No Reason to Give Up on Clean Energy

I spend a lot of time in Silicon Valley, the birthplace of technologies that have transformed our world and powered our last economic boom.

But rest assured that for every Google or Apple or Intel or Facebook, there are hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of other unknown technology companies that failed. Creating truly transformational technology is tough. Success almost always comes with a few failures.

With that in mind, I can't help but be perplexed at suggestions that the high-profile bankruptcy of Solyndra Inc. is somehow a death knell for the clean energy industry.

It's that kind of head-in-the-sand mentality, along with outdated energy policies, that has kept us shackled to fossil fuels for far longer than makes sense. Look where that has gotten us so far: Gas prices that are breaking the family budget, lost lives in foreign wars, an economy that is held hostage by foreign oil suppliers.

The clean energy industry is still our best hope for our economic and energy future -- with or without one company called Solyndra.

It is an industry that overall is strong and growing. Consider:

• The solar power business is one of the fastest-growing industries in the country. There are more than 5,500 companies operating in the solar industry today, employing 100,000 Americans.
• When you include other clean-energy businesses -- everything from wind turbine makers to green building contractors -- the job count is much greater. And while the economy was contracting, the clean energy sector was expanding. In 2009, there were 2.2 million green jobs in America, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. By July of this year, that number had increased to 2.7 million, according to the Brookings Institution. By comparison, there are 375,000 workers who mine coal, produce oil and gas and turn fossil fuels into consumer products.
• Clean jobs pay better. According to Brookings, median wages in the clean energy sector are 13 percent higher than the wages in the overall economy.

If the clean energy industry is doing that well on its own, you may ask, why should our government continue to support it through loan guarantees, especially given the circumstances surrounding Solyndra?

Here's why.

Making transformations to something as big and as important as our energy system is not something any industry can do on its own -- much less an industry that's competing against one of the biggest, most influential (and most heavily subsidized) industries in the world: The fossil fuels industry.

History has shown when you're tackling something this big, the government must be a catalyst, a driver, a partner. Without government participation in the economic transformations of our past, we'd still be traveling on dirt roads. We'd still be reading candlelight. The Internet wouldn't exist.

Some of our biggest and most transformational success stories -- from the highway system to the electrification of our country to the development of the Internet through DARPA -- all came about because of government participation.

And remember this. All along the way to those successes, there were failures. We didn't give up on transformational opportunities before because of a failure or two in the past.

Is there anybody in our country who really wants to walk away from the opportunity of a brighter, cleaner world tomorrow because of a failure today?

 

Comments

[vetxcl]

02:30 AM on 10/06/2011

Conference synopsis of what some US companies are currently (pun intended) doing: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/16/solar-is-ready-to-launch-a-peek-inside-intersolar-north-america/

[vetxcl]

09:53 PM on 09/25/2011

Example of a very real and profitable company: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/25/vestas-launches-new-version-of-most-popular-wind-turbine-energy-production-10-15-higher/

[vetxcl]

09:50 PM on 09/25/2011

Not many people, in the bigger scheme of things are giving up. Stop believing the lobbyist fed propaganda. And to illustrate: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/18/19-year-old-winning-awards-left-right-for-her-solar-power-helper-the-sunsaluter/
One of many that know better.

[BlackRabbit]

03:43 PM on 09/17/2011

Yeah, but when will these alternative energy companies be able to sustain themselves without massive subsidies?

These subsidies have been going on for many years now. Where's the light at the end of the tunnel?

And if there is no end to this tunnel, if these energy sources are doomed to be forever exorbitant, perhaps we should be trying something else.

[Genders]

03:01 PM on 09/18/2011

Nukes and fossil have been subsidies for 50 and 100 years, at levels 10 times solar and green at the same stages of development.

When will fossil and nukes be able to stand on their own ?

All new energy sources need subsidies. that's history.

We don't want any more nukes or fossils, but we do want more green energy. That means subsides for green. Continuing subsidies and breaks to protect them from the predictor fossil and nukes giants. Continuing taxes and penalties for fossil and nukes for their damage to the commons(the environment).

The citizens safety net, green energy investments and infrastructure, did not bankrupt us.
The MIC, the Banksters and the ungrateful rich robbed the citizens and the world.

[vetxcl]

09:11 PM on 10/19/2011

faved

[pbr56]

10:24 AM on 10/25/2011

The sun. Free energy. All we have to do is capture it. It is in our best interest to find better ways to produce energy. Our current sources destroy the environment by toppling mountains. Polluting our water and air. These have very real effects on the population. It seems funny to me that companies are making trillions off of these industries, but never have to pay for the damage they cost. We need an energy policy that says you must pay for the damage you do. When that happened, we would see innovation everywhere, because it would be profitable to find better ways.

[GoldsteinD]

03:23 PM on 09/16/2011

Agreed. With a project as large as this, government will have to be involved on some level but the kind of crony capatalism that's going on now will not cut it because its inefficient and corrupt.

Can we trust any White House alone with this kind of investment? NO. They just don't have the expertise and usually rely on friends ie. cronies

There must be some bi-partisan experts involved whose members' investments are put in blind trusts. Let's also look to the NASA model of the 60s for some guidance

[dick freebird]

02:59 PM on 09/16/2011

Solar PV needs invention to become short-term-cost-competitive
yet the market is viciously commoditized and we have predatory
competition from overseas. It's no surprise that manufacturing
startups fail. I would hope that someone with more stomach, a
longer view and a better business model can pick up the pieces
and move forward.

But I don't see a good business model for solar PV. Maybe
concentrator cells, maybe some incredibly cheap thin film on
recycled garbage that magically makes service lifetime. But
the simple fact of power per area means your price out the
door has an upper bound of acceptability in the mass market,
and present production just doesn't come close. Making
people take out a second mortgage (we be underwater, hello?)
means your mass market fantasy is just that. Return on
investment, forget it. Who's got the investment? Not me.

Payoff in one year, OK. Payoff in ten, odds are for failure
before paid.

Not Ready For Prime Time, and somebody got Gonged.

[Genders]

03:04 PM on 09/18/2011

So wrong, when did you last check the price and cost of solar? ten years ago?

Rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels are already cheaper than nukes, new coal, and oil wars. In combination, these green energies are 24/7, forever, clean, safe, ready to replace all fossil and nukes in 7-15 years, Carbon, land and fresh water negative.

http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf solar now 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents pwer KWH

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

Great chart of energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/

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

End all breaks and subsidies for fossil and nukes. We DON"T WANT MORE OF THAT.

take all those billions and invest in rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels.

Payoff in 1 good? well better note build any nuke of fossil plants, right?

We need feed in tariffs and tax credit for installation.

You know, all the stuff fossil and nukes companies get.

[dick freebird]

02:25 AM on 09/19/2011

How much of -your- daily electric needs are coming from solar PV, O enlightened one?

I check panel prices monthly and it continues to not make financial sense. Sorry, snide gets you nowhere. Least of all, to convince me you know anything but what you read selectively.

From one of the places you cite:

UPSUI10400 10,400 Kyocera KC-130TM Xantrex SW5548 (2) 42.5 20 120V/240V SE-06-0120B $69,954

A grid-tie system with battery, like you want for feed-in. Right?

That's $70K for a system that -at peak- supplies 1/4 of my panel service and -at peak- won't run my stove and A/C at the same time. And the price is not installed, it's in a box plus shipping.

Now given that peak sun is 8 hours tops and maybe 4 degraded, that's $70K up front for not doing the job all day, and forget a cloudy week. Maybe you've got $70K laying about. I don't. At $300 a month that's a quite possibly more months than I'll be breathing. 20 years to breakeven on the out-of-pocket? Oh, yeah, sign me the hell up.

And 100 year service life is a fairy tale. Sell that bedtime story to somebody else. Your policy PDF is all full of "likely" and "should" and "assume". And includes the remark about some bits going in 10, but you can just "service" what breaks.

Gong.

[vetxcl]

09:34 PM on 10/19/2011

You're making too much sense and getting no where. My guess is you're dealing with someone that works for a fossil energy company.
faved

[Genders]

03:07 PM on 09/19/2011

No batteries, you are connected to the Grid. Buy a generators for the 1 days a year you might needed it. Feed in tariffs are highest for afternoon electricity, no batteries. red herring.

Grid tie without batteries: http://www.sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=systems_grid_tie 1.83 cents per Wp. That's less than 18K for you 10kWp system. Not 70k$.

Gee, you found the most expensive system you could and made that your standard. That's honest, not. How much does electricity from Chernobyl costs? or the The Japan reactors?

crystalline silicon cells do last and produce for 50-100 years. sorry the facts are so annoying to you.

Maybe this article will convince you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fenton/solyndra-solar-energy_b_969028.html

And talk about snrarky? GONG.

[dick freebird]

04:05 PM on 09/23/2011

So let me get this straight. I should not want a solar PV system that
actually runs my house standalone, that would be a dishonest goal?

I should instead spend $18K so that I can partially meet load for a
fraction of a good sunny day and still get the rest from the oil fired
power plant up the highway? What genius, how could I have missed
it?

Let's see. Rough calculation, a nice 12-hour peak-equivalent day
and a 10kW panel array means 120kWh. I'll take one of those 100%
efficient inverters and sell it all. I'll asume the power company pays
me the same 4.9c/kW-h I get charged, just for grins. I get back $6
a day. At this rate a mere 8-1/4 years from today with a zero interest
loan I will have broken even.

Of course a 5% investment would have returned me $8500 profit
(before taxes) over the same period. Sure, I'm a hero to the whole
planet for foregoing this and burning oil 12 hours a day instead of
24 (no, wait... I sold the PV energy to pay for the PV, so I burned
oil all day anyway... damn!).

[dick freebird]

04:06 PM on 09/23/2011

I believe you can not show me one solar cell that has been in
continuous service for 100 years. If you can point me to one that
has been on the job sourcing power for 50 I will not deem you a
liar on this point. Accelerated lifetests under specific conditions
do not count. Longest serving PV panel of N>1 cells under
continous use in a non-desert, non-controlled, terrestrial
environment, today? Surely your fact book can tell me that
straight up.

I have generators. I have power outages exceeding 6 hours and
not just once a year. Maybe you live in Happy Valley. I don't. They
stink, they're loud, they don't last and getting rid of the need I
thought was kinda the point. If there is one.

I love a "solar saves the world" plan that has one of its pillars,
on-site fossil fuel power generation. Head of gold, feet of clay, like.

I'm sure there's some way that you're still right about all this, but
I'm simply too dumb to see it. Maybe you'd do better to offer your
help to someone more worthy.