More

Energy Secretary Steven Chu Asserts Continued Importance Of Domestic Solar Energy Development

Solar

CATHERINE TSAI   11/18/11 05:51 PM ET   AP

ARVADA, Colo. — Countries are lining up to supply a huge global market for solar energy, and it's important for the United States to stay in the game, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday after touring a Colorado solar facility.

Chu's comments came a day after hostile questioning by Republicans in Congress over Solyndra Inc., the solar panel maker that went bankrupt after receiving a half-billion-dollar federal loan. Chu told a House committee that cheap imports from China, the collapse of the European market for solar panels, and other market changes led prices for Solyndra's product to fall.

"What happened with Solyndra was truly unfortunate," Chu told reporters after walking through a PrimeStar Solar Inc. facility that General Electric Co. bought this year.

Few people predicted prices for solar modules would fall 70 percent from 2009 to today, Chu said, and it's unclear when the price of solar power will fall enough to be comparable to electricity produced using natural gas.

"When solar reaches price parity with any other form of new energy – you know it's going to happen – it's going to go viral," Chu said.

He also said energy storage will be key to solar's success, so it can serve as an energy source when the sun isn't shining.

Chu said the worldwide market for solar photovoltaic systems is more than $80 billion. Though the U.S. developed several solar technologies, China now holds roughly half the market share in solar cell and solar module production while the U.S. share lags far behind, Chu said.

"It's very important we stay in this game," Chu said, adding that high levels of innovation are still happening in the United States.

"We should not wave the white flag. We should not say, `Oops, we may have invented it, but we're going to be out-manufactured.' But we really can and should take back this technology lead," Chu said.

Solyndra, of Fremont, Calif., was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under the 2009 stimulus law, and the Obama administration frequently touted it as a model for its clean energy program. Chu attended a 2009 groundbreaking when a $528 million loan was announced, and President Barack Obama visited the company's headquarters.

Solyndra's bankruptcy and revelations that the administration hurried a review of the loan in time for the groundbreaking embarrassed Chu and Obama. GOP critics of the administration's green energy program seized on Solyndra's troubles.

PrimeStar Solar Inc., whose Arvada facility Chu toured Friday, was co-founded by researchers associated with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. It received $3 million from the Energy Department in 2007 to get thin-film solar panels made from cadmium telluride into commercial production. It also received $25,000 from the Governor's Energy Office in 2008 to help develop its production facility.

GE has said it plans to build what would be the largest solar factory in the U.S. in the Denver suburb of Aurora, without federal subsidies.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

ARVADA, Colo. — Countries are lining up to supply a huge global market for solar energy, and it's important for the United States to stay in the game, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday aft...
ARVADA, Colo. — Countries are lining up to supply a huge global market for solar energy, and it's important for the United States to stay in the game, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Friday aft...
Filed by Ryan Grenoble  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 166
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:08 AM on 11/26/2011
Dear Mr. Chu, do you have enegy solar panels on your private residence and what company did you purchase them from. I believe our energy chief should lead by example like you.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:30 PM on 11/22/2011
Duh, Even Solarndra installed and produced 100MW of solar that will produce .5 to 7B$ worth of electricity. We, the world, won even though Solanda failed.

rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char, with efficiency and plug in hybrids is the ONLY solution on the table for our energy needs.

Cheap enough now, cheaper in the long run, 24/7, carbon land and water negative, forever, clean safe, doubling every year or two.

rooftop solar is already as cheap or cheaper than nuclear, and the cheapest electricity for millions of end users.
06:55 PM on 11/25/2011
Individuals and families need to become energy independent. Large solar farms using linear transmission are not going to help us in the long run.

I agree that we need a mix of tech to address our energy needs - The healthiest ecosystems on the planets tend to be the ones with the most diversity. The strongest stock portfolios tend to be diverse. Within one species genetic diversity is key to the survival and evolution of that species.

Why wouldn't this natural pattern apply to energy solutions. Use whats appropriate, where it's appropriate. And most importantly take things into your own hands.

Who should be providing for your family? You? To me thats preferable to a profit driven energy company, even if it is GREEN :)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
10:02 PM on 11/27/2011
Kinda agree. families and households should be become MORE Independent, but we are all a part of the society we living in, god help us if we become Somalia.

rooftop solar depends on the grid. You really don't want to need to do you own waste bio char bio fuels for backup, or worse batteries.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:53 AM on 11/22/2011
I like solar energy because it makes me feel good

discuss
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:31 PM on 11/22/2011
It should, it's great. Cheaper than nukes, forever. clean and safe.
07:56 AM on 12/19/2011
Yup, we'll just cover up the whole Southwest with solar panels. Who needs all that scenery anyway? We can always watch old John Ford movies.
photo
wetbonder
Educating liberals one day at a time
08:45 AM on 11/21/2011
What is the plan to dispose of used solar panels? They're chockablock full of toxic elements.

Are we going to cover every square centimeter of free space to have enough energy?

What happens when the subsidies run out?

This is all very quixotic.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:32 PM on 11/22/2011
Already being recycled. Of course solar is infinite and forever. You recycle the panels every 30-100 years. No, they are not a bio hazard because they are water insoluble solids.

http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3770:pv-recycling-the-need-to-be-double-green-&catid=63:business-features&Itemid=242 solar panels recycling already working great.
05:43 PM on 11/24/2011
Heavy metals are also water insoluble solids..

Lets think of ways to design settlements and lifestyles so we can use PASSIVE solar systems. http://passivesolar.sustainablesources.com/
In fact many cultures that existed before industrial energy depended on this technology and by using it were able to maintain constant comfortable temps indoors without electricity or combustion!

They may be recyclable but they still require petroleum to be manufactured and shipped.

In the case of the picture above I wonder what measures were taken if any to protect the wildlife during and post construction.
07:58 AM on 12/19/2011
"Quixotic" is kind: Statist insanity, in my view, but then, I'm an extremist. The subsidies ran out in Spain, and that was the end of that.
photo
wetbonder
Educating liberals one day at a time
08:32 AM on 11/21/2011
Even the Dutch are giving up on wind turbines

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-dutch-wind-idUSTRE7AF1JM20111116

All this is simply too expensive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Booth
Educate, Agitate, Organize!
11:01 AM on 11/21/2011
Nice over simplification, did you happen to notice the two major driving forces?

The first being their faltering economy

And the second being that its one of the most densely populated European country which mean their only viable option is building out in the ocean which is vastly more expensive than putting turbines on towers on land, which we have plenty of in this country.

Thanks for contributing such a disingenuous and distorted comment to the conversation, NOT!
photo
wetbonder
Educating liberals one day at a time
11:08 AM on 11/21/2011
One cannot help but long to see how Manhattan will be properly populated with solar panels.

Fortunately our economy is robust and easily able to cough up subsidy money.
01:41 PM on 11/21/2011
Dutch have maxed out the viable on-shore sites (which is becoming an issues here as well). Most (93%) on land avg. wind speeds are too slow for wind to be economically viable even with subsidies except close to shore or in the mountains. Most resources are far from load centers and have transmission, permitting, or access issues.

Same thing will happen with solar after it gets any serious GW's installed.

Reason to go off-shore is less variability and more power closer to load center. It is not because they a so densely populated.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:40 PM on 11/22/2011
No. Wind is the cheapest electricity on earth (except geothermal and without the quakes)
http://www.ecn.nl/units/ps/themes/renewable-energy/wind-energy/
05:49 PM on 11/24/2011
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/trombly.htm

I have personally witnessed working prototypes with non-moving parts that cost less than a dollar to manufacture.

Do a little research and you will find that since Nikola Tesla in 1902 there have been dozens of technologies and inventors that have been surpressed. Wonder why? Follow the money up
photo
wetbonder
Educating liberals one day at a time
08:19 AM on 11/21/2011
Obama really has this thing for wanting to boost China's economy. They really appreciate this solar obsession and have to be laughing as Obama throws money at his donors' projects and it fails while this adminstration subordinates the taxpayer to the donor.

You really have to be an idiot to support that.
08:01 AM on 12/19/2011
Yup, they bring on coal fired capacity while we kill ours; use some of the juice to make solar to sell to us. Bwahhahahah!
photo
wetbonder
Educating liberals one day at a time
08:15 AM on 11/21/2011
Yeah let's keep throwing BILLIONS away on crony capitalist failures!

Let's throw BILLIONS more away on Obama's billionaire donor pals!
08:06 AM on 12/19/2011
al Gor al Akbar has a piece of Fisker automotive electric vehicles made in Finland. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875&page=2#.Tu8q23rxf4s
03:09 PM on 11/20/2011
Not to get too distracted by the random solar farm photo, but this one is in Les Mées, France, and is described as “an area of 89 acres,… generating up to 18.2 MW. The project was also implemented without the use of concrete foundations, and was specifically designed to still allow grazing by sheep.” It was also described by Inhabitat.com as “Enfinity’s Beautiful Les Mées Solar Plant”, so not everyone thinks it’s a blight upon the landscape.

But distributed rooftop and other small/medium scale PV projects make more sense than large solar farms. PrimeStar’s thin film panels must be destined for the medium and large markets (commercial rooftops, solar farms) – you wouldn’t use them for residential rooftops because of their relatively low efficiency.
10:20 PM on 11/20/2011
To get to our goal of a zero carbon future we 100% of US energy needs must be met by electricity.

In that scenario rooftop PV can provide only 3% of US energy needs at a cost so enormous that the economy would be bankrupted.

Google "nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44073.pdf"

Report states "..The total annual resource is about 400 terawatt hours (TWh) for commercial and 419 TWh for residential buildings. "

US total electricity production 4000 terawatt hours in 2010 so 20% of US electricity can be provided by solar at max

But US total Energy use is 26000 Twh with only 15% provided by low carbon sources (nuclear, hydro, firewood/ethanol). By coincidence electricity is 15% of the US energy supply.

So 20% of 15% makes rooftop PV max 3% of US energy
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Booth
Educate, Agitate, Organize!
11:07 AM on 11/21/2011
Exactly who set the 'goal' you refer to of a "zero carbon future"???

The goals I've seen, the realistically stated, obtainable and necessary goal is to get back to an atmosphere of 350 ppm as a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere which requires nothing remotely close to 'zero carbon'.

Though the scenario that you present may well be mathematically accurate, your scenario isn't one being proposed by anyone in their right minds.

Thanks loads for your attempt to totally distort this crucial conversation.
04:15 AM on 11/27/2011
Oh good. I'm glad that eyesore isn't in Colorado.
02:47 PM on 11/20/2011
We have main problems with science of climate change.
Global warming is real.
Explanation of reasonS, why it IS happen is wrong.

Properties of water actually cooling air, despite water vapor is GHG.

The best my advice to Obama, fire from Government all supporters of today science of climate change. They provide our Government and Governments in the world with wrong tools how to fight climate change.
Steven Chu is smart person, which support WRONG SCIENCE.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
02:14 PM on 11/20/2011
Now their trying to say the brain man was clueless.Bull shit.He knew fully well what was goin on with that company and what he or the admin was attempting to do.All he did was end up being the fall guy.To say this was not a politicaly motivated move is to walk around with eye's closed
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Viper1st
multi quasi faceted
01:23 PM on 11/20/2011
Nobel Prize Winning, Energy Secretary Steven Chu's credibility, after testifing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce ... Solyndra = ZERO
leftcoastindy
Where did I put my MOJO
01:48 PM on 11/20/2011
You have not a shred of evidence to back up that statement. In fact, he is 100% right as you will see within 2 or 3 years
02:37 PM on 11/20/2011
Steven Chu is smart educated person, but he support nuclear power plants, solar cells and windmills.
He support wrong explanation for reason of climate change by today science.

My best advice to Obama, fire from Government Secretary of enery, for these reasons, energy of transportation, for supporting high speed rail-yesterday solution for countries with bigger dencity of population, than in USA.
Administrator of EPA, which could provide restrictions, without solutions.

They are reasons, why we put resources in wrong directions.
02:39 PM on 11/20/2011
Unfortunately, Chu has indeed lost credibility through this Solyndra saga and his assertion that market forces were the company's undoing. The company's product had cylindrical PV elements with big spaces in between, so the first questions are how do you economically manufacture these relatively complex panels and how do you justify the reduction of PV generating capacity for a given installation area (usually a commercial rooftop)? The justification appears to have been a combination of marketing and the fact that the company was ready to built in 2009 when stimulus funds were available, and therefore met the criteria of being both green and "shovel ready" (this term is counter to proper long-term planning), bolstered by the fact that private investors had but a billion into it (private investors respond to marketing also).

That being said, PV solar has become a viable energy source, is continuing to undergo technological innovation, will be a much more common energy source in the near future, and should be the subject of R&D investment by our national labs, particularly NREL (but I don't see any references to NREL's working or reporting on the thin film cylinder technology). We can't allow this cylinder mess to derail progress in PV solar - it's here now, it's coming in a big way, and we need to stay at the forefront.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Viper1st
multi quasi faceted
03:33 PM on 11/20/2011
Thank you for your insight
10:51 PM on 11/20/2011
As I show above the NREL has shown rooftop PV at least to at most a tiny and enormously expensive energy alternative.
11:59 AM on 11/20/2011
Those employees better get their resumes on the street. Any company this admin touches shuts their doors within a year.
leftcoastindy
Where did I put my MOJO
01:49 PM on 11/20/2011
Except for the other 100's of companies it has touched.
photo
wetbonder
Educating liberals one day at a time
08:17 AM on 11/21/2011
You mean like Obama Motors, which was a $23 billion loss?
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
10:56 PM on 11/19/2011
Wow that an ugly pic. Blighted landscape for what? Until the storage costs come way (80%) down big solar just will not work, wind is worse as you can't even use it on your roof.
photo
spilkus
I'm in the art world, for Pete's sake.
02:54 AM on 11/20/2011
You prefer mountain top removal and cancer from coal I guess. Keep talking it down until it takes over. You dinosaurs can't stop it.
The panels in the ugly pic can be removed in days and back to natural. Open your mind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barkingcat
Woof?
10:22 AM on 11/20/2011
Good point -- the panel installation is reversible, meaning that the "blighted landscape" is not permanent.

That's a good thing to keep in mind.
photo
loco48
TRUTH trumps ideology!
07:06 AM on 11/20/2011
You prefer a gulf of mexico filled with floating oil and dead fish and turtles? Or prudoe bay in alaske ruined for more than 20 years. How about the 28 miners killed in the coal mine in west virginia? Maybe $8 per gallon gasoline will get your attention because that is in your future.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
03:27 PM on 11/20/2011
Yes!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
08:55 PM on 11/19/2011
"He also said energy storage will be key to solar's success, so it can serve as an energy source when the sun isn't shining." Unfortunately, energy storage costs more than generating electricity from scratch.
12:13 PM on 11/20/2011
Not necessarily. If your only thinking of storing the electricity that they produce during the day then it most assuredly is vastly more expensive. But if you store the energy of the suns heat then things get better(and cheaper) quite quickly.

Some solar power plants are using molten salt to produce steam. After the sun sets this molten salt(over 1,000 degrees) can produce electricity for quite some time. Remember there is always another way to skin that cat, you just have to look outside that proverbial box so to speak. :-)

http://inhabitat.com/nevadas-new-molten-salt-solar-plant-will-produce-power-long-after-the-sun-sets/
01:58 PM on 11/20/2011
Nope still really really expensive and can only store heat very inefficiently for only a few hours. What if the next day is cloudy or a sandstorm?

To the already enormous cost of solar 70 cents a kwh with the currently required 100% nameplate inefficient gas backup run inefficiently and 10 times sized transmission lines you need to add a buck a kwh for storage. Works out to $60K per annum for the average USD household.

Meanwhile the IEA is telling us we have two years to actually git'er. Nuke power is the only possible in time solution.

According
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
06:06 PM on 11/20/2011
I have been looking 'outside the box' for the last 40 years - everything from flywheels to fuel cells to NaS batteries to compressed air to molten salt and they are all more expensive than coal.
The Tononpah project (a molten Salt solar tower) just received a 737 million dollar loan guarantee for a plant which will produce 480 million KWH a year. It would take 14 of these plants to equal the output of a 1 GW nuclear plant. And they still won't produce electricity if you get several days in row of overcast.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Booth
Educate, Agitate, Organize!
11:33 AM on 11/21/2011
But the caveat is 'given the technologies currently available' coal, natural gas, nuclear power will all become increasingly expensive ways to produce electricity from scratch over time whereas breakthroughs in storage technology that have taken place over just the past 12-18 months hold the promise of dramatically reducing storage costs.

Beyond that, its not ALL about costs its also about finding the most cost efficient ways to meet our needs while getting the Earth atmosphere back down to 350 ppm of CO2.

If electricity could be produced for free but we continue to destroy the planet its not as good a deal for anyone than if the cost of electricity were doubled and we managed to reverse climate change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
10:31 PM on 11/21/2011
I've been following 'break throughs' that promise cheap storage for 40 years, I'll wait until i see one which delivers.
To get c02 below 350, we are going to have to reduce c02 emissions from 30 billion tons to 7 billion tons per year. That come to one ton per person per year. We can't get anywhere close to that using solar and wind. We need nuclear and lots of it. With LFTR or other fourth generation reactors, we can make fuel from air and water (a zero carbon cycle). We could also use nuclear energy to extract c02 from the atmosphere and sequester it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
10:48 PM on 11/21/2011
Here are some owl pics.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
07:03 PM on 11/19/2011
This is rrrrrich!

While this guy is promoting SOLAR in the U.S., The Hydrogen Economy is breaking out in the rest of the World.

For 3 successive years, Chu has "defunded" Hydrogen Fuel Cell transportation technologies despite pleas from the Senate.

Chu appointed a U.S. Drive Panel under the guise of Energy Sustainability. On that panel are Exec's from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and BP, none of which has a Hydrogen Gas pump on their service station lots.

Yet, last summer, Mercedes Benz drove 3 of their Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars through the U.S. as part of their World Drive Tour. Those pollution free and technology proficient cars did not stop until 33,000 pollution free kilometers later after driving the continents of the U.S, Australia, Asia, China, Russia and Europe.

Two days ago, this 11.2 MW Fuel Cell power plant opened in South Korea: http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2011/11/15/fuelcell-energy-announces-worlds-largest-fuel-cell-park-operating-in-south-korea/ . This is plant #50 installed outside of the U.S..

The fuel cell's are made by FuelCell Energy in Danbury, Conn!

While everywhere else is embracing the Hydrogen Economy, this guy promotes the "nowhere" solar industry!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hawklord Tst
gamer. i was born, and will probably die one day
08:29 PM on 11/19/2011
well chu is not an a stupid person, so he must have his reasons. don't these cars need pure oxygen to drive the reactions, and isn't that expensive to make and dangerous to drive around with in your trunk?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
09:21 PM on 11/19/2011
No, hydrogen gas flows onto onside of a membrane that has a positive and negative electrode on it. Ambient air (oxygen) flows on the other side. When the water molecule snaps back together, it release electrical energy. Do that a gazillion time one 1 square nanometer and then you can collect a electrical current from which you drive the electric motor on the car.

If hydrogen gas was dangerous or explosive, don't you think Hollywood would be using it to make explosion scenes in their movies!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
Maybe I'm wrong, but....
08:33 PM on 11/19/2011
Where will the hydrogen come from?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
09:23 PM on 11/19/2011
It is produced right under the collective noses of U.S. citizens as noted here: http://markets.financialcontent.com/stocks/news/read/17797311/Air_Products_Meets_Increased_Hydrogen_Needs_at_Marathon%27s_Garyville .

The Oil Cartel will not tell you this is happening and the Corporate controlled media are sure not going to tell you about it either.