We spoke with leaders in the solar energy field, and they had some interesting rebuttals to the most common attacks leveled by the fossil fuel industry - an industry that is increasing viewing clean energy as a grave, long-term disruptive threat.
They were unanimous in pointing out the massive underwriting that fossil energy received for decades, and asserting that the solar industry will do just fine, given a level playing field:
As Rex Gillespie of solar water heating systems manufacturer Caleffi North America pointed out, there's plenty of "government support for...oil and coal," so "if it's going to be a level playing field, then each one of the technologies needs to stand on their own, whether its oil, gas or solar."
Power industry veteran Kevin Smith, the CEO of large-scale solar power developer SolarReserve, echoed Gillespie, noted that "conventional energy has had support for 50 years, and that [this] support continues on, built into the tax codes, kind of forever tax credits for oil, gas, coal..." He added that "what you pay at the pump for gas isn't what it costs us as a nation...you've got, aside from the environmental impacts...we have to maintain international military presence to protect our interest oil, all those are paid by taxpayers."
Tor Valenza (a.k.a. "Solar Fred") explained that the government "does have a responsibility to support emerging technologies," just as it did in the past with computers and "for years with oil and gas and coal."
Finally, Schneider Electric Renewable Energies Commercial VP-Americas Rudy Wodrich noted that solar is "a great alternative...to get off that oil and coal bandwagon that we've been stuck on for the last 100 years."
The fossil fuel industry likes to fund pundits and "experts" to talk about "expensive" clean energy. But this is just an attempt to shift attention away from the enormous handouts fossil energy received for many decades. As this chart illustrates, between 1950 and 2010, the three main fossil fuels - oil, gas and coal - received $594 billion in federal energy subsidies in the United States alone. In stark contrast, renewables (primarily wind and solar) received just $74 billion in federal energy subsidies during that time period, or just 12% as much as the fossil fuels received.
In addition, we know that the production, transmission, and consumption of fossil fuels has serious, adverse and very expensive effects. A Harvard study released earlier this year found that "the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually." Oil, of course, has enormous costs in terms of air pollution, terrible spills such as the one we experienced in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the funding of dictatorships and terrorist groups around the world, and the huge economic cost entailed to the United States (e.g., in 2010 alone, the U.S. ran a $269 billion net trade deficit in oil, accounting for about 42% of the country's entire merchandise trade deficit in that year).
Dirty energy industries' dirty little secret is that they are the expensive forms of energy. They have been on the dole for years, including access to public property that they always wreck. The public needs to know that its money is being given to these industries, but that will only happen when a lot more people in the clean energy sector stop being afraid to drive honesty into the cost conversation. Pay attention to these solar leaders. They are leading the way.
and the dirty little secret of Big Solar is that it is mostly owned by Big Oil and Big Banks ripping off taxpayers and ratepayers.
there is this fake, red-herring debate about how "fossil fuels" vs. "renewable energy" is such a hot issue, meanwhile Chevron Solar, BP Wind, Bright Source, StatOil, Cogentrix, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and others are all laughing into their billions of "cleantech" subsidies while continuing to poison the planet and the greenwashers play straight into it.
the simple truth is that Big Energy is the problem. Doesn't matter if its Big Solar, Big Wind, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas, Big Nukes, etc. their sole business model is to pillage our wilderness, taxpayers and ratepayers and hang onto their monopolies.
in an era when PV is the dominant technology, it needs to be sited entirely in the built environment and democratically owned. there is no excuse for handing more of our open spaces, subsidies, and super-high energy bills over to the exact same people who have caused the collapse of our environment and economy! time to reclaim our energy production, starting with a german style feed in tariff for real people creating clean, non-deadly power right where it is used.
sheila: and the dirty little secret of Big Solar is that
Baloney. First of all, electricity and "energy" are not the same thing. We can eliminate 80% of the coal-burning int his country by just raising energy effiiency standards in the rest of the US to the (very comfortable) CA standards. 80%. Secondly, why don't the Feds put their money where their mouth is by getting us a REAL rooftop solar program (German feed in tariff) and see just how many rooftops, parking lots, in-city brownfields and other developed spaces start cranking out clean, non-deadly, local, democratically-owned AFFORDABLE power. Cloudy Germany installed 9,000 MW on rooftops in 2009 alone.
sheila: Baloney. First of all, electricity and "energy" are not the
They should. rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity for million of Americans, and billion of people world wide.
Meanwhile Nukes get 500M$ per year per reactor, coal more, and oil even more.
Even Solyandra installed 100MW of solar worth .5 to 7B$ in electricity over the next 20 years or so.
Average solar installation cheaper than nukes.
Cheapest rooftop solar is 5 cents per KWH over 20 years, less than 1 cent after that for another 30 years.
Wind is some 6 cents per KWH, and has reduced electricity costs in Texas and other place.
Waste bio char is carbon land and water negative, and 6 cents or less per KWH, while producing soil enhancement that can double the yield of poor soil, plus bio oil. All while avoiding the dump, the methane, and waste.
Efficiency can cut our energy use in half, and up to the point is by far the cheapest "energy" we can get.
Genders: They should. rooftop solar is the cheapest electricity for million
Nukes get no subsidy at all. cost 3 cents a kwh and are a tiny fraction of the cost of rooftop solar which starts at 40 cents kwh average US, + 20 cents for gas backup and transmission, + 100 cents for green storage. Wind runs about 20 cents cheaper.
There is no such thing as waste bio fuel just dirty forest compost firewood burners.
Genders has never been able to list a single nuclear subsidy despite being asked many times to put up or shut up.
There is no such thing as waste bio char just dirty forest compost firewood burners.
The cost of efficiency improvements is far higher than nuke power;
Nukes are 3 cents a kwh. The cost of wind power is over 30 cents a kwh when taxpayer provided 5 times sized transmissiÂon and gas backup is included. When green storage replaces the filthy gas cost increases by a buck a kwh. Solar - add another 50 cents a kwh to that
Here is a real wind project PGE's latest wind farm build $15B/Gw (20 cents Kwh at PGE's discount rate)
Google "pge-to-puÂrchase-opeÂrate-246-mÂw-manzana-Âwind-projeÂct"
Here is a real solar project just completed by expert engineers at Duke Energy.
Google "biofuelswÂatch.com/sÂolar-farm-Âstarts-opeÂration"
$43 a watt average, 18% capacity factor, 50 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate.
markkocaldo: Nukes get no subsidy at all. cost 3 cents a
aligatorhardt: The subsidy levels are on record. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/06/237150/stunner-new-nuclear-costs-as-much-as-german-solar-power-today-and-up-to-0-34kwh-in-2018/"> Stunner: New
Nuclear is quite expensive but not because of subsidies but because the risk premium for capital is very, very high. You data on other costs and subsidies is very sound. I note that when you look at the link to the chart of energy susbidies, it's a 60 year time frame. During that time renewables receivfed 9% of the subsidies, natural gas received 14%. The 60 year time frame is what is misleading since there have been very few subsidies for renewables before the last 30 years. Here is what EIA said in a report put out this year.
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
energydem: Nuclear is quite expensive but not because of subsidies but
I do not ever remember getting a subsidy check in the mail when I fill my tank, buy a washer, dryer, refrigerator or an ac. I must have missed the fine print.
intolleft: I do not ever remember getting a subsidy check in
The green energy deniers regularly make appearances in these comment pages claiming lack of competetiveness and other false talking points.
The funding behind their public campaign of lies now comes close to their political donations and lobbying expenses.
The post fails to include the cost of the corruption of our political system. Which is not to say such a number would be easy to calculate, but once bought, the politicians are buyable across other industries.
altohone: The green energy deniers regularly make appearances in these comment
A lot of the fossil subsidies are available as blanket subsidies for all forms of power generation including solar. The fossil subsidies per kwh are a tiny fraction of those for solar.
Nuclear is already cheaper than fossils and receives no subsidy other than the blanket ones. Add in health and other fossil costs and it is a no brainer at a two percent the cost of solar power with green storage.
markkocaldo: A lot of the fossil subsidies are available as blanket
One has to make up a comparison of $/kw to disguise the fact that fossil fuels and nuclear get huge sums of money, and have for their whole existence. After 50 years of commercial use, why does nuclear power still get subsidies? After 100 years of use why is coal and oil still getting subsidies? Check the numbers and it is clear the most money goes to nuclear and fossil fuel. By adding in all the old plants, the cost per kw looks smaller, but the actual dollars is what shows the reality. Nuclear plants get some of the same subsidies as renewable energy, plus the cost of all accidents and disasters must be paid by the general public, as the costs are so high that no company could survive if it paid it's own costs. Customers are charged for nuclear plant construction and even if the plant is not completed, the money is never returned to customers. No customer has ever gotten lower bills after installation of nuclear power.
aligatorhardt: One has to make up a comparison of $/kw to
It is about time that the solar industry stood its ground and rejected the attacks from the oil/gas/coal industries. When I hear the word 'expert' I just simply shudder and ask myself....yeah, who is paying this 'expert' to spread the lies?
Vera_Gottlieb: It is about time that the solar industry stood its
Vera, I will try to be respectful but there truly are experts out there who spend their professional lives doing energy research and analysis who understand the costs, technical limitations of the alternatives, environmental impacts of conventional energy, equity issues, the geopolitical and security issues, etc. Please look at the National Academy of Sciences and their work on levelized electricity costs -- solar PV/offshore wind is 5 times more expensive than gas generation, onshore is comparable but geography limited, etc. If you understood the true costs, technical limitations, scale of the need and urgency of addresing climate change, you would know we have to enact scalable (very important concept) changes immediately to avoid 5-7 degrees celsius increase in global temperatures by mid-century. The only two options that meet that description are massive efficiency and switching from coal to gas power generation. Renewables will come, we need to continue to invest in them but deployment at scale is a long way off and if we continue to fall back on inane platitudes and charges -- the Koch brothers, renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, all experts are industry hacks, this will be easy if we just end fossil fuel subsidies, blah, blah, blah, we will not develop smart, sequenced, effective policies that address the immediate and long term needs.
energydem: Vera, I will try to be respectful but there truly
Until the last drop of oil, the last bubble of gas and the last piece of carbon is extracted, only then - and only then, will solar energy stand a chance of really being advanced. It isn't so much the interest in developing the technology - which already exists for quite some time, it is the bottom line 'PROFITS' that determine when and what is developed further. Same old same as always...profits before people. Europe has always been far ahead in protecting the environment, so why is North America dragging it's rear?
Vera_Gottlieb: Until the last drop of oil, the last bubble of
"if it's going to be a level playing field, then each one of the technologies needs to stand on their own, whether its oil, gas or solar."
spare us the PR.
Solar does not want a level playing field because it can not play on a level playing field. If Solar were on a level playing field with Wind or Geothermal in terms of subsidies there would not be a single watt of utility solar installed anywhere and no one would be approving $16 billion in loan guarantees.
Would love to hear how solar is going to "stand on its own" with 1/2 the resource energy density, 2 -3 times the install cost, and 1/2 to 1/3 the capacity factor of any other mature renewable?
pyrroho: "if it's going to be a level playing field, then
Like with any other innovation, eventually costs will come down - besides, solar energy technology has been around for quite some time already, albeit suppressed by the fossil fuels industry. How much did you pay for your computer today and how much did you pay for it 10 years ago? Wonder what excuses will be made to explain humankind going extinct. Costs? Production? Outsourcing?
Vera_Gottlieb: Like with any other innovation, eventually costs will come down
It has already been through that phase of price reduction. solar price reduction curve is in exponential decay, e.g. its logarithmic slope is negative. The reason your computer has come down is because they have shortened the functional lifetime and it benefits from exponential reduction in the cost of processing and memory.
If you want climate change solar is definitely the way to go. If you want to restrain climate change we need something much much better.
The 2 industries are nothing alike.
pyrroho: Vera It has already been through that phase of price
A home or business owner can install solar power, pay it off in 10 years or less and get a system guaranteed for 25 years. After the payoff the electricity is free. Figure 15 years of utility electric bills as the size of the profit for the homeowner. The central utility never stops charging for the power, no matter when the equipment is paid off.
aligatorhardt: A home or business owner can install solar power, pay
because it is subsidized at a rate of 10-20 times any other renewable to the tune of 80% of the cost of the system and you do not need to install storage due to net metering. unsubsidized solar does have a pay down period anywhere near its lifetime and if you had to include storage it would literally never pay down.
at the end of the day while solar VC's and "entrepreneurs" drink at this trough we will pay the price both in terms of the subsidies and in terms of climate change when it becomes obvious in 10 year that the only thing throwing our weight behind solar did is insure natural gas lock-in.
pyrroho: because it is subsidized at a rate of 10-20 times
INCREASE MPG 30% ON THE CAR YOU OWN NOW!
Decrease NOX and unburned hydrocarboÂns.70%!
Fitch Fuel Catalyst
Sonic Spark Plugs (Piezo) or Halo or Pulstar
Tornado Vortex Generator
Even More Mpgs Torque & HP.
http://www.hydrogenboostnow.com/HHO-Dry-Cell.htm
Biofuels: Thinking Outside the Barrel
Why a positive energy future could be closer than you think
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/biofuels-thinking-outside-the-barrel.html
there is this fake, red-herring debate about how "fossil fuels" vs. "renewable energy" is such a hot issue, meanwhile Chevron Solar, BP Wind, Bright Source, StatOil, Cogentrix, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and others are all laughing into their billions of "cleantech" subsidies while continuing to poison the planet and the greenwashers play straight into it.
the simple truth is that Big Energy is the problem. Doesn't matter if its Big Solar, Big Wind, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas, Big Nukes, etc. their sole business model is to pillage our wilderness, taxpayers and ratepayers and hang onto their monopolies.
in an era when PV is the dominant technology, it needs to be sited entirely in the built environment and democratically owned. there is no excuse for handing more of our open spaces, subsidies, and super-high energy bills over to the exact same people who have caused the collapse of our environment and economy! time to reclaim our energy production, starting with a german style feed in tariff for real people creating clean, non-deadly power right where it is used.
Meanwhile Nukes get 500M$ per year per reactor, coal more, and oil even more.
Even Solyandra installed 100MW of solar worth .5 to 7B$ in electricity over the next 20 years or so.
Average solar installation cheaper than nukes.
Cheapest rooftop solar is 5 cents per KWH over 20 years, less than 1 cent after that for another 30 years.
Wind is some 6 cents per KWH, and has reduced electricity costs in Texas and other place.
Waste bio char is carbon land and water negative, and 6 cents or less per KWH, while producing soil enhancement that can double the yield of poor soil, plus bio oil. All while avoiding the dump, the methane, and waste.
Efficiency can cut our energy use in half, and up to the point is by far the cheapest "energy" we can get.
There is no such thing as waste bio fuel just dirty forest compost firewood burners.
Genders has never been able to list a single nuclear subsidy despite being asked many times to put up or shut up.
There is no such thing as waste bio char just dirty forest compost firewood burners.
The cost of efficiency improvements is far higher than nuke power;
Nukes are 3 cents a kwh. The cost of wind power is over 30 cents a kwh when taxpayer provided 5 times sized transmissiÂon and gas backup is included. When green storage replaces the filthy gas cost increases by a buck a kwh. Solar - add another 50 cents a kwh to that
Here is a real wind project PGE's latest wind farm build $15B/Gw (20 cents Kwh at PGE's discount rate)
Google "pge-to-puÂrchase-opeÂrate-246-mÂw-manzana-Âwind-projeÂct"
Here is a real solar project just completed by expert engineers at Duke Energy.
Google "biofuelswÂatch.com/sÂolar-farm-Âstarts-opeÂration"
$43 a watt average, 18% capacity factor, 50 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate.
Nuclear power's real chain reaction: spiralling costs | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk
http://www Â.globalsub Âsidies.org Â/en/subsid Ây-watch/co Âmmentary/g Âambling-nu Âclear-powe Âr-how-publ Âic-money-f Âuels-indus Âtry
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
The funding behind their public campaign of lies now comes close to their political donations and lobbying expenses.
The post fails to include the cost of the corruption of our political system. Which is not to say such a number would be easy to calculate, but once bought, the politicians are buyable across other industries.
Nuclear is already cheaper than fossils and receives no subsidy other than the blanket ones. Add in health and other fossil costs and it is a no brainer at a two percent the cost of solar power with green storage.
spare us the PR.
Solar does not want a level playing field because it can not play on a level playing field. If Solar were on a level playing field with Wind or Geothermal in terms of subsidies there would not be a single watt of utility solar installed anywhere and no one would be approving $16 billion in loan guarantees.
Would love to hear how solar is going to "stand on its own" with 1/2 the resource energy density, 2 -3 times the install cost, and 1/2 to 1/3 the capacity factor of any other mature renewable?
It has already been through that phase of price reduction. solar price reduction curve is in exponential decay, e.g. its logarithmic slope is negative. The reason your computer has come down is because they have shortened the functional lifetime and it benefits from exponential reduction in the cost of processing and memory.
If you want climate change solar is definitely the way to go. If you want to restrain climate change we need something much much better.
The 2 industries are nothing alike.
at the end of the day while solar VC's and "entrepreneurs" drink at this trough we will pay the price both in terms of the subsidies and in terms of climate change when it becomes obvious in 10 year that the only thing throwing our weight behind solar did is insure natural gas lock-in.