Nipping Solar Energy in the Bud

Oil executives and other right-wing blowhards who like to claim that renewable sources will never constitute a significant share of the American energy market are half-right. I say half-right because while our country may have the underlying technology and capacity, our hapless elected leaders, unfortunately, lack the political will. Nowhere was this more on display last week than (surprise, surprise) in the nation's capital, where solar energy advocates suffered a double-whammy.

Many a start-up's hopes were dashed when the Bureau of Land Management, in its infinite wisdom, decided to place a moratorium on the construction of new solar plants on public land in six Western states until it had a chance to examine their environmental impact -- a process that could take up to two years. To make matters worse, the Senate again failed to extend a tax credit package benefiting wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. Not surprisingly, these setbacks have sparked a wave of consternation from energy companies and Silicon Valley types whose projects could be left high and dry when the credits expire at the end of this year.

This could not have come at a worst time. While most sectors continue to languish under the weight of the crumbling economy, the alternative energy industry has remained buoyant -- supported by strong venture capital interest and a newfound interest in clean energy. No market has arguably benefited as much from this boom as the solar market.

According to a report by the market intelligence firm iSuppli, worldwide investments in photovoltaic (PV) technologies will reach the same level as those for semiconductors by 2010. The real kicker, as Salon's Andrew Leonard explained, is that the economies of scale this would produce would result in most countries achieving grid parity -- the magical point at which electricity produced from PV cells costs the same (or less) than electricity derived from conventional fossil fuel sources -- by 2018.

He goes on to quote from one of Thomas Friedman's more sensible columns (yes, that Thomas Friedman), in which he excoriates both President Bush and (say it ain't so) Mr. "Maverick" himself:

"People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines -- because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.

That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans -- sorry to say, with the help of John McCain -- have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times."

Now I don't mean to minimize the (legitimate) concerns of environmental groups like the Wilderness Society, who worry about the impacts solar plants could have on biodiversity and other natural resources. And the BLM has said that will process the more than 130 applications it received before May 29. The fact is, however, that this is still a young industry -- meaning that any major setback could do it irreparable harm. Also, given the stakes, I think one could argue the benefits of continuing solar energy development far outweigh any potential cost.

What is particularly telling is that while the BLM may have adopted a more cautionary approach to solar energy, it -- or, I should say, the Bush administration -- seems to have no qualms about lifting the restrictions on offshore drilling. No wonder we still don't have our act together.

Comments

[susieq1001]

I like the idea of decentralized collectors. I have more roof space than I will ever need for my own energy needs. Really. If it was economic for me to put power back into the grid, I would, very gladly!

I'm not super well-versed in the whole solar power conversation, but it seems to me that it would make sense to use the entire urban footprint to generate solar power. The environmental impact on the land already exists, so why aren't we using it to further advantage?

Even the companies that are working on a solution to install solar onto rooftops (CitizenRe) don't actually plan to put excess capacity into what they install. Why not? While it's good to cover what you use with solar, why not put back into the grid if you have more? The answer appears to be economic. THAT is what needs to change.

Someone above mentioned Germany for viable policies. I have not read up on that, but it seems that someone is making it work....

[sheila]

Sorry, Jeremy, but you are wrong on this one. We (environmentalists and energy policy experts) are the ones who insisted on a CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PEIS, because over a MILLION acres are contained in those 130 applications, and BILLIONS of gallons of scarce desert groundwater will be depleted each year. Toss in a massive new roads system, the scorching/blinding/toxic sludge operation of these CSP plants and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission, all in a fragile, beautiful and critical ecosystem, and you have a complete environmental meltdown.

Do not assume for one moment that these power plants will "displace" existing dirty coal - that is not even being considered. These are intended to PREVENT home and business owners from installing clean, healthy, affordable PV and wind systems. They produce the exact same "peaker" power, but these wasteful, unreliable remote plants will kill taxpayer owned wilderness, force people from their homes for the powerlines, eat up all the tax breaks and subsidies WE could be getting, and amortize the costs across the grid (socializing them) while re-entrenching their monopolies.

Local, point of use systems with fair feed-in tariffs are the only way to go. See Germany for perfect, successful, viable policies...

[AuntSally]

Environmental impact assessment of large solar projects is considerably more complicated than for oil and gas drilling. The difference being, renewables displace the higher-impact fossil fuel projects. In other words, while fossil fuel projects are all negative impact, renewable projects are a mix of negative and positive.

For example, if you want to assess a big solar array in the desert, there are the negative impacts to the local ecosystem, and the positive impacts to displacing, say, a coal-fired power plant, with it's associated enormous environmental footprint (mining and transporting the coal, as well as burning the coal).

[bgregs]

Jeremy,

Didn't you get the memo??? The only clean energy that we're going to go for in the USA is "clean" coal, more drilling for oil, and some corn based Ethanol products!! I KNOW that you got the memo, it was sent out last week!!

[jvarga]

I'll pose the same thought experiment here that got buried in the green section and didn't get answered.

Lets say that it turned out that ANWR was a great place for a giant solar array (ignoring the transmission issue :P). Would you support putting one there regardless of the consequences of the local environment? Would you abhor taking time to study the impact of installing the facility?

But since this is in competition with coal more so than oil, would you support totally covering up mountain tops in Appalachia with giant solar arrays?

In essence, are we saying that since solar energy is much cleaner than coal or oil, the trade off of potential destruction of the local ecosystem (hence the need for a year or two to study it) is acceptable? I'll leave it to commentors with first hand experience to discuss the role of de-centralized solar power generation.

[Cathexis]

You make a good point, jvarga: Environmental Impact is Environmental Impact.

I am a big proponent of Solar Energy. Yet, I urge everyone not to make the same mistake the petro-fuel proponents historically and persistantly make: That we have a binary set of choices -- Environment vs Energy. What is needed is the will to make cliches reality and truly Think Outside the Box. For example, decentralized collectors set where they won't harm the environment (city buildings, etc.)

*I* don't pretend to have an answer. Now. But we need to keep looking and we need to remember that whenever we are given a choice between A & B, it is often preferable to look for a C.

[TedB]

The issue of transmission is something I never see discussed in relation to large solar projects. Why take something diffuse like sunlight, concentrate its energy at one point, only to spread it out again and lose half of the energy (or whatever the amount is--anyone?) while sending it from point A to point B? It seems much more logical to grab the energy at the point of use, like on your roof, with minimal loss in the transmission of 20 feet to your toaster.

[tcagle]

Not only inefficient, our transmission grid is lacking security. It makes much more sense to make power for the home or the neighborhood. My ideal setup would be a solar collector powering a Stirling engine or a steam unit, coupled with a wind generator, and supercapacitors for storage.