 times too high. The only study MIT has presented is simply that there is a bunch of clean gas available, which is not clean, and 1/4 of their estimates.
Lots of diseases cluster have popped up in Forth worth since 2000 a year after fracking ramped up. Google "Fort Worth" illness clusters
The wells are not tagged and the owners don't want it for obvious reasons: they are committing negligent mass homicide by pollution.

Massive water use, dirtier than coal, hug potential for water table contamination. Earthquakes,

Energydem lists the MIT reports listed problems like features:
o Prepare integrated regional water usage and disposal plans for the major shale areas.
o Undertake collaborative R&D to reduce water usage and develop cost-effective water recycling.
o Require the complete disclosure of all fracture fluid components.
o Continue efforts to eliminate toxic components of fracture fluids.
o Minimizing flowback water, on-site treatment options, water re-use,

The more you study fracked gas, the worse it looks.
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
06:53 AM on 10/01/2011
As a result of losing over $500 Million on Solyndra, Obama has lost public support for solar. This industry will have to make it on its own moving forward.
01:15 AM on 10/03/2011
nope--not everyone is so short sighted or believes spin meisters
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
12:57 AM on 10/01/2011
Not "Over-subsidized" ? What's that supposed to mean?

Any subsidy over zero is Over-Subsidized in my book, and that Includes Oil/Gas/Nuclear/Biofuel.

Let free markets do their work.
02:57 PM on 10/01/2011
Kaboom!

like a laser guided missile.
01:17 AM on 10/03/2011
we would still be using horse and buggies (outside of city streets) ---no thanks. let gov. do as it has done since it was established
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
R Harvey
08:00 PM on 09/30/2011
How will solar work in Alaska? Especially when it is dark 18 or more hours a day during the winter months.
08:22 PM on 09/30/2011
Right. Solar would not work very well in a place like Alaska. A few comments down I was talking about getting more creative, more diverse with our sources. Are there possibilities for wind farms? Geothermal, perhaps? Even tidal, for coastal areas of course.

Again, I'm not advertising any of these sources as "perfect," but perhaps just "better."

Or, what if there was a system of sources that could be used depending on the time of year? Alaska, in the summer months, gets quite a bit of sunlight.

Imagine interconnecting grids. wind, that worked with solar, that worked with geothermal, and so on. I don't want to get carried away, but I'm insisting on creativity and viewing the options, opportunities, and possibilities.
05:15 PM on 09/30/2011
In the City of Industry, here in California, they are putting up a parking structure at the local train stop. Not only will they charge for parking but they will sell the energy from solar panels on it's roof. Talk about a revenue enhancer...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
03:17 PM on 09/30/2011
A plea from the consumer: Please make the panels and installation cheap enough for the common consumer. Houses that are already built need to be able to take advantage of this new technology. If placed on only new houses, we can not afford the financing.
04:05 PM on 09/30/2011
A large conception, and likely a soon-to-be misconception, is that there will be one major alternative source of energy that will take the place of oil; the idea our nation will centralize its power as it did with coal, oil, etc...

I'm certain many of the readers at HuffPost have read or at the very least heard about local energy/food movements and the like. Rather than throwing the largest solar plant up in the middle a southwestern desert, or transmitting power from large wind plants in the Dakotas, we should make the move to accommodate for local climates, use multiple sources of energy, disperse power sources.

I'm not blaming or faulting any one person, we all tend to choose sides, or choose only a few of the many possible sources, based on its efficiency along with the economics, but truth be told not one of these sources is perfect, but this can not hinder our ability to act.

The solution, if such a thing exists, will have to be pretty creative. i.e.) That teenager from New York who used fibonacci sequences to improve the productivity of solar panels. That's some awesome stuff!

http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html

What I'm trying to get at is that we need this time to transition to something better, and that, without a doubt, is going to take a lot of trial and error, but what a sad day it would be to not try.
04:16 PM on 09/30/2011
Also, apologies for giving a completely irrelevant reply. The use of the comment box was disabled for one reason or another.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
06:31 PM on 09/30/2011
Well said! I agree with you whole heartly. My plea is just one consumer who finds it difficult to finance the solar panels that I wish to install and get off the grid. Being green is expensive. Most trash haulers charge extra for recycle. Light bulbs are expensive etc. I see greed in every sector! No benefit for the common consumer on pricing. I was told by a commentor this week that the government, state, federal and local would subsidize the panels. However even with that help it still is too expensive!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Adriana231
02:21 PM on 09/30/2011
Costco online started selling solar panels for residential use. If you want to 'give the finger' to Exxon, BP, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, al-Qa'ida and the rest, go buy one...then, when you can afford it, go buy another. Then go buy a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf or a plug in Prius and drive it with your solar power.

Solar energy is about the best thing we can do for our national security interests.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GoldwaterKid
Vote Person, Not Party
03:21 PM on 09/30/2011
No need to be upset with any other energy source.

Had solar at a house twenty years ago, it works. do something is a good idea, but demonizing and complaining ......not necessary.